The Collected Papers of Kofi Annan: UN Secretary-General, 1997-2006 9781588269386

Citation preview

The Collected Papers of Kofi Annan

This page intentionally blank.

The Collected Papers of Kofi Annan: UN Secretary-General, 1997–2006

edited by

Jean E. Krasno

b o u l d e r l o n d o n

Published in the United States of America in 2012 by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 1800 30th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301 www.rienner.com and in the United Kingdom by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 3 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London WC2E 8LU © 2012 by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: 978-1-58826-803-7

British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. Printed and bound in the United States of America The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48-1992. 5

4

3

2

1

Contents Preface Acknowledgments A Brief Biographical Note Interview with the Secretary-General The Secretary-General’s Travel Schedule, 1997–1999 The Secretary-General’s Travel Schedule, 2000–2001 The Secretary-General’s Travel Schedule, 2002–2003 The Secretary-General’s Travel Schedule, 2004–2005 The Secretary-General’s Travel Schedule, 2006 Elements of the Entries

Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 3 Volume 4 Volume 5

1997–1999 2000–2001 2002–2003 2004–2005 2006

List of Acronyms Complete Index

v

This page intentionally blank.

Preface

THIS FIVE-VOLUME SET is the result of a joint project of Yale University and the City College of New York to organize and publish the collected papers of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, whose term extended from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2006. The project was formally authorized by Secretary-General Annan and benefited much from the cooperation of the Executive Office of the Secretary-General. The purpose of the project has been to provide an organized historical record of official papers in order to make easily accessible to scholars, students, and policymakers the breadth and depth of the work of this Secretary-General. The selected papers include speeches, letters, statements to the press (both official statements and informal remarks), meeting notes, op-ed pieces and other articles, reports to the Security Council and the General Assembly, and transcripts of interviews. These documents, arranged chronologically, provide a picture of the activities of Secretary-General Annan, the conceptual evolution of his ideas, and his indefatigable efforts to use his “good offices” to find peaceful solutions to conflicts and disputes. Each document is annotated with key words and, as appropriate, contextual information and clarifications of the abbreviations used in the SecretaryGeneral’s handwritten notes. Many of them, declassified for purposes of this project, appear here publicly for the first time. The volumes allow the reader to browse and absorb the daily, weekly, and monthly workings of this global figure. As director of the project, I was determined to present documents that would facilitate understanding and further research and equally determined not to interpret or to privilege a particular point of view. To that end, I developed

a set of selection criteria with the help of UN staff and expert advisers. The majority of the papers included were written either by Kofi Annan or to him. Notable exceptions are documents that describe the context within which he was working, as well as transcripts of the noon briefings presented by his spokespersons, which relate his daily activities and meetings with key diplomats. I have not included documents by others about the Secretary-General, nor papers from his earlier years at the UN. The guiding policy in the process was to present papers that reflect the work of the office of the Secretary-General overall, as well as the important issues and the evolution of concepts unique to the leadership and times of Kofi Annan’s two terms. Kofi Annan was able to use his office to develop and promote norms such as the universality of human rights, human security, and the fight against global poverty in a way that had been impossible during the decades of the Cold War. That change is amply reflected in these volumes. The collection as a whole is unique in bringing together in one place a range of key documents from a wide sweep of sources that in the aggregate reveal the scope, nature, and details of Secretary-General Annan’s ideas and leadership. —Jean E. Krasno

Jean E. Krasno is lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the City College of New York and Distinguished Fellow at Yale University’s Center for International Security Studies. The Collected Papers is the result of an eight-year joint project based at the City College and Yale.

vii

This page intentionally blank.

Acknowledgments

THE WORK OF ORGANIZING and selecting the collected papers of Secretary-General Kofi Annan would not have been possible without the support of a number of organizations, institutions, experts, and student researchers to whom I am enormously grateful. Within the United Nations, the cooperation and support of the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, the Dag Hammarskjöld Library, and the UN Archives were essential throughout the process. Alicia Bárcena, chief of staff for Kofi Annan in the later years, was especially helpful, as were Bridget Sisk, director of the UN Archives, and Paola Casini, of the archives staff. Edward Mortimer, Kofi Annan’s speechwriter, was key in opening up the process and making sure that the Secretary-General’s wishes for transparency were upheld. Abiodun Williams and Robin Ludwig at the UN were very helpful in establishing the declassification process that was later taken over by Binta Dieye, who worked diligently over many months to release papers to us. The Colin Powell Center for Policy Studies of the City College of New York offered both financial and in-kind material support to the project. International Security Studies (ISS) at Yale University made available office support and working space to prepare the papers for the Yale Archives and Manuscripts Library, as well as guidance through the continual advice offered by Professors Paul Kennedy and Charles Hill. James Sutterlin, ISS Distinguished Fellow, provided his mentorship throughout the process. I also frequently consulted with Elisabeth Lindenmayer, former assistant to Kofi Annan, now at Columbia University. Lynne Rienner was extremely helpful in giving general advice and in determining how to organize the volumes. Lesli Brooks Athanasoulis, of Lynne

Rienner Publishers, deserves tremendous credit for her diligent work on the manuscripts and for keeping us all on schedule. The Pocantico Conference Center of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund was kind enough to provide their support and meeting space for several seminars during which UN experts offered advice. I am also extremely grateful to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the United Nations Foundation, and the Arthur Ross Foundation for their generous financial support, without which none of this would have been possible. In addition, I would also like to thank the Frederick W. Hilles Publication Fund for their financial support in the creation of the indexes for the five volumes. I also want to thank all the wonderful students who worked on this project over the years as interns and research assistants. At City College, special recognition goes to Juliana Rosa, who stayed with us the longest through thick and thin, and to Sean LaPides and Amanda Lanzarone, who coordinated all of the interns and researchers in the early years. Other important City College students who devoted endless hours to the project are Jason Bailey, Maria Nagy, and Ty Hoffman. Charlotte Scaddan, Sam Martell, Brad Walrond, and Zareen Igbal also did a great job. At Yale, I appreciate all the work contributed by Catherine Lew, Patricia Alejandro, Frank J. Costa, Jr., and Sneha Moktan, who helped to organize the hard copies of the papers for the Yale Library and who worked so hard on helping to put together the indexes for the five volumes. Not least, I want to thank my family for all their personal support, and particularly my husband, Christopher Maloney, for being so patient throughout the duration of the project. —J. E. K.

ix

This page intentionally blank.

A Brief Biographical Note

KOFI ATTA ANNAN, the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations and the first to be appointed from the ranks of UN staff, began his tenure in the post on 1 January 1997. Born in Kumasi, Ghana, on 8 April 1938 in what was then the British colony of the Gold Coast, Kofi and his twin sister, Efua Atta (who died in 1991), were part of one of the country’s elite families. At the age of 16, he left home to attend the Mfantsipim school, a Methodist boarding school in Cape Coast. He has said that the school taught him “that suffering anywhere concerns people everywhere.” In 1957, the year that he graduated from Mfantsipim, Ghana gained independence from Britain. Kofi Annan began his university studies at the Kumasi College of Science and Technology (now the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology), but then received a Ford Foundation scholarship to attend Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota. He received his bachelor’s degree in economics from Macalester in 1961. In 1961–1962, he undertook further studies in economics at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. Later, as a Sloan Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he received a master’s of science degree in management in 1972. He began working within the UN system in 1962 as an administrative and budget officer for the World Health Organization. Aside from several years in the mid-1970s, when he was involved in Ghana’s tourism industry, he spent his entire career at the UN. On 1 March 1993, he was appointed undersecretary-general for peacekeeping

operations, a position that he held until he began his term as Secretary-General in 1997. On 10 December 2001, Secretary-General Annan and the United Nations received the Nobel Peace Prize. In conferring the prize, the Nobel Committee said that the Secretary-General “had been pre-eminent in bringing new life to the Organization.” In an unprecedented move, the Security Council and General Assembly reappointed Secretary-General Annan to a second term in June 2001 instead of waiting until late in the year, as is usual. He completed his ten years in office on 31 December 2006. Secretary-General Annan remains active in world affairs, and in 2008 negotiated the agreement for a coalition government in Kenya that ended the violence following the country’s December 2007 presidential elections. He currently directs the Kofi Annan Foundation in Geneva, Switzerland, where he resides with his wife, Nane.

xi

This page intentionally blank.

Interview with the Secretary-General Interview with the Secretary-General on 29 April 2002 by Thomas G. Weiss, at UN headquarters. THOMAS G. WEISS: I wondered if we could actually begin more or less at the beginning, and whether you might tell me a bit about your family background—World War II, growing up in Ghana—but with a particular reference to how you think this helped develop your own interest in international affairs, international cooperation, how this helped make you the person you are today. SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN: You start with a real big question. My father worked— although he came from a family where some of them were chiefs—he worked for a company called the United African Company, which was part of Unilever, a subsidiary of Unilever, and one of the trading companies in Africa. We moved a lot. We lived in almost every part of Ghana when I was growing up, because he was a district manager and he moved from district to district. Sometimes he’d go there for a couple of years, and we’d go to school there. And then of course, when he became director, we moved back to Accra. But in the process of moving around in a country that had many different tribes, speaking different languages, and sometimes people looking at themselves in terms of their tribe, rather than in national terms as Ghanaians, it was very interesting for me to grow up dealing with and getting to know so many different groups in Ghana. It gave you a sense of being able to relate to everybody and different groups at a young age. It was also during the period of independence—the struggle for independence. To see the changes taking place, to see the British hand over to the Ghanaians, and have a Ghanaian prime min-

ister, which was Kwame Nkrumah—he was the leader of government business, they called him, and he eventually became president. You grew up with a sense that change is possible, all is possible, and that if you watch that monumental change from the colonial period to independence, with the Ghanaians taking over the reins of government, which seemed so far-fetched and impossible—it really also impresses upon you that changes are possible. As a young man I was also quite active on campus, not only as an athlete, but also I did my academic work and was a student leader. I had gone to attend a student meeting in Freetown, in Sierra Leone, when, at the end of the meeting, a gentleman approached me and talked to me about a Ford Foundation program where they invited young, foreign student leaders to come to spend a year or two on an American campus, and he said, “I think you are the type of person who would do well in this program, and I’m going to put your name forward. They will send you an application, and fill it out,” which I did. That’s how I ended up at Macalester College. Susan Beresford tells everybody that the Ford Foundation has re-launched a leadership program, and she says it pays: “Look at the SecretaryGeneral. He was one of our leadership students.” So I went to Macalester in Minnesota and experienced, if you can imagine, my first winter. I came in August, stopped at Harvard for an induction program, and straight on to Minnesota. It was a fascinating experience, because being from a British colony, we had the same syllabus as British students—Cambridge school certificate, ordinary level and advanced level. So we knew the seasons. You had read about snow, you felt

xiii

xiv • Interview

you are familiar with it until you finally confront it. First of all, I was quite shocked by how light it was. You would have thought it would be heavier. And, as I’ve told people often, as somebody from the tropics, I didn’t like putting on layers and layers of clothing to keep warm. But of course, I decided it was useful enough. One thing I swore never to wear was earmuffs, until one day I had gone out to get something to eat and almost lost my ears. I went and bought the biggest pair of earmuffs I could find. When I went back to Macalester a few years ago, I told them this story. I said, “The lesson I walked away with was don’t go to a place and pretend you know better than the natives. Listen to them and do what they do.” That story has stayed with me. My early years in Ghana, the boarding school experience, the teachers, my parents, and my father in particular—they all had influence on me, and perhaps made me the person I am. But of course, I also joined the international service very early, almost straight out of college. So for over forty years I have been in the system. TGW: I wonder whether we could go back a minute to Nkrumah, and that period of decolonization. Several people in their interviews have suggested that the initial view, that it was going to take seventy-five or one hundred years for independence, lasted for a while. And of course, Ghana was amongst the first. Do you recall what your impression was? Did this seem like the beginning of a snowball that would move quickly? And in particular, did Bandung [Asian-African Conference] and the first coming together of Africa and Asia—did this hit the papers? Did this come on your own radar screen? S-G: You mean the struggle for independence? TGW: Yes. And how quickly decolonization would proceed. S-G: Yes, I was in the boarding school. It was quite remarkable that at a young age—we were politically alert and aware, and we had lots of political discussions. In fact, sometimes you could see the students breaking themselves up into almost political groups and discussing the issues. It was also one of those periods when you had the intellectual—a sort of intellectual group in Ghana had formed. They were the first to start the struggle, and they formed the United Gold Coast Convention. In fact, they brought Nkrumah on as a secretary to the group from abroad. Their approach was independence step-bystep. They were prepared to be patient and move on slowly. Nkrumah was disenchanted with that

approach, and his attitude was independence now. So he broke away from the group and formed his own party—the Convention People’s Party, which challenged the established order within the group that had brought him in. In the end, he won popular support and won the first elections and took over. I think for Ghana, in a way, the struggle was very brief. It started in 1919 with a group of intellectuals. Then it lay fallow for a while until 1948, when a group of ex-servicemen demonstrated in Accra and energized the movement. That was the first real movement that was sustained. I was ten at the time. So from that period of time, my parents were discussing it at home a lot, and by the time I went through high school, and in my teens—we got independence on 3 March 1957, so you could imagine that throughout that period, I lived this experience intensely. There were no televisions available at the time. It was on radio and we had discussions. Everybody was very aware—at least kids at my age, and those who were at school with me and I played with. At home it was a constant discussion. TGW: When you got to Macalester without your earmuffs, I assume there weren’t very many Africans. But I was also wondering whether there were many African-Americans around, and whether the beginning of the civil rights movement in the United States came into the classroom, or came into the city, and what kind of reception you received. S-G: There weren’t many Africans, and for that matter, that many black Americans in the college. But there were some in the city—not as many in Minneapolis and St. Paul as there are here. But it was interesting there. For somebody who had gone through the independence movement, to come to the States and see the rumblings of Black Power and the civil rights movement is something that resonated, and I could relate to, and I could understand. But there were also moments when you realized that there was a gulf—a gulf between Africans and the black Americans. I recall once I was invited to a dinner, and there were two black American women there. There were quite a few, but these two started talking to me. They asked me, “Where are you from?” I said, “I’m from Ghana.” One of them asked me, “Where am I from?” I said, “You are American.” She said, “No, I am now, but my ancestry.” I said, “Africa?” She said, “No.” I said, “Maybe Cuba or Jamaica?” She said, “No.” I said, “Tell me, I’m lost.” She said, “I’m Norwegian. My great-great-

Interview • xv grandfather was Norwegian.” The other one said, “What do you think?” I said, “I was so hopelessly wrong in the case of your friend, I don’t think I want to try.” She said, “I’m German. My greatgreat-grandfather was German.” It was understandable. Minnesota was all Scandinavian and German, and everybody wanted to claim the popular and the acceptable parents. So even if there’s one drop of blood, this is what you claim and accept. It struck me because I never had that in Ghana. They may even have a mother or father who is Lebanese, or British, or French, but they will say, “We are Ghanaians.” They would not tell me about, “My great-great-grandfather. . . .” And that took me a while to digest, but then I understood what was going on. It was much later that I realized that when you have a sense of self, and where you come from, and your background, you tend to dismiss that sort of reaction. But when you think it through, you do understand, but you also see how much work one has to do. TGW: What was the subject that was most controversial in bars, coffee shops, and student lounges at that point? Were there any books that you recall that really struck you, or that many students were reading at the time? And which of your own mentors, either there or later in Geneva or at MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], meant the most to you? S-G: It was interesting. At that time, there was quite a lot of turmoil. It wasn’t just the black movement in the U.S. There was also support for the struggle for independence in Africa. It was also the time when Lumumba was killed in the Congo. So there was a sort of convergence in the circles—a convergence in the black struggle here and the African struggle for independence. You had students quoting Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth; War and Peace; Cry the Beloved Country; the American Constitution; the UN Charter; and, not surprisingly, the speeches of Abraham Lincoln. There was a professor at Macalester—he has died—who was called Theodore Mitau. He was a professor in government—a very good teacher, very dynamic, and very direct, and very inspirational. I think if you talked to anyone who was at Macalester in those years, who took a course from him, they will remember the impact he had on them as I do remember his impact on me, because a good teacher can really have an impact. There are others. The headmaster of my school, Mr. Bartels, who eventually ended up working in Paris with UNESCO [UN Educational, Scientific, and

Cultural Organization]—when I was working in Geneva, he invited me once. I was in Paris, and he said, “Come and have lunch.” And I recall very vividly the discussion we had at lunch, because when I was at school I thought he really did not like me, because each time there was a problem he sent for me. Somehow he thought I was a troublemaker or a ringleader. There was a measure of justification in those suspicions, I have to admit. He thought I was a troublemaker, and I asked him bluntly, “Why didn’t you like me?” He said, “Well, now that you are not my student—you are not a student and I am not a headmaster—I will tell you the truth.” He said, “I did not dislike you. I and the teachers liked you because you were always questioning and challenging people in authority, and keeping us on our toes. But if I had allowed every student to be like you, there would be no school. So I had to be very firm with you.” And I reminded him that there were times when things went wrong, and he called me when I had nothing to do with it. Of course, there were other times, as I said, when he was right. I think the thing that really changed our relationship was a strike. I organized a strike at the age of fifteen about the food, which was bad, at the boarding school. We kept telling them and they wouldn’t do anything, so we arranged it in such a way— about 600 or 700 of us—that on a Sunday nobody ate. Having arranged to make sure they had something to eat first, when we went to the dining room we all refused to eat. The housemaster tried to calm the situation down, but he couldn’t. But of course, I, who had organized it and knew the headmaster would call for me, went to the dining room late. And when I got there, the place was in pandemonium. The next morning, when he called me, he said, “Young Annan”—he called me Young Annan because he knew my father—“I understand you had something to do with all this strike nonsense. If you have an issue to discuss, come to me and we’ll discuss it man to man. You are reasonably intelligent. Given the chance, you may become a useful member of society. But if you keep on like this, one of these days you are going to cross a line and we will find out who runs this school, you or me.” He was really quite rough on me. “And I will deal with you,” he said, “You are always on the borderline.” But it was an interesting thing to hear him, because when I was at school I thought this guy really didn’t like me. Anything goes wrong, and he sends for Annan. TGW: I am curious. How did you enter the in-

xvi • Interview

ternational civil service? In many of our interviews, it turns out that there really was not much rhyme or reason to the beginning of international careers. So I am curious whether this was a conscious choice, or you fell into it. And in particular, what led you in this direction rather than, say, going home, or going into business, or continuing immediately with higher education? S-G: From Macalester, I went to Geneva because I had a Carnegie grant to do a year at the Graduate Institute for International Studies. Prior to that, I had worked with Pillsbury. I don’t know if you know the company. I did a summer internship with them. They really wanted me to stay with them. They had a project to build a flour mill in Ghana and they had hoped I would join them. So I said, “Let me go to Geneva and do my studies at the institute, and then I will join you from there.” Whilst I was in Geneva, their deal with the Ghana government fell through because Nkrumah had become very socialistic and felt that he would much rather have the Bulgarian government build the mill. So the deal fell through. So after my studies in Geneva—at that summer, in 1962—I was working in Paris, when a friend brought to my attention an advertisement that WHO [World Health Organization] was looking for young administrators. So I applied for the job, and I got it. My intention was to stay for two years maximum and go home. And here we are. TGW: What actually was being taught about development economics in Geneva at that point in time? I don’t know whether this had become a theme as yet in graduate education. S-G: No, not really. We had some very strong and experienced economists—Professor Wilhelm Roepke, who is in fact given credit for having assisted the Germans in the economic recovery, and Professor Michel Heilperin, who was also very strong on financial economics. But development economics, as such, was never really a topic. I remember, in all the discussions we had, it may have come up tangentially. Years later, a development institute was set up in Geneva, which was eventually headed by my roommate, Roy Preiswerk, who unfortunately is dead. You may know of him? TGW: Yes, I do. I studied with him. S-G: Roy and I were together, but at the institute, at the time, development economics was not a topic. TGW: How would you have characterized your own thinking about development, and the priorities in development at that time? And if we could fast-

forward, what do you think has most changed as a result of four decades in this business? S-G: I think it was interesting that this debate took place among African leaders when they took over government. This also—before I get into African leaders, let me say that there was a phenomenon I noticed in Africa. The struggle for independence leads to the formation of national movements, not necessarily political parties. Independence is something that everybody wants, so sometimes you have one big movement, the national movement, that struggles for independence. And at the end of the struggle, people who may be very good at confronting the colonialists, and fighting for independence, and may have no idea about governance, become leaders. They forget that the talents you need to fight for independence may be quite different from the talents you need to rule and to govern. So we had some wrong people in leadership positions in terms of governance. And on the economic issue, they reduced the development issue to whether you do it through agriculture or industrialization. Nkrumah, for example, wanted to industrialize Ghana very quickly, and overlooked our natural advantage of agriculture. Here’s a country that was producing more than half the production of world cocoa. We produced more than half at the time—now we don’t. We could have gone into coffee, which Ivory Coast, our neighbor, did—and pineapple, and all sorts of things. But instead of that, they wanted to get into industry, and came up with the Ministry for Heavy and Light Industry—which was the Russian model—and other things. And in fact, when I look back, I see that Ghana and Malaysia got independence at the same time. They had roughly the same amount of reserves, and yet look at the two economies and where they are. And at that point in time, the debate was over which model was more effective—the Soviet socialist model or the capitalist model. In fact, you had two countries, the Ivory Coast and Ghana, sitting side by side—Félix Houphouët-Boigny going the capitalistic and Western approach, and Nkrumah going the other way. And in fact, Houphouët took a bet with him. He said, “You go your way, I’ll go my way, and in ten years’ time we will decide who has done more for his country.” Nkrumah died before they could look at the scorecard, but in my judgement Ivory Coast did much better. TGW: And your own thinking over this time? S-G: At the time, I was inclined towards the

Interview • xvii capitalist system, undoubtedly influenced by my sojourn in the USA. My own thinking has evolved, and also through the work of the UN on these issues. The UN has provided intellectual leadership on the subject of economic development. I think there had been a tendency for everybody to focus on university education and on preparing intellectuals, forgetting that to get to the intellectual scene you need to have good primary schools. You need to put the kids through all the system. We tended to take for granted some of the essential services, like health, education, infrastructure, and others. But now, of course, everybody realizes that without good health, without basic education, and others, you are not going to move forward. I think in the past one paid lip service to it without really focusing on the basic issues. And there was also a tendency, at the time when governments and people were criticized for lack of respect for rights, lack of good governance—they could always dismiss it as a colonialist attack and as a game. But now we have a situation in which the public’s awareness has evolved. They know their rights, and the leaders are under pressure. And today, the pressure in Africa, not only on the issue of effective economic development, but good governance, is coming from the people and from the leaders themselves. I sometimes say things in my speeches and statements knowing that it will help those without voice. They can quote the Secretary-General, “As the Secretary-General said—” and they will not go to jail. If they say it themselves they will go to jail. So in effect, I give them voice by putting my thoughts and ideas in a way that they can quote. TGW: Do you think that this function—since you’ve opened up this, I was going to get to this later—but the function of the Secretary-General, in terms of idea leadership, intellectual leadership, using the bully pulpit to preach on occasion—this has been something that you’ve done? Is this something that could have been done earlier, or is it the peculiar political circumstances of the 1990s and now the twenty-first century that permitted you to do it more easily than your predecessors? S-G: Well, I think each of my predecessors operated at a different time, and they had to tackle the job in their own way. But I believe that anyone in this job has a unique opportunity, and has a voice that should be used to assist those without voice, and to lead in areas that are sometimes neglected. I have not hesitated to speak out. I know not everybody likes it, but it is something that has

to be done. And there are times when it is important that the Secretary-General’s voice be heard, particularly in situations where there is silence and indifference. You need to break that silence and wake people up, and steer things in the right directions. I will continue to do that. I think one thing, which has also helped, is the fact that I came in determined to open the UN up and bring the UN closer to the people. And in the process, we are now dealing very effectively with NGOs [nongovernmental organizations], with the private sector, with universities, and foundations, and realizing very early that the UN cannot achieve its objectives unless we reach out in partnership and work with others. I think there are times when—I won’t say I have got into trouble—but there are times when some governments have not liked what I have said. But after a while, they get used to it, or they come to accept it, although they may initially object to ideas I put forward. But once others have taken up the debate, and written about it, and they have discussed it, they begin to accept it. For example, you remember my statement to the Assembly on humanitarian intervention? TGW: Yes. S-G: Which led to the Canadian-created independent commission that produced the report, The Responsibility to Protect. I raised it again in my speech to the Human Rights Commission earlier this month. We are going to have a Security Council retreat next weekend, and one of the key topics is on this issue—responsibility to protect—for the Council to think through. When I made the statement three years ago, if I had suggested “let’s go on a retreat and discuss this,” they would have all run away from me. But today, not only are they going to do it, they are bringing the authors of the report to participate. TGW: Yes, in fact, I was with Gareth Evans last week introducing the report, and he mentioned that he was . . . S-G: Who was? TGW: Gareth Evans. And he said that he and Mohamed Sahnoun were going to join you. You mentioned NGOs and the corporate sector. We’re interested in understanding the dynamics of the way that ideas move, or how the envelope is pushed out on what’s acceptable or unacceptable. How do you think, specifically, that NGOs in particular have influenced what is considered the middle ground in the United Nations? S-G: Of course we have many, many NGOs. Some are extremely well-organized, extremely well-financed, and with a clear vision of what they

xviii • Interview

want and where they want to go. And you have also some of the one-issue NGOs. What is important is that, through information technology and the IT revolution, they are coordinated and linked in a way that we couldn’t have imagined a few years ago. So you have a global civil society that is connected by the Web and can really move issues. We saw their strength in the campaign for the ban of landmines. We saw the contribution they made for the ICC, the International Criminal Court. Not only were they here—I saw them also in Rome very active. They also have another advantage. Quite frankly, on some of the issues they are ahead of the curve. They can say and do things that we cannot say or do. And eventually we will catch up with them. I mean, it’s funny when Bono comes to see me and says, “Mr. Secretary, I know what you are trying to do. We support what you are doing. We are going to work with you.” He said, “We can throw firebombs, you cannot, in terms of what we say— firebombs in terms of what we say. We will do this spot in an effort to support what you are trying to do and the direction that you want to go.” So they have influence. These days, they also coordinate and they write to governments. They write to their parliamentarians and to the press. And that capacity to speak out, to reach out to policymakers, I think is extremely important. I know sometimes it unsettles some of the ambassadors here, in that we are an organization of governments—why all these NGOs? Why is the Secretary-General bringing in the private sector? I tell a joke: “They were very nervous that I was going to bring in the private sector, thinking that they may take over this organization and influence decisions, when I told them they wouldn’t be able to the way the structure is.” But I think I won the argument when Ted Turner offered us a billion dollars and did not take over the Security Council. Then they realized it could work. TGW: Well when you actually became Secretary-General, you had a certain amount of experience with agencies and regional commissions, UNHCR [UN High Commissioner for Refugees], and in the house itself—management side, and substantive side. I presume that in certain ways this has been helpful and in other ways, shall we say, a hindrance. In what ways do you think that, having grown up so to speak in the system, has helped you to do your job, and in what ways has this actually impeded you? S-G: I think the knowledge I had of the organi-

zation and the system was extremely helpful, and it came in handy when we introduced a reform process, when we are analyzing what sort of reforms we should undertake, what can be done quickly, what I can do under my own authority, and what needed the member-states’ approval. And also the whole approach to move very, very quickly and to tell them, “This is what I am going to do, and that I am doing it under my own authority, and this is where I need your decision.” So I came with various tracks—track one, track two, and others. And now we are launching another phase. So not only did the knowledge of how the house worked and knowing where the weaknesses were help me, but I also knew how the governmental processes worked, how the General Assembly, the Fifth Committee, and all that worked. But where I had to be careful, and it could have been a hindrance, is that old-timers in the house often will say, “Let’s not do this.” And I’ve often maintained that the biggest impediment to change and reform in the bureaucracy is the restraint bureaucrats put on themselves: “This will not work. The member states will not buy it.” So they don’t even test it, and they don’t try it. So I’m constantly challenging them to test. And also knowing that I’ve been in the house for a while, I’ve always reached out to talk to others. I’ve always reached out to seek advice and views of others. The fact that Michael Doyle is here is an indication of my attempt to open up and reach out. We work with others’ research centers, and we bring them periodically to discuss the issues with us, because that is the greatest injury, if you are not careful. There is a tendency for people in this house to say, “We are special. We are different. The rest of the world does not understand us.” And you can really get into a cocoon. I must say that even though I have been a bureaucrat—I have been in bureaucracy all these years—I think I can honestly say that I’ve never seen myself as a bureaucrat. I’ve always challenged. I’ve always pushed the envelope. I’ve always sought to do things differently. I think Michael [Doyle] and those who work with me can confirm that. I’ve always tried to. And that spirit has also helped me. I can try new things, I can reach out, I can challenge, I can test, and I can push the envelope, of course, without committing suicide. TGW: Well, Michael can cover his ears, but I was going to ask you what types of idea-mongers, what types of outside experts, academics, working either inside the house or outside the house, do you think have the most influence and why?

Interview • xix S-G: Have the most influence on me, or on . . . TGW: Yes, on you, and on the way governments gradually become more receptive to ideas, or new ideas? S-G: I think there are institutions that we can work with, and individuals. For example, the work you are doing—you, and Jolly, and others—is going to be important. The work I’ve asked Jeffrey Sachs to come and do on the Millennium Development Goals is going to help influence governments and the public. And in fact, the work he did with Gro Brundtland on health and development is an important issue. I have asked the Kennedy School [John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard] to look at Security Council reform and give me a paper. That is an issue for member states, and they often don’t like the SecretaryGeneral and the Secretariat to get involved. I said, “Give me a paper on ideally how you see the reform of the Security Council, including the processes they should go through to get it reformed.” And there is an issue: there is a lack of progress, a lack of process for decision-making, a complicated and ineffective process of decisionmaking but not necessarily a lack of ideas. When I get that document, I shall give it to the member states and say, “It is your decision. But I want to help. By the way, I have a document here, done by a reputable institution.” And there are also times when I bring in studies done by universities or individuals that I may not have had anything to do with, that I think are of interest for them to see. For example, I am circulating Brian Urquhart’s review of the book by Samantha Power on A Problem from Hell, on genocide. If we are going to discuss the question of responsibility to protect, I thought that was good background reading for them to see. Then of course, there are times when I bring in groups to advise me on issues—use experienced leaders to give me advice, or periodically have somebody like Mike and others come in. So it’s an extensive network, and it depends on the issue. For example, when I’m dealing with AIDS, I reach out to experts in that field. And you go to a different group depending on the emphasis. I’m also happy, too, that lots of institutions and excellent intellectuals are very happy to work with us. It’s quite remarkable how they are always ready to help. The International Council of National Academies of Science [IAC], with Bruce Alberts as cochair—that’s another group that we are working with. For example, I have asked them to do a

study for me on how to improve food production in Africa—the greening or agricultural revolution in Africa. So they are looking at the problem, and they will give us something that I hope we can pursue with FAO [Food and Agricultural Organization] and the governments. And your own institution with Ben Rivlin and others, we used to do quite a lot. TGW: I am curious. Are there certain things that you think, in terms of the production of new ideas or new insights that are better done inside, and others that are better done outside? And why? S-G: That’s a very good question. There are certain issues that are better done outside, and there are certain issues that can only be done inside. One of them was the Millennium Summit, when I decided that it was time for us to take a look at the UN fifty years on, and to pose a question—what should we be doing? I told the member states, “I will give you a report. And we will give it to you six months before the General Assembly, so that you can study it and give us a declaration which will be our marching orders for the next fifteen years.” That issue had to be done inside, because they are very jealous about their organization, their control over the direction of the organization. But we consulted outsiders extensively in preparation of the report. But take a look at the intervention issue. I couldn’t have done it inside. It would have been very divisive. And the member states were very uncomfortable because, as an organization, sovereignty is our bedrock and bible—here is someone coming with ideas which are almost challenging it. So I had to sow the seed and let them digest it, but take the study outside and then bring in the results for them to look at it. And what I intend to do, for example, after the Security Council has reviewed it and discussed it, I may find a way of getting the document distributed to the membership at large, for them to continue their own dialogue and discussions on it. I can give you another example. I find that when you are dealing with issues where the member states are divided and have very strong views, and very strong regional reviews, if you do the work inside, the discussions become so acrimonious that, however good a document is, sometimes you have problems. And in fact, they begin to look at who did the report, where do they come from, who influenced them. But if you bring it from outside—that Professor Weiss investigated it, this is a really, very good document that could help our discussions—they accept it.

xx • Interview

And I must say there are also times when I go outside because quite frankly I don’t think we have the expertise in the house. If I go and ask my people, they will say, “We can do it.” Bureaucrats never admit that they cannot do it. So there are, at times, areas where I think there is stronger expertise outside, and I should reach out to them. And in fact, the infusion of outside views would also help our processes. TGW: So sometimes it’s tactical, and some times it’s . . . S-G: Substantive, yes. Content. TGW: I was interested last week, when I was interviewing Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, and I looked at something he had written in his own memoirs. There seems to be a thread that comes out. He basically said that the political and administrative demands on the Secretary-General come first. We have had a little problem with this in the last couple of weeks ourselves. Can economic and social development on the 38th Floor be more than a residual item? It seems that over the years, if you track this, it gets pushed aside. I’m just wondering—is this inevitable, or not? S-G: It’s not inevitable, and in fact I have tried to redress the balance. I have tried to redress the balance because I really take a keen interest in the economic and social issues, and not only a keen interest but also an active one. When you look at what happened on the AIDS fund [Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria], and the effort I put into its launching—I’ve been very active on Monterrey [International Conference on Financing for Development], I’m active on Johannesburg [World Summit on Sustainable Development], and in Doha [Fourth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization]. I think, quite frankly I believe, that quite a lot of the crises we face in the political area have economic bases. And indeed, if you are going to resolve some of these issues, even good economic development can be good prevention. So I believe very firmly in the economic. And the way I have structured it, and to show you how the 38th Floor has been actively involved—I have a division of labor with my deputy, who is down the hall from me. And Louise Fréchette is very actively involved in all these economic issues— Johannesburg and all the other economic and social issues. We work very closely together, and I wanted it that way. So in effect we have brought a certain equilibrium between the political and the economic, and reduced the emphasis on the political. And besides, as an organization, about 80 per-

cent of our budget is normally spent on economic and social issues. The political ones get the headlines. I cannot say that we are in a perfect equilibrium, but it is better and I am determined to push it further. In my own speeches, you can see there is quite a bit of balance on the economic—partly this year, as we approach Rio Plus Ten [UN Conference on Environment and Development]. But you have put your finger on a real issue. The other thing, which has helped, is that we have a cabinet meeting every week—every Wednesday—and UNCTAD [UN Conference on Trade and Development], and the people from the economic commissions, are linked through teleconferencing. Our discussions are not just based on administrative and political concerns, but on economic and humanitarian issues. And I have tried to pull everybody in, for us to work in a harmonious way. So it is a very astute observation. You’re right. TGW: You’ve mentioned HIV/AIDS, which is an idea that you’ve been associated with pushing out considerably. I’m interested in how an idea changes over time, and in particular with this one in a relatively short period of time—how it went from being conceived as a sexual issue, a health issue, to being part of a much larger set of problems—development writ large. How did this occur? How did it happen? S-G: It’s a very interesting question. We kept looking at the statistics, and we saw the havoc this epidemic is wreaking around the world. And I had a conversation with the Council members just before they went to Africa. [Richard] Holbrooke was going, and it was his first trip to Africa. He said, “What should I do?” I said, “Focus on AIDS. You will be surprised.” They came back, and he said, “It’s amazing what I saw.” We discussed it. He said, “I want to put this in the Council.” I said, “That would be great, but they may resist it.” The only way we could put it in the Council was to say, “It is a security issue, because it has security dimensions to it apart from the economic and health.” The day AIDS was taken-up in the Security Council, Al Gore was in the chair as president. Gore came to represent the U.S., and the room was packed and it really lifted the level. And we were also going to organize a high profile for the General Assembly’s Special Session on AIDS. And our own public information and others really did a lot. And prior to that, there had been a meeting in Abuja, where lots of African leaders had participated. That was where I launched the

Interview • xxi Global Fund and challenged all the leaders to speak out. Speak out, because when it comes to AIDS, silence is death. And they owed it to their people and to their nation, and more and more of them started speaking. Then I talked to global leaders by phone. I went to see [George W.] Bush and others, to get them all involved—and [Bill] Clinton, before that. I think sometimes it is one event that turns the tide—and I think that Security Council session, and the General Assembly, and the changing attitude of leaders really helped. TGW: Another idea that is now front and center—standard, almost predictable—but was not at one time, is the notion of gender. I am wondering whether you can recall when this came on your own radar screen as an institutional issue. The Mexico Conference [UN World Conference of the International Women’s Year] was 1975. Some people point to that period, and some before that, and some people after. For you, when was it? S-G: I think for me it came earlier. In my early career, I was in the Department of Personnel here. And one of the key issues that people used to fight about was geographical balance—which you will recall from UNCTAD—and gender. And gender came in, but it was rather timidly—there weren’t enough women appointed in the professional category. How come they were mainly in the general service? And that we needed to try to improve. One of the Secretaries-General—but it was after 1976—said we would try and make a push to appoint more female staff. The women said, “We want to make it fifty-fifty.” So we set a target of fifty-fifty, and then of course, in the meantime, the pressure became enormous after the Mexico conference, and after constant pressure from the women’s movement. And of course, if the UN is lecturing everybody, we had to lead ourselves. We can’t go and tell people to have gender mainstreaming, to improve gender balance, when we don’t have it in our organization. We are not at fifty-fifty yet, but at the professional level we are at about 42 percent. And I have personally been determined to bring in as many senior women as possible. Apart from the contributions they make, they are good role models. It also really encourages others. And I must say they are very, very good. Talk to Gus Speth about it sometime. One day Gus came in and he said, “Gosh, Kofi, I just came out of a meeting.” He said, “Tough women! There was blood all over the floor. I was lucky to get out.

They are tough. But they are good. It was really wonderful.” TGW: You mentioned that sometimes conferences are a good occasion, a good gimmick. In our interviews, the view about conferences varies widely from useless jamborees to important occasions for bureaucracies to take stock. I don’t know whether it’s possible to generalize about conferences, but maybe to generalize about which of these conferences you think made a difference, and whether there’s anything structural. Or is it just serendipity that reigns? S-G: I think some of them have really made a difference. Rio did. I think Cairo [International Conference on Population and Development] did. Mexico and population. I was going to mention nuclear, but there we have had a bit more of a problem. I think the conferences that put new ideas on the table and provide intellectual leadership, and sensitize the public to issues that they are not aware of are very, very good. Where we have a problem is going back. It’s like moviemakers. They repeat it. They have a good movie, and then they have to have movie number two. And we are going through the plus fives, and the plus tens. This is where I see the problems. We ought to be able to review progress without having to hold these massive conferences. And sometimes they come to these conferences and try to dilute positions they agreed to five years ago, or ten years ago. We are there to take stock, but they want to reopen some of the issues. So if it is Rio, which was very clear—we almost literally put the issue of the environment on the table and made it a household topic of concern. The conferences that put the empowerment of women and population on the table were very good. But it has to be very focused and provide some direction. As I said, I have been worried recently about the plus fives. And of course, a good conference is like trying to resolve a problem. If you set the problem properly, you can tackle it more effectively. But some of these topics for conferences are so amorphous that you are almost destined to run into difficulties from day one. I was very nervous about the conference on racism and xenophobia [UN World Conference Against Racism] in South Africa when it was set up. Mary Robinson tried her best, and everybody tried to help her. But we did run into difficulties, and you ask yourself, “Did we need that sort of conference?” TGW: How about the mother of all conferences, the Millennium Summit? How did this idea

xxii • Interview

come up? And what was weighed, in trying to put it together and to convene it, as opposed to saying, “My God, this is going to be our worst nightmare?” S-G: I think it came up early in my term. We were bouncing around ideas of things that I wanted to do. So I promised a Millennium Summit boldly, in 1997, my first year in office, indicating that we needed to take stock, review what we’ve achieved over the past fifty years, and the issues we are dealing with, and what we should be focusing on, so that we can reorient our efforts and direct our resources. I think at the beginning, the member states were skeptical. Because at all these conferences, what happens is that the member states produce a document. And we are struggling with that approach as we prepare for Johannesburg now, through prepcoms [preparatory committees] and other meetings. For the Millennium Summit I offered to provide the document. I would provide a basic report on what issues were—in my judgement, the most important and pressing—and they would receive the report six months ahead of the summit. I expected the leaders to issue a declaration setting priorities for the organization over the next two decades. Quite frankly, quite a lot of the ambassadors and the people in the house didn’t believe it was possible when it was mentioned in 1997. As we got closer to it, and more and more of their leaders decided to come—because we were writing to them, phoning them—they all got quite excited about it. And we also did the report in such a way that the last few pages could form the basis of the declaration. So we had a situation where the process was quite well-managed and focused, and not diluted, as sometimes happens with these conferences. In fact, that leads me to wonder if we shouldn’t find a way of planning future conferences leaving the document to one organization, one individual, rather than getting the member states together to write the document, and agree on the document. Really, it wastes lots and lots of time and energy. With the Millennium Summit, by the time the leaders got here, they had studied the document. And to have 150 heads of state, and governments, and kings here, under one roof, was quite an achievement. Then they participated, for the first time, in roundtables where the heads of state talked amongst themselves, without aides, without assistants. One of them chaired, and then reported the findings to the plenary. What struck me was how much these people miss by not interacting with each other, talking to each other without

aides and advisors. They loved it, and said, “Can we have more of this?” Because there was nobody there to whisper to them or to give them paper— “You shouldn’t have said that.” They felt free. And some of the things that came up were incredible. I recall we were discussing the debt issue. And I raised the issue that we have to find some way of handling this debt issue—the relationship between the debtor and the creditor, and that some sort of arbitration may become necessary because the deck is so heavily stacked against the debtor these days. Of course, at the national level you have Chapter 11. I am happy that now the IMF [International Monetary Fund] is talking about national debt restructuring and trying to come up with a system. But as we were discussing this, the DRC [Democratic Republic of Congo] foreign minister—his president wasn’t there—took the floor, and said, “I agree with you, Mr. Secretary-General, and all those who have spoken. I think that debt is the real problem, and I believe the real solution is to get rid of all the creditors.” There was silence in the room, and then he added, “I don’t mean kill them all.” It was incredible. There was [Jacques] Chirac and Clinton. You can imagine. TGW: I think it’s fair to say that out of that meeting, one notion that you are still trying to pursue is this idea of a Global Compact, which some people see as an important device to learn and to make people accountable. And others, I think, would criticize it for playing into the hands of the dominant liberal and capitalist orthodoxy, and that the UN’s role really is, in the world of ideas anyway, to be something of a gadfly, to try to challenge whatever the mainstream orthodoxy happens to be—economic or social. How would you respond to that criticism? S-G: I think the NGOs do that very well. Secondly, the Global Compact was intended to push companies to be socially responsible, and to get them to apply universally accepted norms. We are not inventing anything new. And secondly, it is not a code of conduct which is enforceable. We don’t have the means to enforce it. But what we have discovered is that transparency and dialogue can be powerful tools. And we are asking them to post on the Web what they have done in this area. And let’s not forget that when you talk of the Global Compact, the participants are the companies, and the companies include management, and the trade unions, and labor. And they are very much in the room with us, as well as the NGOs. They are all enthusiastic about this, particu-

Interview • xxiii larly the workers, because it is also a tool for them. When a company signs on, they should be able to go to the management, and say, “You have signed on to the Global Compact to do this, and that, and that. And we know in this company you are not doing it.” Because the idea is for them to make it part of their daily operations, and let it infuse their whole operation and organization. And some have done quite well. So really, if people are looking for an enforceable code, this is not it. We don’t have the capacity. But that does not mean that it should not encourage and push companies to do the right thing. The remarkable thing is that their workers get excited that the firm has values, and the firm wants to do the right thing. And doing the right thing is also good for business. Sometimes they accuse us of bringing in a company that doesn’t have an entirely clean record. If they were all doing what they had to do, and they were applying these norms already, and they were all angels, I don’t think we would need the Global Compact. It is precisely those who are not respecting these laws, those who are not respecting labor norms, that we should try and influence by bringing them on board. TGW: I wondered if we could go back just a minute. I wanted to draw you out a little bit about your experience as head of human resources. Subsequently, as Secretary-General, you have said something like, “Corporations conduct global searches and get great people, and we cannot afford not to do the same.” What would you see as the most important shortcomings in the civil service, the international civil service, and what are the most important two or three things that you think might be done over the next twenty years to upgrade this? S-G: I think one of the difficulties we have is the nature and structure of the organization. This year we will be 191 member states, and each one of them tries to have a say on how this organization is managed. And under our rules, we should try and bring in people from each of these member states. Sometimes people seem to think that geographical distribution, or geographical balance, and competence is not compatible. I disagree. You can have a geographic spread and still have very competent staff. The difficulty is that we have tended, in the past, and even now, to rely on governments to give us names and good candidates for our positions. Sometimes they give you good candidates. Other times, they give you friends, or people they cannot place in their own system. So you need to

be able to overcome that, and to challenge that. I think one of the best ways to do this is to organize a search. In fact, recently a government has spoken to me and said they would give me money to go to a search firm. Until now, we do a search by talking to lots of people. When I travel around the world, I am always recruiting. I mean, I do not offer them a job on the spot, but I take a mental note—“What a brilliant woman. What a brilliant man. When I have something in this area, I would want to come back to this person.” So what I try to do, when I have a vacancy, is to draw up a long list. And I encourage people to give me candidates. Even when, because of traditional and political reasons, I have to recruit somebody from Country A, I prefer to go and look for my own candidate from Country A, and tell the government, “I want so and so.” And I think we should be able to do that. And if the government says, for some reason or other, “We cannot let you have so and so,” you have set the standard. You say, “Give me someone comparable, or better, to look at,” and many times we are able to insist, “I have other candidates from around the world, and I will take a better candidate from Country B or C, unless you can produce a top-notch candidate.” We should try and get away from countries inheriting posts. There’s a certain political reality, but I think as we move on into the future, when governments are cooperating a bit more, and the organization hopefully becomes stronger, we should be able to do more of that. So, I will say, a search for the best man or the best woman, even when it’s agreed that candidates from certain countries be appointed—you can push them to do better. For example, I have had two experiences which I could share with you. After Speth left, I had decided that the U.S. had held the UNDP [UN Development Programme] job for too long. And at that time, they had UNDP, UNICEF [UN Children’s Fund], and World Food Programme [WFP], and I wanted UNDP to go to a European. So I asked the EU to give me a list of candidates. They came with a list of one. So I called them, and I said, “I asked for a list of candidates. You gave me one name.” They said—and the German ambassador here was the chairman then—“Let me go and discuss it.” He came back and said, “We have reviewed it. We have a list, and it’s the same one.” So I said, “Well, let me be clear. You may be embarrassed, because I will go outside your list of one. I will appoint a European, but it may not be yours. If you don’t want to be embarrassed, give me a wider list.” They insisted

xxiv • Interview

on that person, and I did not appoint the person. I took someone who was from Europe—Mark Malloch Brown—but it wasn’t the candidate the entire EU had selected. I had a similar situation with the Americans on the World Food Programme. When Catherine Bertini left, I asked the U.S. government for several candidates, but they gave me one. I explained to them that we wanted somebody with strong managerial experience, because it is a big managerial, logistic operation. So I went back and said, “I need other names to review.” That is how Jim Morris got appointed as executive director of the World Food Programme. But the tendency, in the past, was for us to acquiesce. You don’t want to take on the whole of the EU if all of the governments have all decided together. You don’t take on Washington—whilst you can explain even to the president that we have a problem, and ask for help. And I think we should do more of that. TGW: More than one person in our interviews has compared unfavorably UN officials with Bretton Woods officials, saying that they have the freedom to publish, they get paid more, et cetera. Do you think that is a fair criticism, or not? S-G: It is fair. They are much better paid than we are. And because they are better paid, they perform better, because you are competing for talent internationally. And we should have the right incentives to be able to attract, recruit, and retain competent people over a long period. If your conditions are not right, you have two problems. You may not be able to attract them. And if you do get them, they do not stay. We’ve lost quite a few people to the World Bank, but the reverse is not true. The traffic is one-way. Their conditions are much better. I think the governments are reviewing it now. How well we will do, I don’t know. But they are taking a look at it. I think it is also that once the conditions are improved, we ourselves should also aim higher and lift our standards of recruitment. We should also allow our staff to publish. TGW: As you look back over these years, which ideas in the economic and social arena, that have either come out of the UN, or been massaged in the UN, do you think have been the most important in terms of forcing governments to change their own policies—reframe the issues? S-G: Since the inception of the UN? TGW: Yes. For instance, many people, I think, would say the dominant one has been that nothing has been more revolutionary than human rights. And probably the evolution since 1948 is certainly

one of those. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that’s the one that seems to come up a lot. But other people have picked the environment. S-G: I think human rights is one. But I had mentioned the environment earlier in our talk, because quite frankly we almost put it on the map— to get ordinary people and governments thinking seriously about the environment. The other area where I think we have really pushed for the poor countries is this whole idea of the importance of ODA [official development assistance]. ODA is helping the poor and the weak get off the ground. And now recently, I think one of the most important issues which we are pushing, which has also become a focus for the UNDP, is the issue of governance and institution-building and its impact on development—the idea that if you do not have these institutions and good regulatory systems, you are building on sand. I think this is more or less universally accepted now. It was very much on the table in Monterrey, and in all discussions that we are having with the developing world and the developed world. It’s the basis of NEPAD [New Partnership for Africa’s Development]. So I think the governance issue is one. The other area where—I’m giving you a few, you can choose—the other area, which has become very important, is that we have defined what development means, what development should mean for the individual through our Human Development Reports. It is not a question of statistics. You are dealing with health, you are dealing with clean water, you are dealing with education, and all that. So we have given a functional and meaningful definition to poverty and development, which wasn’t there before. And I think this is very important for policy-makers and for people who want to measure progress. TGW: You have used the word “measure” several times. And when we came in, Michael was saying you were revisiting certain goals and targets. Are targets really a useful way to frame issues and progress on issues? Or do they come back and haunt us, as [Marcel] Proust said—that what we tried to do in the first place was silly? S-G: I think in some cases, in some situations, you are right. But in the case of—let’s take the millennium goals. On the Millennium Development Goals, what I told the member states at the end of that summit, when they adopted the declaration, was to thank them for coming and adopting the declaration. But I said, “It is your declaration. You are the ones who have to go back home and implement it. It can only work if we take action at

Interview • xxv the country level. This is not something you are going to leave with a secretariat and go home. It’s your responsibility to implement.” I think by having goals and challenging the governments to implement, and telling them we will monitor and produce annual reports, so we can see where we are succeeding and where we are failing, we are really challenging everybody to step up and really deliver. I think in the past we would do these reports and they were put on the shelf. Nobody pays any attention. Take the issue of 0.7 percent. It hasn’t been met, but it’s a target that is useful. In Monterrey, we were able to get the Europeans to move collectively to say we will go to 0.39 percent by 2006, or 2005, and that we are all going to get to 0.7 percent. You have a benchmark, something to refer to, a goal to push them to achieve. So from that point of view, it is helpful. If it wasn’t there, you would ask, “Can you give more? Can you give more development, more aid?” But you have no benchmark. In fact, even in the U.S., it is becoming an issue that the U.S. is at the bottom of the pile when you do these comparisons. So in some situations, that can be extremely useful. Other times you set yourself up, as you say, for failure, or to be giving them whips to be used on you at some date. TGW: You’ve mentioned human development, which is obviously linked to the notion of human security. We have another new commission. So the notion of security has expanded over time. Some people would say that there is nothing that is not in it. I was just wondering just how useful is this notion in terms of institutional policy, or staffing, or analysis? We have a book on the subject. S-G: Oh, you produced a book on human security? TGW: We are going to. S-G: It’s an interesting question. I know Sadako Ogata and Amartya Sen are also doing some work on it. TGW: I asked her. She didn’t give me a good answer. S-G: OK. Maybe we should wait for Sadako. But let me put it this way—that one has to be able to define it more narrowly than is being done presently for it to be meaningful and helpful to policymakers. If one defines human security not in terms of physical protection, but in terms of economic, social, and legal protection, in terms of human rights, and all that it takes to give people their dignity, then you are moving somewhere. On the other hand, it frightens governments. They think you

want them to be responsible for somebody from cradle to the grave. And they keep saying, “Where do we get the money for this?” So we have to find a way of defining it in a way that it will not frighten them, but they will come to see it as a useful tool and definition as to what they should aim for in terms of the welfare of the individual in their society. And I’m not sure we’ve done that yet. I don’t know if this is a good answer for you. TGW: One more question. I understand your wife was delighted the other day to learn that you were going to go back to farming after you finish this term. I was just wondering, if you were going to stay on for the next fifteen years in directing the organization, where would you invest resources in terms of pushing out ideas? What would be the biggest intellectual payoff over the next, say, couple decades? Where could we push out knowledge that would have a real impact, not just on the organization, but on world politics? S-G: First of all, I would not want to stay on for the next fifteen years. I may be a glutton for punishment, but not to that extent. In terms of ideas and where the organization should put the emphasis, quite frankly I would return back to the issue that you think we have tended to neglect. I would want to push for ideas in the economic and social area. How do we deal with the question of inequality within and between states? How do we bring in the marginalized, and challenge economists and political scientists to try and come up with the idea and approaches that will free countries from poverty and the debt trap. To try and challenge them to work on food production, particularly as I mentioned the green revolution in Africa. I would challenge them to work on water, because it is going to be a major problem for us and the countries that are under water distress. And finally, one area which I have pushed them to do something about, and I challenge every scientist I see, is to resolve the need for cheap and renewable sources of energy. And I am not talking about a renewable source of energy for the city dwellers like New York, but for the farmers and others who cut every tree in sight to heat water to cook—so that they will not have to do that. So it’s energy, water, and sustainable economic development. On the political side, there is enough attention. People are paying enough attention. TGW: Thank you. You have been very kind indeed.

This page intentionally blank.

The Secretary-General’s Travel Schedule, 1997–1999 1997

1998

30 January–3 February: Switzerland 23–24 February: Washington, D.C., United States 25–28 February: United Kingdom, France 1–4 March: France, Netherlands 19–22 March: South Africa 22 March: Namibia 22–25 March: Angola 25–27 March: Togo 5–8 April: India 9–11 April: Switzerland 11–15 April: Italy 16–18 April: Germany 5–6 May: Netherlands 7–11 May: China 11–14 May: Japan 14–18 May: Russian Federation 18–21 May: Austria 1–3 June: Zimbabwe 4 June: United Kingdom 5 June: Massachusetts, United States 6 June: Washington, D.C., United States 29 June–2 July: Hong Kong 2–6 July: Switzerland 9–12 August: Sweden 12–14 August: Finland 29–31 August: Italy (Venice Film Festival) 1–2 September: Denmark 2–4 September: Norway 4–5 September: Iceland 18–21 October: Colorado and Illinois, United States 5–9 November: Chile, Venezuela 1–3 December: Canada 8–17 December: Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia

26 January–1 February: France, United Kingdom, Switzerland 19–23 February: France, Iraq 11–12 March: Washington, D.C., United States 14–17 March: Switzerland 17–18 March: Jordan 18–20 March: Egypt 20–21 March: Lebanon 21–23 March: Syria 23–24 March: Occupied Territories 24–26 March: Israel 26–29 March: Switzerland 29–30 March: Russian Federation 31 March–2 April: China 2–4 April: United Kingdom 19–21 April: California and Texas, United States 29 April–2 May: Ethiopia 2–3 May: Djibouti 3–5 May: Kenya 5–7 May: Tanzania 7 May: Burundi 7–8 May: Rwanda 8–9 May: Uganda 9–10 May: Eritrea (with a brief stopover in Sudan) 11–14 May: France 16–18 May: Minnesota and Ohio, United States 25–29 June: United Kingdom and Austria 29 June–4 July: Nigeria, Ghana, United Kingdom 13–17 July: Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina 18–20 July: Italy 20–23 July: Guatemala and Mexico 7–11 August: Portugal 24 August: Ghana (private visit) 1–4 September: South Africa 16 October: Washington, D.C., United States

Travel Schedule, 1997–1999 18–19 October: Florida, United States 20–23 October: Japan 23–24 October: Republic of Korea 7–8 November: Mauritania 8–12 November: Morocco 26–29 November: France 29 November–2 December: Algeria 2–4 December: Tunisia 5 December: Libya 6–7 December: United Arab Emirates 8–9 December: France

1999 20–23 January: Ireland 23–26 January: Switzerland 26–28 January: Belgium 28–29 January: Luxembourg 29 January–1 February: Switzerland 7–9 February: Jordan 23–25 February: Washington, D.C., United States 15–16 March: Washington, D.C., United States 6–11 April: Switzerland 11–14 April: Spain 14–15 April: Belgium 25–28 April: Germany 28–29 April: Russian Federation 30 April–1 May: Michigan, United States 7–8 May: Washington, D.C., United States 11–14 May: Switzerland 14–19 May: Netherlands 19–20 May: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania

25–29 May: Sweden and Denmark 2–3 June: Italy 8 June: Washington, D.C., United States 20–21 June: France 21–24 June: Russian Federation 24–28 June: United Kingdom 4–6 July: Switzerland 6–8 July: Senegal 8 July: Sierra Leone 8 July: Liberia 9 July: Guinea 10–11 July: Nigeria 11–14 July: Algeria 14–16 July: Slovakia 16–18 July: Czech Republic 18–20 July: Austria 24–26 July: Morocco 11–13 August: Switzerland 2–3 September: Canada 25 September: Washington, D.C., United States 8–10 October: Switzerland 10–11 October: Italy 11–13 October: Bosnia and Herzegovina 13–14 October: Kosovo 18–20 October: Washington, D.C., United States 10–14 November: Japan 14–17 November: China 17–23 November: Turkey 23–24 November: Switzerland 29 November–1 December: Washington, United States 7–8 December: Canada

The Secretary-General’s Travel Schedule, 2000–2001 2000 27–29 January: Russian Federation 29 January–1 February: Switzerland 9–13 February: Thailand 13–15 February: Singapore 15–17 February: Indonesia 17–18 February: East Timor 18–22 February: Australia 22–24 February: New Zealand 13–15 March: United Kingdom 15–16 March: France 4 April: Switzerland 4–10 April: Italy 10–14 April: Cuba 25–28 April: Senegal 28 April: Gambia 28–30 April: Gabon 30 April–1 May: Central African Republic 1–4 May: Cameroon 13 May: North Carolina, United States 21 May: Indiana, United States 25 May: Washington, D.C., United States 31 May–1 June: Georgia, United States 9–11 June: Washington, D.C., and California, United States 17 June: Morocco 18 June: Iran 18–19 June: Lebanon 19–20 June: Jordan 20–21 June: Israel 21–22 June: Occupied Territories 22 June: Syria 23–26 June: Switzerland 26–28 June: Poland 28 June–1 July: Hungary 1–4 July: Germany 4–6 July: Switzerland

9–12 July: Togo 1–2 August: Ghana 2–3 August: Switzerland 3–5 October: Israel, Occupied Territories, Lebanon, Egypt 7–10 November: Switzerland 10–11 November: Bahrain 11–14 November: Qatar (with a stopover in the United Kingdom) 1–2 December: Switzerland 2–3 December: Sierra Leone 3–5 December: Benin 5–8 December: Ethiopia 8–9 December: Eritrea 9–13 December: Italy, Algeria

2001 15–18 January: Cameroon 20–22 January: China 22–25 January: Japan 25–29 January: Switzerland 29–31 January: Sweden 9–12 March: Pakistan 12–13 March: Nepal 13–15 March: Bangladesh 15–18 March: India 23 March: Washington, D.C., United States 24–28 March: Jordan 28–31 March: Switzerland 1–3 April: Kenya 4–6 April: Netherlands 21–28 April: Nigeria, Ghana 30 April: Philadelphia, United States 9–11 May: Washington, D.C., United States 12–15 May: Belgium 15–16 May: Russian Federation

Travel Schedule, 2000–2001 16–18 May: Switzerland 19–20 May: Massachusetts, United States 24 May: Washington, D.C., United States 27–28 May: Rhode Island, United States 31 May–1 June: Washington, D.C., United States 17–22 June: United Kingdom 3–4 July: Pennsylvania, United States 8–10 July: Zambia 10–13 July: Germany 13–19 July: Switzerland 19–21 July: Italy 30 July: Washington, D.C., United States 19–21 August: Norway 25–28 August: Austria

28 August–1 September: South Africa 1–3 September: Democratic Republic of Congo (with a brief stopover in Zambia) 3–4 September: Rwanda (with a brief stopover in Kenya) 5–7 September: Sweden 30 October–3 November: Switzerland 17–18 November: Canada 28–29 November: Washington, D.C., United States 2–3 December: Washington, D.C., United States 8–12 December: Norway 12–14 December: Sweden

The Secretary-General’s Travel Schedule, 2002–2003 2002 20–23 January: Japan 23–24 January: Pakistan (with a brief stopover in Thailand) 25 January: Afghanistan 25–27 January: Iran 27–31 January: Austria 7–10 February: Utah, United States (XIX Winter Olympics) 13–14 February: Washington, D.C., United States 22–27 February: United Kingdom 27 February–1 March: Germany 13–15 March: Nicaragua 15–18 March: Costa Rica 18–19 March: Honduras 19–22 March: Mexico 25–28 March: Lebanon 6–10 April: Spain 10–11 April: Italy 11–13 April: Switzerland 24 April: Massachusetts, United States 2 May: Washington, D.C., United States 5 May: Massachusetts, United States 13–16 May: Cyprus (with a brief stopover in Dubai) 17–18 May: Indonesia 19–20 May: East Timor (with brief stopovers in Singapore, United Kingdom) 1–4 June: Ukraine 4–6 June: Russian Federation 6–9 June: Switzerland 9–11 June: Italy (with a brief stopover in the United Kingdom) 21–22 June: Illinois, United States 26–27 June: Canada 2–6 July: Austria 6–10 July: South Africa 10–12 July: Sudan

12–13 July: Nigeria 1–23 August: Ghana 24 August: Côte d’Ivoire 25–27 August: Angola 27–28 August: Botswana 28–29 August: Lesotho 29 August–1 September: Mozambique 2–4 September: South Africa 5–6 September: France 2 October: Connecticut, United States 2 October: Massachusetts, United States 13–16 October: China 16–17 October: Mongolia 17–18 October: Kazakhstan 18–20 October: Uzbekistan 20–21 October: Kyrgyzstan 21–22 October: Tajikistan 22–23 October: Turkmenistan (with a stopover in United Arab Emirates) 12–13 November: Washington, D.C., United States 14–17 November: Switzerland 17–18 November: Bosnia and Herzegovina 18–19 November: Kosovo 19–20 November: Serbia 20–21 November: Croatia 21–24 November: Netherlands 24–26 November: France 1–3 December: Washington, D.C., United States 20 December: Washington, D.C., United States

2003 16–18 January: Belgium 18–19 January: Italy 19–23 January: France 23–25 January: Turkey 25–26 January: France

Travel Schedule, 2002–2003 26–28 January: Greece 8–12 March: Netherlands 14–21 April: Greece 21–23 April: Austria 23–24 April: Switzerland 31 May–2 June: Switzerland, France 11 June: Washington, D.C., United States 21–24 June: Jordan 24–26 June: United States 26 June–1 July: Switzerland 8–12 July: Mozambique 14 July: Washington, D.C., United States

15 August: Finland 22–24 August: Brazil 9–14 September: Switzerland 21 October: Pennsylvania, United States 22–23 October: Spain 4–7 November: Chile 7–10 November: Ecuador 10–12 November: Peru 12–15 November: Bolivia 2–4 December: California, United States 8–11 December: Switzerland 11–13 December: Germany

The Secretary-General’s Travel Schedule, 2004–2005 2004 2 January: Trinidad and Tobago 20–22 January: Germany 22–25 January: Switzerland 25–26 January: Sweden 26–28 January: France 28–30 January: Belgium 30 January–1 February: Switzerland 3 February: Washington, D.C., United States 21–25 February: Japan 8–9 March: Canada 27 March–1 April: Switzerland 1–4 April: Austria 4–6 April: Russian Federation 6–8 April: Switzerland 1–2 May: Washington, D.C., United States 9–10 June: Massachusetts, United States 11 June: Washington, D.C., United States 12–15 June: Brazil 28–29 June: United Arab Emirates 29–30 June: Qatar 30 June: Sudan, Chad 3 July: Eritrea 3–7 July; Ethiopia 7–8 July: Kenya 9–13 July: Thailand 14–17 July: Austria 27–31 July: Ghana 18–19 August: personal vacation 7–9 September: Mexico 9–13 October: China 13–18 October: Ireland 17–19 November: Kenya 19–22 November: Tanzania 22–24 November: Egypt (with a brief stopover in Eritrea) 24–25 November: Sudan (with brief stopovers in Chad, Morocco)

16 December: Washington, D.C., United States 17 December: Belgium

2005 4–6 January: Indonesia (with a brief stopover in Germany) 7–9 January: Sri Lanka 9–10 January: Maldives 10–14 January: Mauritius 29 January–1 February: Mauritius 9–11 February: United Kingdom 11–13 February: Germany 1–2 March: Spain 13–16 March: United Kingdom 9–11 March: Spain 13–16 March: Israel, Occupied Territories 22–23 March: Algeria 6–10 April: Switzerland, Italy 10–11 April: Norway 16–17 April: Washington, D.C., United States 19–25 April: Indonesia 25–28 April: India 8–10 May: Russian Federation 10–12 May: Switzerland 15–16 May: Pennsylvania, United States 25–27 May: Sudan 13–14 June: France 22–23 June: United Kingdom 30 June–3 July: United Kingdom 3–5 July: Libya 5–8 July: United Kingdom 8–9 July: Sudan 19 August: Ghana 23–24 August: Niger 4–6 September: United Kingdom 23 September: Washington, D.C., United States

Travel Schedule, 2004–2005 6–11 October: Switzerland 11–13 October: Portugal 13–15 October: Spain 26 October: Switzerland 6–9 November: Egypt (with a stopover in France) 9–11 November: Saudi Arabia

11 November: Jordan 12–13 November: Iraq (with a stopover in Kuwait) 13–16 November: Tunisia 16–19 November: Pakistan (with a stopover in Georgia)

The Secretary-General’s Travel Schedule, 2006 23–29 January: Switzerland 29–30 January: Netherlands 30 January–1 February: United Kingdom 6–7 February: United Arab Emirates 13 February: Washington, D.C., United States 14–15 February: New Jersey, United States 25–26 February: Qatar 26–27 February: Switzerland 27–28 February: France 13–15 March: South Africa 15–19 March: Madagascar 19–21 March: Republic of Congo 21–23 March: Democratic Republic of Congo 23–24 March: Gabon and Equatorial Guinea (with a stopover in Ghana) 6–11 April: Spain 11–13 April: Netherlands 22 April: Minnesota, United States 4–5 May: Washington, D.C., United States 11–13 May: Austria 14–16 May: South Korea 16–19 May: Japan 19–23 May: China 23–24 May: Vietnam 25–27 May: Thailand 18 June: Denmark 19–22 June: Switzerland, France 2–3 July: Liberia

5 July: Côte d’Ivoire 7–11 July: Germany 11–13 July: Italy 16–17 July: Russian Federation 17–19 July: Belgium 25–27 July: Italy 3–4 August: Haiti 4–5 August: Dominican Republic 25 August: Belgium 28–30 August: Lebanon, Occupied Territories 30–31 August: Jordan 31 August–1 September: Syria (with a stopover in Qatar) 2–3 September: Iran 3–4 September: Qatar 4–5 September: Saudi Arabia 5 September: Egypt 5–6 September: Turkey 6–7 September: Spain 14–16 September: Cuba 30–31 October: Washington, D.C., United States 1–5 November: Uruguay 12–13 November: Turkey 14–15 November: Kenya 15–17 November: Ethiopia 17–21 November: Switzerland

This page intentionally blank.

Elements of the Entries

1 February 1997

Date

Secretary-General Stresses Strengthened Partnership Between the UN and Private Sector

Title

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6153); private sector

Type of document (source); topic

Address by the Secretary-General to the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland.

Short introduction by the editor

I am honoured and delighted to address you at such an early stage in my term as SecretaryGeneral. The close link between the private sector and the work of the United Nations is a vitally important one. Working together, our partnership has already achieved important global economic goals. We have promoted stability. We have encouraged economic and political transition. And we have established new levels of trade and economic development.

Secretary-General’s paper begins

Discuss with P. Izetbegovic —K.A. 2/1

Handwritten note by the Secretary-General

This page intentionally blank.

1997 2 January 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); staff The noon briefings offer a glimpse into the day of the Secretary-General. Here we have an account of his first day in office. Fred Eckhard, Acting Spokesman for SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan, said at today’s noon briefing that the Secretary-General had arrived at Headquarters at 10 a.m. Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General had immediately taken charge of his office and announced the following provisional appointments to that office: Chef de Cabinet, Iqbal Riza; Director, Political Affairs, Rolf Knuttson; Director, Economic and Inter-Agency Affairs, Patrizio Civili; Executive Assistants, Elisabeth Lindenmayer and Shashi Tharoor; Acting Spokesman, Fred Eckhard; and Senior Officers, Lamin Sise and Diego Zorrilla. Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General hoped to complete the composition of his executive office by the end of January. His intention was to retain a number of the existing staff. The Secretary-General was most appreciative of the offers of resignation from his senior colleagues, Mr. Eckhard said. Confirming correspondents’ reports last week, he said that the SecretaryGeneral had requested in writing the resignation of all Assistant Secretaries and Under-SecretariesGeneral, except those of which he did not have 100 per cent control, such as the heads of agencies whose executive boards had a role in their nominations. The Secretary-General also did not want to interrupt the continuity of the work being done in United Nations field missions, so he had exempted those Assistant Secretaries and Under-SecretariesGeneral who had peace-keeping or peacemaking good offices missions in the field. He had received the resignations of all 23 senior officials concerned and those would become effective in 30 days. Continuing, Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-

General’s intention was to establish a team that was competent, experienced and dynamic. He hoped to complete his senior appointments by the end of February. An important part of the exercise, he said, would be the establishment of a mechanism and a process to address the issue of reform of the United Nations system, to which the SecretaryGeneral attached great priority. The objective of the exercise would be to establish first, what the business of the United Nations should be, and how to reposition the Organization for the future. Administrative processes should be streamlined for more efficiency and effectiveness. The administration was aware of several reform proposals that had been made in the past 10 years. The task now was to review them, decide upon the most feasible package and begin implementation without delay. The role of governments in arriving at an early consensus on that pressing issue would be a paramount requirement, he added. The Acting Spokesman said he had distributed earlier the Secretary-General’s appointments for the day, among which was a meeting with Ambassador Hisashi Owada (Japan), who was the President of the Security Council for the month of January. Also available was a list of the new members of the Council for 1997. On contributions to the Organization’s regular budget, Mr. Eckhard said that the Federated States of Micronesia had become the first Member State to become current for 1997 with a payment of over $106,000. In 1996, 98 Member States had paid their dues in full, compared with 94 in 1995. He also said today’s Journal had a schedule of meetings of the various working groups of the General Assembly for the period from January to June. Asked what he meant by “provisional” appointments, Mr. Eckhard replied that the Secretary-General needed to move from his transitional team to a staff, but was not prepared to announce the appointments as final. “Most likely, they will be,” he added. As regards remuneration for the 23 senior officials who had submitted their resignation, effective 30 January, when final decisions might not be made until end of February, he told a correspondent that administrative arrangements would have to be made to keep them on the payroll until a final decision was made. In the meantime, the same contracts might have to be extended for a short period. He did not want to discuss individual cases, he told a correspondent. Asked whether the Secretary-General would

1

2 • 2 January 1997

have a special committee to work on United Nations reform, he said the Secretary-General would have a special adviser on reform and in addition, he would seek counsel from outside advisers. Mr. Eckhard explained that there were two categories of reform, the most important one was what governments said they wanted the United Nations to do, something that the SecretaryGeneral could not legislate or decide on. His first job—the political one—was to “nail down” governments to some essential agreement on what the Organization was to be. That meant establishing priorities, and then rearranging the administration and adjusting finances to do the job. “It starts first with an agreement among governments. It has been 10 years since they had been considering these various reforms. It’s time now to make a decision, and he’ll like this decision made in the early days of this administration.” Asked how that would be done, he said the Secretary-General would work one-on-one and with regional groups until it was achieved. A correspondent asked whether some of the senior officials who were leaving in 30 days would be given new contracts or whether the resignations were “a clean sweep and they are all going to go”. Mr. Eckhard replied: “I can tell you, it’s not a clean sweep, but the number is 23. His final decision will be made by the end of February”. He was then asked whether the SecretaryGeneral would respond to the invitation of United States Senator Jesse Helms, Chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to have coffee with him in Washington, D.C. He said the Secretary-General would respond to an invitation from the executive branch of the United States Government. A number of governments had already invited him to visit their countries, but nothing had been scheduled yet. The SecretaryGeneral could travel in January and correspondents would be informed accordingly as soon as some of the invitations were accepted and scheduled. Replying to a question on a possible visit to Washington, D.C., Mr. Eckhard said the SecretaryGeneral would accept an invitation from the United States Government through the administrative branch, and when in Washington, he would, of course, accept an invitation from members of Congress to meet with them. The United Nations dealt with administrative branches of governments, and with the United States Congress through the administrative branch. Would the Secretary-General respond directly

to the invitation of Senator Jesse Helms? a correspondent asked. Not necessarily, but it might be done in consultation with the United States administration, Mr. Eckhard replied. Another correspondent asked whether the invitations the Secretary-General had received so far included one from the United States. “Yes, although a date has not been specified,” Mr. Eckhard said. He explained that in a telephone conversation between the Secretary-General and United States President William Clinton, the idea of a visit to Washington, D.C., early in Mr. Annan’s term had been raised by the President. Did the Secretary-General have a statement on the shooting of innocent Palestinians by an Israeli soldier yesterday in Hebron? a correspondent asked. The Secretary-General had made a statement yesterday to a single newspaper and had nothing further to add, Mr. Eckhard said. The thrust of the statement was that those seeking to negotiate a long-term peace agreement in the Middle East should not be sidetracked by the actions of a radical few. Asked when the conversation between the Secretary-General and President Clinton had taken place, Mr. Eckhard said he believed the conversation had taken place on the day of Mr. Annan’s appointment, but he would have to check. Asked which officials had had their contracts extended by the outgoing Secretary-General, Mr. Eckhard said he would not discuss individual cases. “There were a handful of contracts that were extended and the incoming Secretary-General felt that the fairest way to deal with that situation was to ask for the resignation of every one so that he had maximum flexibility to make the decisions he wants to make on staffing.” In response to further questions, Mr. Eckhard reiterated that as of today, the Secretary-General had received 23 letters of resignation—all those that he had requested. In reply to a question about the names of outside advisers on United Nations reform, Mr. Eckhard said he was not, at this point, authorized to give out the names of the people the SecretaryGeneral had been talking to on the subject. Was the post of a special adviser on reform a new one? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said it was not, and that the previous Secretary-General had someone in that role. The new administration was not yet ready to make an announcement of such an appointment. Would the Secretary-General fill all 23 posts or keep some vacant? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General would elimi-

6 January 1997 • 3 nate some. His intention was to reduce wherever he could, both the size of the staff and the cost of doing business. Still on the question of reform, Mr. Eckhard said the preference of the Secretary-General was to take a fresh look at the issue and determine what needed to be done to achieve those objectives, which would have to be defined by governments. He could restructure the bureaucracy in order to carry out reforms. “It’s not going to be easy to get that consensus. If it were easy it would have happened by now, but it would be the primary focus of his work”, he added. . . .

6 January 1997 Letter (EOSG); UN reform Letter sent to all the heads of the specialized agencies, funds, and programs that make up the Administrative Committee on Coordination. A list of recipients appears at the end of this entry. Dear _______, Let me at the outset say how much I look forward to working with you and the other members of the Administrative Committee on Coordination to advance the peace-building and development objectives that unite the United Nations system. I am deeply convinced that the world needs the United Nations system now more than ever before. At the same time, the organizations of the system are under unprecedented scrutiny. And some of the principles of international cooperation and solidarity on which the system is based are being increasingly questioned. I am confident that, together, the organizations of the system will be able to meet the challenges ahead. In order to do so, however, we will need to show, beyond the accomplishments and reform efforts of our individual organizations, also a collective capacity—a capacity as a system —for adaptation and change and for renewed cost-effectiveness. The ACC is an important symbol of the unity of the system. It should however be more than a symbol. It should be a policy- and action-oriented instrument geared to launching and monitoring concrete joint initiatives to accomplish common policy objectives. I am aware that, in the last few years, there has been continuing progress in this direction. I trust that, with your cooperation, this progress will be furthered in the period ahead. The United Nations, in pursuing its peace as well as its development objectives, should build on the capacities available in all parts of the system,

rather than duplicating them. This is how the Charter envisages that the Organization should function. And this will be one of the principles that will guide me in pursuing the necessary reforms within the United Nations itself. Equally, within the system, there is no United Nations agency— large or small that can accomplish its objectives without the support of other organizations. It is in this spirit—a spirit of partnership and true cooperation—that I intend to work with you and the other Executive Heads in the ACC. I trust that we shall be able in the ACC to set an example for our secretariats that will encourage systemwide team-work, based on systematic policy consultations, effective decentralization, full respect for each other’s mandates and competencies, and a clear, common appreciation of the challenges ahead and of the respective strengths of our organizations in meeting them. I hope that there will be opportunities in the coming months for me to meet with many of the executive heads. I also look forward to meeting with all members of the ACC at the April session of the Committee in Geneva. I shall be writing to you again shortly concerning the agenda of the session. Yours Sincerely, Sent to Members of the Administrative Committee on Coordination Specialized Agencies

Mr. Michel Hansenne, Director-General, International Labour Organisation Mr. Jacques Diouf, Director-General, Food and Agriculture Organization Mr. Federico Mayor, Director-General, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Mr. Philippe H.P. Rochat, Secretary-General, International Civil Aviation Organization Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima, Director-General, World Health Organization Mr. Pekka J. Tarjanne, Secretary-General, International Telecommunication Union Mr. G.O.P. Obasi, Secretary-General, World Meteorological Organization Mr. James D. Wolfensohn, President, The World Bank Mr. Michel Camdessus, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund Mr. Thomas E. Leavey, Director-General, Universal Postal Union Mr. William A. O’Neil, Secretary-General, International Maritime Organization

4 • 6 January 1997

Mr. Renato Ruggiero, Director-General, World Trade Organization Mr. Arpad Bogsch, Director-General, World Intellectual Property Organization Mr. Fawzi Hamad Al-Sultan, President, International Fund for Agricultural Development Mr. Mauricio de Maria y Campos, DirectorGeneral, United Nations Industrial Development Organization Mr. Hans Blix, Director-General, International Atomic Energy Agency Funds and Programmes

Mr. Ruben Ricupero, Secretary-General, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme Mrs. Sadako Ogata, High Commissioner, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Mr. Peter Hansen, Commissioner-General, United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East Ms. Catherine Ann Bertini, Executive Director, World Food Programme Mr. Giorgio Giacomelli, Executive Director, United Nations Drug Control Programme Mr. James Gustave Speth, Administrator, United Nations Development Programme Ms. Carol Bellamy, Executive Director, United Nations Children’s Fund Dr. Nafis Sadik, Executive Director, United Nations Population Fund

6 January 1997 Briefing to the Security Council on the Situation in the Great Lakes Region

Letter (UN archives); Security Council This note, from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, is significant because the Secretary-General is breaking with a previous precedent by designating a departmental head to brief the Security Council, instead of the Secretary-General or someone from his executive office. See the letter of 13 January 1997 to the Security Council president. The Security Council will hold informal consultations on the situation in the Great Lakes region on Wednesday, 8 January. The Secretary-General would wish you to brief on his behalf the members of the Security Council on this topic. Thank you.

7 January 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Secretary-General meetings Fred Eckhard, Acting Spokesman for SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan, began the noon briefing by announcing that the Secretary-General had a full schedule of external visitors today, including the Permanent Representatives of the Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Ethiopia and the Netherlands, the Foreign Minister of Namibia and the United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher. A list of the Secretary-General’s appointments was available in room 226 and pool coverage for the photo opportunity of the Secretary-General with Mr. Christopher had been arranged for correspondents. ... Continuing, Mr. Eckhard said the SecretaryGeneral’s Special Representative for Angola, Alioune Blondin Beye, planned to resume consultations tomorrow with both the Angolan Government and UNITA on remaining issues, including the special status of UNITA leader Jonas Savimbi and the extension of the state administration throughout the country. On those two questions, UNITA had submitted a document outlining its position and the Government had submitted its own proposals earlier. “If things go well,” he said, in accordance with the agreed timetable, 70 UNITA deputies would return to Luanda on 17 January to assume their functions at the National Assembly, UNITA would start functioning as a political party on 18 January, a new government of unity and national reconciliation would be formed on 23 January and an inaugural ceremony would be held on 25 January, when the new government would start functioning. Mr. Savimbi was meeting today with South African President Nelson Mandela, Mr. Eckhard added. A twice monthly summary of outstanding contributions by Member States to the United Nations regular budget, peace-keeping operations and the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, was available in the Spokesman’s office, he said. Countries were listed in descending order beginning with those who owed the most. In reply to a request for a verbal announcement of the name of the biggest debtor to the United Nations and the amount it owed, Mr. Eckhard said the number one debtor was the United States which owed a total of $1.3 billion—

9 January 1997 • 5 $377 million to the regular budget, $2.8 million to the Tribunals and $926 million to peace-keeping operations. What was the significance of the SecretaryGeneral meeting today with Mr. Christopher? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said that Mr. Christopher had described the meeting as a courtesy call, but they were also expected to discuss a number of substantive matters and possibly the Secretary-General’s expected visit to Washington, D.C. The correspondent asked if the SecretaryGeneral believed he had to remove the impression some people had that he was still the “U.S.’s man”? Mr. Eckhard replied that the SecretaryGeneral did not consider that description of him to be the case. However, there was some advantage to be gained from that image, considering that the primary problem facing the Organization right now, particularly in the financial area, was the lack of political and financial support from the United States. It was “problem number one” which the Secretary-General needed to address. He could then get on with creating a consensus among Member States on what the United Nations was to do and finally shape an agenda and redirect the Organization’s resources accordingly. So, it was not such a bad thing that the Secretary-General was well regarded in Washington, Mr. Eckhard said, adding, “We’ll see how long the honeymoon lasts”. In reply to a question as to why the Permanent Representative of Kuwait, Mohammed Abulhasan, was meeting with the Secretary-General today, Mr. Eckhard said he believed the meeting was at Mr. Abulhasan’s request and the correspondent should address questions on the matter to him. A correspondent asked if Mr. Eckhard would predict whether the “honeymoon” with Washington would last and if the Secretary-General would be “more tough” in asking the United States Government for money it owed to the United Nations. Mr. Eckhard replied that the SecretaryGeneral had emphasized that he had 185 bosses and there were “demands from some quarters in Washington that just can’t be met”. Reaching a consensus on what the United Nations should do in the next five years was going to require some compromise among Member States, he added. Was the United States’ assessment still 25 per cent of the United Nations regular budget and had it asked for a reduction in that amount? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said the United States’ assessment still stood at 25 per cent and it

had not asked for any reduction. However, the scale of assessments was negotiated for a threeyear period by the Committee on Contributions, so any Member State that wanted a change in its assessment could initiate a request through that Committee. Was any position in the Annan administration “dangled in front of” the former Permanent Representative of Argentina, Emilio Cardenas, at his meeting with the Secretary-General yesterday? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard replied “not to my knowledge, and I do not know if that was in fact the purpose of his visit”. The correspondent then asked if the Secretary-General would be interested in having Mr. Cardenas on his team. Mr. Eckhard said no individuals were being discussed at this stage.

9 January 1997 Secretary-General Urges Staff to Strive for Excellence

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6140); UN reform Friends and colleagues, As I speak here today to United Nations staff around the world, my feelings are both of humility and of pride. I am humbled by the enormous task ahead of me, by the daunting responsibilities that the Secretary-General is called upon to shoulder. But I also feel greatly honoured. Not only personally but, most of all, as a fellow member of the Secretariat for so many years—as one of you. The selection of a career staff member for the position of Secretary-General carries with it a recognition of all of you, the staff of the Organization. For we are above all a team. I do not think anyone who achieves success in the Secretariat can rightfully claim that he or she has done it alone. I have always believed that success is possible only when it is built on the support and cooperation of others. We have worked together successfully for many years. Today, I am counting on your continued support, your commitment and your dedication to the essential work of the Organization. I once read that the worst thing that can happen to you in your career is to get to the top of the ladder only to find that it has been placed against the wrong wall. I do not think there are many of us here today who are in any danger of facing that frustration. Quite the reverse. If I remember correctly, one of the questions in a recent Staff Union survey was: “After your experience with the United Nations, if

6 • 9 January 1997

you could go back in time, would you join it again?” An overwhelming majority of those surveyed answered that yes, they would. As one who has spent more than three decades with the Organization, I can understand that response very well. Service with the United Nations is more than just a job. It is a calling. No one joins the Secretariat to become rich and famous, to be appreciated and applauded, to live a life of ease and comfort. We join the United Nations because we want to serve the world community; because we believe this planet can be a better and more secure place; and because above all, we want to devote our time, our intellect and our energies to making it so. Wherever we are—in New York, Geneva, Vienna and Nairobi, in the regional commissions, the information centres and every mission, programme and operation—and whatever task we may have, political, technical, military or clerical, we are there because we want to ensure a brighter future for all the human race. Since my election, I have received an overwhelming outpouring of confidence, encouragement and goodwill from colleagues all around the world. That has been both comforting and inspiring. All of you want to see the creation of a more efficient and responsive Organization. All of you want an Organization which works together more effectively in the pursuit of common goals. All of you want a United Nations better able to meet and address the immense challenges facing the international community. Today, I repeat the pledge I made in the General Assembly, that the next five years must be, above all, a time for healing. We must heal the financial crisis of the Organization, which cannot be expected to move forward if it is dragged down by the burden of unpaid dues. But at bottom the financial crisis is a political crisis—a crisis of faith in the Organization. It is up to us to prove to the Member States that their contributions are used wisely and efficiently for the implementation of programmes which they have mandated. We must heal relations between the Secretariat and the Member States, and put an end to the acrimony that has characterized some recent exchanges in this house. Every staff member has a part to play in this effort, above all by performing your functions to the very best of your ability. We know that much of the criticism of the Secretariat has been arbitrary and unfair; but we must remain open to honest and constructive criticism. We also

know that we can do more to restore the confidence of the international community in us. In this process, we must heal the morale of the Secretariat. You have all been living with the spectre of downsizing and job insecurity. I know that these have been difficult and challenging times. We must, however, carry on, secure in our ideals, moved by the strength of our convictions. The next five years are not going to be a period of convalescence but of resurgence. This is the time when we—all of us together—face the exciting prospect of carrying our Organization into the twenty-first century. The challenge of this new adventure is formidable, for the Member States and for us. It is up to the Member States to define what they want the United Nations to be and to do—to outline their vision of the goals they want us to attain, and to set new priorities. But it is up to us to shape this instrument of peace and progress to fit that new identity, to chart a route towards those goals, to develop the skills required to meet these challenges. This means that we will need to reform. To many of our critics, reform just means more cuts, and so I understand that talk of reform may be viewed with concern by some of you. That reminds me of a wise person who was once asked whether we should be concerned, or even fearful, about the future. The reply was: Why should we be concerned? We have had so much experience with the future, by now it is familiar to us. It is the same with reform. Sometimes, it must seem that the United Nations does nothing but reform. What we have to do now is not undertake more half-measures or rush to embrace new changes. We must take stock. We must look at ourselves from top to bottom, so that this time we can use reform as a tool to make this Organization more effective and successful. One principle should be of overriding importance. Reform is not an end in itself. It is a tool to create a more relevant and a more effective Organization. Reform should not simply mean change for its own sake—that is the path to disruption rather than to meaningful and long-lasting progress. Neither do I see reform simply in terms of dollars and cents. Of course, the Organization has to be efficient, but not to the point of threatening our effectiveness in fulfilling important mandates. I do not believe the disjointed incrementalism of the past, with its baggage of duplications and overlaps, was a positive evolution. Equally, I have never believed that disjointed downsizing, with arbitrary

9 January 1997 • 7 staff cuts that weaken essential capabilities, can bring real improvement. It is not reform when, for lack of funds, we have to turn our backs on massacres and suffering and the collapse of civil society. Real reform will enable us to put in place new mechanisms for confronting the world’s political and economic crises promptly, courageously and efficiently. Real reform requires an ongoing search for excellence—in our structures, in our procedures, in our methods, and above all, in the performance of our staff. In this I will not compromise. I expect from each and every staff member, at all levels, a total commitment to excellence. I expect the Secretariat to work together and at all times to function properly as a global team. I expect staff members to be flexible and mobile, and willing to serve wherever they can best contribute to the Organization’s tasks. As we reshape and rebuild for the future, it is quite possible that some units, functions or occupations in the Secretariat will be lost. Our task is to see this not as some unforeseen disaster but as a normal development in a constantly evolving Organization, and deal with it through procedures that are fair, transparent and humane. In turn, for those serving the world in the last years of the twentieth century and preparing it for a new millennium, I will strive to ensure that Member States recognize your efforts and grant you the best conditions of service possible. No more must Governments vote to limit the salaries and benefits of United Nations staff while subsidizing their own nationals in the Secretariat. We must have one international civil service, with competitive conditions of service and practices for all of you irrespective of where you are from. I pledge to you today that we will develop a new management culture in the Organization. Our senior managers across the world must understand their obligation to properly manage the staff—the human resources—entrusted to their care. It is my intention to hold my managers accountable for providing the full range of career support to their staff in their day-to-day work. We can do more to enhance overall performance by ensuring greater opportunities for growth including promotion and mobility. In my view, managing people is about enabling staff members to “make a difference”— contribute their best—to the unique work of the Organization. Already, I have taken a number of important steps to empower Heads of Departments to take more decisions in their fields of work. I remain

strongly committed to delegation of authority and I intend to ensure that senior United Nations managers exercise appropriately and responsibly the authority that is delegated to them. As a former Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management, I know the value of open and frank communication between staff and management. I have already met yesterday with your Staff Committee. The views of staff at all levels—expressed both individually and through elected staff representatives—are of abiding interest to me. It may not always be possible to meet all of the expectations of staff, but I pledge to you today that your Secretary-General and his senior management team will listen carefully to your concerns and aspirations. My decisions will always be taken with the best interests of the United Nations—and therefore of its staff—at heart. The staff of this Organization are its most precious asset. You have suffered from misinformation and even disinformation for long enough. We can always do more to tell our story, but in the long term, there is really only one guaranteed prescription for dealing with unjustified criticism. It is for each and every one of us to keep giving of his or her very best. At this time, let us recall the great sacrifices that many of our staff have made in the cause of the United Nations around the world. Each year, some have made the ultimate sacrifice. In tribute to those of our colleagues who have lost their lives in the service of the Organization, I call upon you all to rise and stand for a moment’s silence. We are the United Nations, and we believe our Organization can fulfil the vision of our Charter, of a world where “we the peoples” strive together for peace, freedom, economic and social justice and human rights. But the burden of proof is on us. The strength of our convictions will lead others to believe. The excellence of our performance will turn our detractors into supporters. We all know, nobody argues with success. One of my distinguished predecessors spoke of the post of Secretary-General as “the most impossible job in the world.” But my mission, however impossible, is your mission too. We are nothing if not a team. And in this team, every member has a vital role to play. Each individual can make a difference. If everyone contributes fully, the result will be far greater than the sum of the parts. I appeal today to every staff member in every duty station to work with me to make our impossi-

8 • 9 January 1997

The Secretary-General is concerned by the increase in tensions in Cyprus. The Security Council, most recently in its resolution 1092 of 23 December 1996, has expressed grave concern about the excessive levels of military forces and armaments in the Republic of Cyprus and the rate at which they are being expanded, upgraded and modernized, including the introduction of sophisticated weaponry. The Secretary-General believes that the events of the past week once again underline the inherent instability of the status quo and add urgency to the concerted efforts to achieve an overall political settlement through negotiations. He underscores the importance of carefully prepared, face-to-face talks between the leaders. He calls upon the parties to respond positively to the various ideas the United Nations has put forward to reduce tension and avoid risk of confrontation on the island and urges all parties to exercise maximum restraint. The Secretary-General reminds all sides that the United Nations Charter forbids the threat or use of force in situations such as this.

Operations and the Department of Humanitarian Affairs will attend Security Council meetings (both informal consultations and formal meetings) as required and provide the Council with information relating to their peace-keeping and humanitarian responsibilities. Heads of Department will determine when it is appropriate for them to brief the Council personally, or through their senior staff, ensuring consistency in this practice. I will ensure that all three Departments coordinate closely, each acting as. the lead Department where it has principal responsibility. With such coordination, a briefing note on field operations will be presented to the members of the Council through DPA every Wednesday morning. It will be concise (some 3 pages, or 100120 lines), highlighting significant trends on developments in the field about which the Council would expect to be informed. Each Head of Department, as appropriate, will keep me informed of important issues or policy questions arising in the Council. It is my intention to attend the Council's consultations as often as feasible or practicable, when a substantive issue or question is on the agenda that requires my personal attention. In view of the foregoing, I have discontinued the function of Special Representative of the Secretary-General to the Security Council. I should be grateful if you would bring the above arrangements to the attention of members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

13 January 1997

13 January 1997

ble job possible—to fulfill the enormous expectations the world has of us. There is no alternative to the United Nations. It is still the last best hope of humanity. That is our collective challenge. Now let us get on with the job.

10 January 1997 Secretary-General Expresses Concern over Increased Tensions in Cyprus

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM 6141); Cyprus

Letter (UN archives); UN reform

Letter (UN archives); UN reform

This formal letter to the president of the Security Council lays out the Secretary General’s new policy of more direct contact between Secretariat officers and himself in the work of the Security Council.

This inter-office memorandum states the Secretary General’s new policy on guidelines for departmental interaction with the Security Council.

Dear Mr. President, I am writing to inform you of the arrangements I have instituted, effective today, in regard to contact between the Secretariat and the Security Council. The Department of Political Affairs will retain the primary responsibility for monitoring the deliberations of the Security Council and for providing it with the political information required. In parallel, the Department of Peace-keeping

To: Mr. Marrack Goulding, Under-SecretaryGeneral for Political Affairs Mr. Yasushi Akashi, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Mr. Manfred Eisele, Assistant Secretary-General and Officer-in-charge, Department of Peacekeeping Operations Copy to: Mr. Chinmaya Gharekhan, UnderSecretary-General From: The Secretary-General Subject: Briefings and Reports to the SecurityCouncil

13 January 1997 • 9 1. As substantive Departments assume enhanced responsibilities and authority for their functional areas, the reporting by your Departments should follow the guidelines below. 2. Where the Security Council is concerned, the Department of Political Affairs retains the primary responsibility for monitoring the deliberations of the Security Council and for providing it with the political information required. In parallel, the Department of Peace-keeping Operations and the Department of Humanitarian Affairs will attend Security Council meetings (both consultations and formal) as required and provide the Council with information relating to their peacekeeping and humanitarian responsibilities. Heads of Department will determine when it is appropriate for them to brief the Council personally, or through their staff, ensuring consistency in this practice. Of course, it is vital that all three Departments coordinate closely, each acting as the lead Department where it has principal responsibility. 3. With such coordination, a briefing note on field operations should be presented to the members of the Council through DPA every Wednesday morning. It should be concise (100–120 lines), highlighting significant trends on development in the field about which the Council should be informed. (Every mission does not need to be covered every week.) 4. Each Head of Department, as appropriate, will keep me informed of important issues or policy questions arising in the Council. It is my intention to attend the Council’s consultations at least every other week. For such meetings to be meaningful, a substantive issue or question will need to be on the agenda, and I shall look to the three Heads of Department for coordinated advice and advance briefing notes in this respect. 5. The three Departments will coordinate in preparing drafts of reports to be submitted to the Security Council, one in the lead as appropriate. The Department of Peace-keeping Operations will be the lead Department for the preparation of reports dealing with peace-keeping operations and the Department of Humanitarian Affairs will prepare reports dealing with operations that are exclusively humanitarian in nature; the Department of Political Affairs will no longer take responsibility for submitting such reports. The lead Department will however ensure that the views of the Department of Political Affairs on political matters are taken fully into account. Draft reports must be submitted to my office for approval at least six

working days before the date the report is due to be submitted to the Council. 6. All draft of reports to the Security Council will be approved by my office. Drafts of reports to the General Assembly will only be submitted for the Secretary-General’s approval when they raise policy issues or other sensitive matters, as determined by the Head of Department concerned, or when they are concerned with peace-making or peace-keeping operations established by the General Assembly.

13 January 1997 Secretary-General Shocked to Learn of Massacre in Burundi and Urges Parties to Negotiate

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM 6142); Burundi massacre The Secretary-General was shocked to learn of another massacre by the Burundi Army, on 10 January, of 122 Burundi refugees returning from the United Republic of Tanzania, in the province of Muyinga. The Secretary-General requested the Department of Political Affairs to contact the Permanent Representative of Burundi to convey his deepest concern over the incident. While he welcomes the fact that the authorities in Bujumbura seem to have taken action against some of the perpetrators of this latest killing, the Secretary-General strongly urges the authorities to ensure that the rule of law is scrupulously followed and to prevent further massacres by the Army. This latest tragedy underscores the pressing need for an immediate cease-fire followed by negotiations among all the interested parties to restore peace in Burundi. The Secretary-General strongly urges the parties to sit at the negotiating table in order to put an end to this abhorrent cycle of violence whose first victims are the innocent civilian population.

13 January 1997 Secretary-General Condemns Letter Bombs

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6143); letter bombs at headquarters I think it’s unfortunate that this sort of thing happened in this building. We consider it an attack on the Organization and also on freedom of press and speech. We hope that whoever has undertaken this cowardly act will cease before some serious damage is done. This is a house of peace and we work

10 • 13 January 1997

in the interest of all nations and this kind of activity is not something that anyone can condone and I appeal to them to desist and use other means to raise their complaints.

17 January 1997 Letter (EOSG); chemical weapons convention This letter was sent to the foreign ministers of all states parties to the chemical weapons convention. Excellency, It is with great pleasure that I extend this invitation to your Government to attend the First Session of the Conference of the States Parties of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The Conference is being convened in accordance with paragraph 10, Article VIII (B) of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. Under this Article the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary of the Convention, is mandated to convene the First Session of the Conference of the States Parties within 30 days of the entry into force of the Convention. Since the 65th instrument of ratification was deposited with my predecessor on 31 October 1996, in accordance with Article XXI of the Convention, it shall enter into force on 29 April 1997. The First Session of the Conference of the States Parties will open in The Hague on 6 May 1997. The first four days of the Conference will comprise a high-level segment which will include a general debate in the plenary. A note with information regarding administrative and logistical arrangements for the Conference will be issued at an appropriate time by the Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague. The First Session constitutes an historic milestone in our collective endeavour to banish the scourge of chemical weapons for all time. I therefore look forward to the participation of your Government in this important event. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

17 January 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Africa Fred Eckhard, Acting Spokesman for the

Secretary-General, began today’s noon briefing by announcing that the Secretary-General was moving closer to a final formulation of his proposal to the Security Council regarding the Great Lakes region of Africa. He held consultations yesterday with Salim Ahmed Salim, Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), and met again this morning with Lakhdar Brahimi, his Personal Representative in support of preventive and peacemaking efforts. He expected to finalize his proposal by early next week. This morning Maurice Strong had his first meeting with the Secretary-General in his capacity as Executive Coordinator for United Nations Reform, Mr. Eckhard said. “I mentioned yesterday that he was disengaging from his responsibilities at the World Bank. He will, however, retain a relationship with the Bank, but he has no other executive responsibilities except those to the United Nations, and has his full commitment made to the Secretary-General in this capacity.” He went on to say that Mr. Strong and the Secretary-General would meet tomorrow morning with James Gustave Speth, the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Joseph Connor, the Under-SecretaryGeneral for Administration and Management, and Ismat Kittani, Under-Secretary-General in the Secretary-General’s office, to begin work on the reform agenda. The United Nations had begun receiving money from Iraqi oil sales, Mr. Eckhard said. Some $68.8 million had been deposited in the escrow account at the Banque Nationale de Paris on 15 January. Another $44 million was deposited yesterday, bringing the total to $113 million as of today. A further $16 million was to be deposited on Tuesday, 21 January. He said the revenue from the oil sales would be used for the purchase of humanitarian supplies, for compensation to the Persian Gulf war victims, to pay for the operating expenses of the United Nations Special Commission set up under Security Council resolution 687 (1991) in connection with the disposal of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which was headed by Rolf Ekeus, and to pay for the monitoring of the implementation of Security Council resolution 986 (1995), the “oil-for-food” formula. . . . Asked if those attending the meeting tomorrow on reform were members of “the reform group”, Mr. Eckhard said “No, this is just a preliminary meeting among some of the principals, to begin formulating thoughts on the way ahead”. To

21 January 1997 • 11 another question, he said the meeting had been called by the Secretary-General, who would be participating in it. . . .

18 January 1997 Secretary-General Meets with Senior Advisers on Reform Process

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6146); UN reform Secretary-General Kofi Annan today took personal direction of United Nations reform in a 90minute Saturday morning meeting with senior advisers that addressed the time-frame and the process for the reform effort. With him were Maurice Strong, whom he named Friday as his Executive Coordinator for United Nations Reform; James Gustave Speth, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme; Ismat Kittani, Under-SecretaryGeneral in his office; Joseph E. Connor, UnderSecretary-General for Administration and Management; S. Iqbal Riza, his Chef de Cabinet; and senior aides. The Secretary-General stressed that there was a window of opportunity, and urged immediate action. Reform had been discussed long enough; another group of eminent persons was not required. He now wanted a comprehensive package acceptable to all Member States. To assemble the package, intensive and wide consultation would be needed, he said. He would work closely with governments, and would consult internally, reaching beyond New York to the United Nations system as a whole. The Secretary-General’s goal is to finalize the package by mid-summer. Meanwhile, he is moving to streamline procedures under his direct control as chief administrative officer. In his first two weeks in office, he eliminated one layer of bureaucracy by delegating to Department heads responsibility for briefing the Security Council on threats to international peace and security. He has established a cabinet-style of administration by creating a Policy Coordination Group. Also, he set up the reform action group that met today.

21 January 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/62); Eastern Slavonia Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Hisashi Owada. Dear Mr. President,

I have the honour to write to you concerning recent important developments with respect to the United Nations Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES). Since my report of 26 October 1996 (S/1996/883), the political focus of UNTAES has been to resolve outstanding policy issues required for the holding of elections. The Joint Implementation Committee (JIC) on Elections, which had been meeting intensively since 16 October 1996, was unable to resolve any of the principal policy questions, including representation (the institutions for which elections are to be held), voter eligibility and timing of elections. As of 17 December 1996, when the concluding meeting for the year of the JIC on Elections was held, the Croatian position was that all residents of the region of Eastern Slavonia, hereafter referred to as the Region, who were eligible for Croatian citizenship, and who were living in the Region at the time of the beginning of the UNTAES mandate on 15 January 1996, would be entitled to vote. Elections should be for existing Croatian institutions within existing electoral boundaries and they should take place simultaneously with nation-wide Croatian local and regional elections scheduled for 16 March 1997. The position of the local Serb delegation at that time was that the Region should be a single territorial unit with the same status as, or similar to, a county under Croatian law. Elections in the Region should be held later than elections in the rest of Croatia and all residents of the Region, irrespective of origin or date of entry to the Region, should be qualified to vote if they had citizenship of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Serb delegation stated that it was unable to move beyond its insistence on a single region or to settle any other matters until agreement was reached on this issue. In an attempt to resolve this political deadlock, the Transitional Administrator met with local Serb leaders and Croatian Government officials to explore areas of flexibility and compromise. While the Croatian Government was willing to offer substantial additional guarantees to local Serbs, on 24 December 1996, following an address by the Transitional Administrator, the local Serb Regional Assembly declined to make any concession on its position on a single region. On 26 December 1996, the Transitional Administrator wrote to President Tudjman proposing elements of a comprehensive political package

12 • 21 January 1997

as a framework for elections and for long-term guarantees for the local Serb ethnic community. The Transitional Administrator also wrote to Dr. Stanimirovic, President of the local Executive Council, outlining elements of the political package and urging the local Serb leadership to represent responsibly the interests of those Serbs from the Region who wished to stay in Croatia. Whereas the Croatian authorities indicated their readiness to discuss these proposals, no response was received from local Serb leaders. On 30 December 1996, the Transitional Administrator commenced intensive consultations with President Tudjman and the Croatian Government on the political package for elections. The outcome of those consultations is contained in the Letter from the Government of the Republic of Croatia on the completion of the peaceful reintegration of the region under the Transitional Administration, Republic of Croatia, of 13 January 1997 (S/1997/27). I should like to draw your attention to the following features of the Letter: (a) Elections in the Region will be held simultaneously with nation-wide elections which are currently scheduled for 16 March 1997. Following certification of the elections by the Transitional Administrator, elected local bodies of authority will be established no later than 30 days after the elections. (b) All current residents who settled in the Region prior to the beginning of the UNTAES mandate and who are entitled to Croatian citizenship may vote. Displaced persons who settled in the Region after the 1991 census but before the start of the UNTAES mandate on 15 January 1996 may choose to vote for local bodies in the Region or for local bodies in the area of their 1991 domicile. (c) The Croatian Government will issue citizenship and identity documents for all eligible voters in sufficient time to enable them to participate in elections. This is an essential prerequisite for the elections to take place in the envisaged time-frame. (d) Local Serbs are guaranteed to hold a post of Sub-Prefect in each of the two counties which cover the Region. (e) Proportional representation for local Serbs is guaranteed in local health services, police and the judiciary. For at least the first year, the number of Serb and other non-Croat police in the area now under the Transitional Administration will be approximately 700 to 800. (f) Pursuant to the Basic Agreement, members

of the local Serb ethnic community may appoint a Joint Council of Municipalities which shall meet at least once every four months directly with the Croatian President or the Chief of the Presidential cabinet. (g) Following the next national census, Serbs and other national minorities shall have proportional representation in the House of Representatives of the Croatian Parliament. (h) Pursuant to his constitutional powers, the President shall appoint two Serbs as deputies in the House of Counties of the Croatian Parliament. While the right of the President to appoint additional members to the House of Counties cannot be limited to a particular geographic region, President Tudjman has assured the Transitional Administrator that it is his intention to appoint one Serb from the Baranja and one from the southern part of the Region. (i) Serbs are guaranteed senior level positions in key Ministries including at a level no lower than Assistant Minister in the Ministries of Interior, Justice and Education and Culture. They are also entitled to participation in the working bodies of the Croatian Parliament. (j) Serbs and other minorities in the Region are guaranteed full rights with respect to educational and cultural autonomy. (k) Members of the Serb ethnic community throughout Croatia may establish a Council of the Serb Ethnic Community which may apply to the President and Government proposing and promoting the solution of issues of common interest. (l) All Serbs from the Region shall have an automatic deferment of compulsory military service for two years from the end of the UNTAES mandate. After that time they may apply individually for a further deferment. During the period of deferment, all constitutional and civil rights will pertain including the right to obtain a passport and shall not in any way be hampered. In this context it should be noted that Croatian Government officials have stated to UNTAES that the Ministry of Defence will positively consider individual applications for the second period of deferment and that the provisions of Croatian law on conscientious objection to military service will be available to all. (m) Residents of the Region who are war victims, including disabled persons, widows and orphans, shall enjoy full health and social service rights with the exceptional specific rights pertaining to Croat war veterans. (n) Nothing in the Letter shall derogate from

21 January 1997 • 13 the obligations of the Basic Agreement (S/l995/951, Annex), Security Council resolution 1037 (1996) or the Croatian Constitution. The Transitional Administrator considers that the rights and guarantees outlined in the Letter, if fully and genuinely implemented, constitute a solid basis for the holding of elections simultaneously with nation-wide elections in Croatia and offer substantial progress towards the completion of the process of peaceful reintegration of the Region. Through this Letter, the Government of Croatia has committed itself before the international community to implement fully the Basic Agreement and has extended additional rights and privileges to residents of the Region. The Government of Croatia has also indicated to the Transitional Administrator its agreement to international monitoring of the implementation of the commitments outlined in the Letter. The Transitional Administrator stresses that it will be possible to hold those elections within the envisaged time-frame only if the Croatian authorities live up to their obligations with respect to the issuance of documents required for voting and completion of the technical arrangements for holding elections. In the consideration of their response to the offers of the Croatian Government, the Transitional Administrator urged local Serbs to look to the future and put aside unrealistic demands. He urged local Serbs and their leaders to accept the package of measures offered and to actively participate in the forthcoming elections. In response to the Letter, on 16 January 1997, the local Serb Executive Council and Regional Assembly wrote jointly to the Transitional Administrator seeking the following additional guarantees: (a) Complete and permanent demilitarization of the existing UNTAES region; (b) Exemption from military service for Serbs for at least 15 years; (c) Guaranteed equal rights for all displaced persons and refugees in Croatia to remain in their present accommodation until their original homes are rebuilt, or to be compensated for destroyed or damaged property, or to be provided adequate accommodation in the area where they presently live; (d) The creation of a single county for the Region. It should be noted that UNTAES has no mandate to pursue directly the question of the post-

UNTAES military status of the Region. However, as a long-term confidence building measure of benefit to residents of the Region, the Transitional Administrator has been actively encouraging the Croatian Government to maintain the present demilitarized status of the Region and to reach agreement with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Hungary on a demilitarized common border area. The Council may wish to support this endeavour in an appropriate manner. With respect to a prolonged exemption from military duty for local Serbs, as noted above, Croatian officials have stated to UNTAES that applications for the second period of deferment of military service will be positively considered. It should be noted also that the right to equal treatment with respect to housing, access to reconstruction grants and loans, and to property compensation is guaranteed by existing Croatian law. Moreover, the right of citizens of a state to choose freely where they wish to live in the territory of that state is a fundamental human right guaranteed by several international conventions to which Croatia is a party, including Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 2 of Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which Croatia has undertaken to ratify. I believe that the Croatian Government should be encouraged to make a statement reaffirming its obligations under the Constitution, Croatian Law and the Basic Agreement to treat all of its citizens equally regardless of their ethnicity. Over the coming months, the support of the international community for the measures outlined in the Letter will be crucial for the holding of elections and the completion of the process of peaceful reintegration. It is my view that the political package, taken in conjunction with the Basic Agreement and resolution 1037 (1996) and the guarantees contained in the Affidavit of Employment signed by the Government of Croatia on 16 December 1996, constitutes a comprehensive framework of guarantees for Serbs who choose to stay in Croatia as equal citizens enjoying full rights under the Croatian Constitution in accordance with international law and under international monitoring. The letter of the Government of Croatia in my view merits favourable consideration by the Council. I am obliged, however, to reiterate that strict compliance by all sides with the obligations outlined in the letter, and the full support of the

14 • 21 January 1997

international community, are essential if the reintegration process is to succeed. I should be grateful if you could bring this letter to the attention of members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

22 January 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/73); Central Africa Great Lakes region Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Hisashi Owada. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to the oral briefings concerning the situation in the Great Lakes region of Central Africa which I gave to the Security Council during its informal consultations on 8 and 21 January 1997. As I advised the Council on those occasions, I have come to the conclusion that the gravity and complexity of the situation in the region requires the earliest possible appointment of a resident Special Representative rather than further exploratory visits by a Special Envoy as had previously been contemplated. On the latter occasion, I also informed the Council of my decision, after consulting the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), Mr. Salim A. Salim, and leaders of the countries concerned, to propose the appointment of a joint United Nations/OAU Special Representative. Such an appointment will be in conformity with the request of the Security Council that the Secretary-General cooperate closely with the OAU in addressing the problems of the Great Lakes region, including preparations for an international conference. I envisage that the Special Representative will report to both SecretariesGeneral and will take guidance from both of them. This, of course, presupposes close coordination between the two organizations at Headquarters level and Mr. Salim and I are discussing how this can be strengthened. We are also discussing the administrative and financial modalities for this joint appointment. The essential tasks of the Special Representative can be summarized as follows: (a) to use his good offices to promote peaceful settlements of the various conflicts in the region, with special reference initially to the situations in eastern Zaire and Burundi;

(b) to prepare an international conference on peace, security and development in the region, as endorsed by the Security Council; (c) to use his good offices to help preserve the unity and territorial integrity of Zaire and to help restore that country’s national institutions, including through support for the electoral process. In carrying out these tasks the Special Representative will work closely with the Governments in the region and other parties concerned and will cooperate with special envoys and other mediators appointed by international organizations and Member States in an endeavour to provide guidance and leadership to a properly coordinated international effort to address the region’s problems. In his United Nations capacity, the Special Representative will also direct other political activities of the United Nations system in the region and will provide guidance to, and ensure coordination of, all other United Nations activities, working at the regional level through the existing Regional Humanitarian Coordinator and at the country level through the Humanitarian/Resident Coordinators. The Special Representative will establish his office in Nairobi, Kenya, but will travel frequently and extensively throughout the region. For this purpose, he will require adequate logistical support including, especially, an aircraft and communications equipment which will enable him to keep in touch with his office and with the leaders of the region during his travels. In due course, he will, with the agreement of the Governments concerned, establish sub-offices headed by senior officials in various capitals of the region, including Bujumbura, Kigali, Kinshasa and possibly others, depending on his assessment of the support he needs. The official heading the sub-office in Kinshasa will have an important role to play in supporting the Special Representative’s exercise of his good offices with regard to the situation in eastern Zaire but he or she will also be responsible, under the overall guidance of the Special Representative, for directing the United Nations’ electoral activities in that country. The official heading the sub-office in Bujumbura will assume the functions discharged with great distinction since December 1995 by Mr. Marc Faguy (Canada), who has informed me of his wish to leave his post when his current contract expires at the end of February 1997. The efforts of the Special Representative will succeed only if he, and the two Secretaries-

24 January 1997 • 15 General who will have appointed him, are assured of the full and continuing support of the members of the Security Council, collectively and individually. This support will need to be of various kinds. Perhaps the most important support will be political: maintenance of consensus in the Security Council on how the problems of the region should be tackled and the manifestation of that consensus through decisions and statements of the Council, accompanied by supportive initiatives by its members bilaterally. There will be an equal need for material support. This will include support for the Special Representative’s mission itself, both through the prompt payment of assessed contributions to its budget and through voluntary contributions in kind, especially in the fields of aviation and communications which I have already mentioned. It will also include continuing financial contributions to the international community’s variegated activities in the humanitarian and economic and social fields without which it will not be possible to restore lasting peace and security in the region. Particularly important in this context will be the provision of funds for rehabilitation and reconstruction in Rwanda, especially the resettlement of returning refugees; for similar programmes in Burundi after peace has been restored there; for the relief and resettlement of the many refugees that remain in Tanzania and Zaire; and for the support of the many Zaireans who have been displaced or otherwise affected by the events that have taken place since 1994. The Secretary-General of the OAU and I have agreed that Ambassador Mohamed Sahnoun (Algeria) would be an excellent candidate for the post of Special Representative. He has held a number of senior government positions including that of Ambassador to the United States. In 1992, he served as a Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations to Somalia and had earlier served for several years as an Assistant Secretary-General of the OAU. He has already advised me of his availability should the Council decide to authorize the appointment of a joint United Nations/OAU Special Representative for the Great Lakes region. I have already established that the choice of Ambassador Sahnoun for this post would be welcomed by the leaders in the region. I accordingly seek the Security Council’s agreement to this proposal. I shall submit as soon as possible outline estimates of the cost of the resources required to enable the Special

Representative to perform the functions described in this letter. I should be grateful, Mr. President, if you would bring these matters to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

24 January 1997 Secretary-General Stresses Need for Partnership, Building Consensus for UN Reform to Succeed

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6149); UN reform Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the National Press Club, in Washington, D.C. It is good to be here today among the makers and shapers of American public opinion. I am grateful for this early opportunity to share with you my vision, my hopes and my plans for the future. Some three weeks have passed since I became Secretary-General of the United Nations. One of the first pieces of advice I received was: “Steer clear of American journalists. The United Nations is so disliked in the United States that whatever you say will be criticized.” Everyone needs some advice he can ignore. As you can imagine, I have absolutely no intention of following such advice. Quite the opposite. I developed a high regard for American journalists soon after coming to this country nearly 40 years ago. I came to learn, to study and to familiarize myself with life in a society that cherishes the free flow of information and ideas. I emerged with a life-long commitment to democracy, to the rule of law and to politics as a blend of realism and generosity. I have a second reason for not steering clear of American journalists. I am deeply convinced that the United States needs the United Nations just as the United Nations needs the United States. Over the last 50 years, the United Nations and the United States have learned to use each other’s strengths. One of America’s earliest political lessons was that taught by Benjamin Franklin when he told the quarrelsome 13 colonies that if we don’t hang together, we will surely hang separately. This was the insight which, after the horrors of the Second World War, led to the establishment of the United Nations, in great part through the efforts of American statesmen. Franklin’s lesson applies all the more across the world today. The fact is that the United States and the United Nations have enjoyed a long and fruitful

16 • 24 January 1997

friendship. Last year, a broad coalition of Americans—Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives—working in a task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, concluded that the United Nations had served American interests well. I am, of course, aware of the numerous and persistent misunderstandings between us. I believe that the time has come to clear the air, to speak frankly between friends. An open, sincere and constructive dialogue is always healthy. Allow me, first of all, to restate strongly my faith in the values of the World Organization. Those are the values of peace, of freedom and of justice, of progress and development, of generosity and solidarity, and of respect for human rights. These are also the values which have made America such a great nation. They are the values of the people who, 50 years ago, invited the United Nations to set up headquarters on its territory. Among Americans, I have always found a warmth of feeling, and an appreciation for our work. I am heartened by the many opinion polls which show strong American public support for the United Nations: for our peace-keeping and humanitarian assistance operations; for our economic development programmes; and for our vital work in the fields of human rights and democratization. This enthusiasm and this commitment to the ideals of the United Nations extend to the thousands of Americans working in the United Nations system. We have more Americans in senior positions in the United Nations than any other nationality. Americans serve as heads of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Programme (WFP). An American is the UnderSecretary-General for Administration and Management. They will continue to play a leading role in carrying out our programme of reform. Yet another American is the head of a major United Nations peace-keeping operation in the former Yugoslavia. I mention these men and women today to make a very simple point: you are us. The world has changed. It is increasingly interdependent. This interdependence, which profoundly benefits the United States, is fostered by the United Nations, through agreements among its sovereign Member States. The United Nations promotes the freedom of trade and markets. Other United Nations bodies fight epidemics, famine, poverty; protect human rights; promote the protection of the environment;

help the advancement of women and the rights of children. United Nations agencies also set the indispensable rules and standards for safe and efficient transport by air and by sea. It is because of United Nations rules that all pilots and air traffic controllers across the world have to speak English. Imagine what would happen if they didn’t. A United Nations agency works to ensure respect for intellectual property rights throughout the world. Another United Nations body coordinates the allocation of radio frequencies; without this, the international airwaves would be drowned in discordant noise. The institutions of the United Nations advance the respect and promotion of international law and norms. This includes measures against terrorism, drug-trafficking and transnational crime. These problems cross frontiers; so must their solutions. The Office the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) looks after some 45 million refugees and displaced persons worldwide. Without this essential institution, many countries would be destabilized by chaotic refugee flows. And United Nations peace-keepers have in many cases prevented the escalation of conflicts and saved countless thousands of lives. They are helping to consolidate peace in such a wide range of countries as Angola, Cyprus, Haiti, Lebanon, Liberia and the former Yugoslavia. These diverse activities show the many ways in which the United Nations touches the lives of ordinary Americans. We are not some remote foreign body; the United Nations is part of your daily life. I have had constructive and positive meetings with President Clinton, with the members of his Administration, with Congressional leaders of both parties. I have assured them that I am determined to reform the United Nations. Not reform for its own sake, but in order to revitalize the Organization’s capacity to serve its Members in our changing world. We, too, cannot risk falling off the bridge to the twenty-first century. We have already begun our journey across that bridge. Our high-level staff has been reduced by a quarter since 1992 and the total number of staff is down 25 per cent. Since last December, the Organization has taken steps to live within a nogrowth budget capped at $2.608 billion for the two year period, 1996–1997. During the last 12 months, the Secretariat initiated more than 400

24 January 1997 • 17 efficiency projects with concrete results already in hand—for example, expanding the use of the Internet and the United Nations Home Page to disseminate United Nations information, reducing the cost of documentation and meeting services, and improving cash management. United Nations funds and programmes are also engaged in reform that is helping the United Nations to get better results on the ground, from Rwanda to Haiti. For example, in reforms welcomed by the “Group of Seven” most industrialized countries last June, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) established a new intergovernmental structure, restructured its secretariat and consolidated five programmes into one. The World Food Programme (WFP) has established a negative nominal growth budget and at the same time refocused its resources to countries and people in greatest need. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has flattened its senior management structure, improved financial management and has worked with other United Nations agencies to harmonize its programme cycles in 27 countries. In peace-keeping, we have developed the capacity to plan operations and provide better logistics to support our men and women in the field. We have a 24-hour “situation centre”; a professional military staff, largely loaned at no cost by governments; and a Lessons Learned Unit to capture the experience of the recent years of turbulence. I could go on. But the point is that we will go on. Reform is a process, not an event. Its result will be a leaner and more efficient Secretariat. We will thoroughly review our structures and procedures in light of our limited financial resources. We will make a determined effort to eliminate duplication and overlap. We will seek to create a United Nations that is relevant to the challenges the world wants us to face. And we shall make every effort to attract, develop and retain the best possible talent. The United Nations should never be just another job; it is a calling. We must review that spirit, redefine our mission and reorient our efforts to fulfill that vision. I have no hesitations or reservations about the place that reform has on my agenda as SecretaryGeneral. I am convinced that a profound reform is essential both to realize fully the original vision of the United Nations Charter and to adapt the Organization to the far-reaching changes that are occurring in the international political and economic environment. I am carrying—and will con-

tinue to carry—this message, with the same force, to all my interlocutors, not just in Washington. I am convinced that reform is in the interest of all Members of the Organization, developed and developing countries alike. In order to ensure that the Organization renews both its relevance and its effectiveness, reform must be rooted in a new consensus among governments on the role of the United Nations, its core functions, its priorities, what it can do best, what it should do with others and what it should leave to others to do. I am keenly aware of the complexity of the task. Its success requires changes in structures and methods of work. It must involve mutually reinforcing actions by governments and by the Secretariat. And it requires the coming together of many actors around common objectives. I am, however, convinced that it can be done, and that the time for it is now. I am prepared to place all of the authority of the Secretary-General behind this effort: by moving ahead decisively with managerial reforms that are within the prerogative of the SecretaryGeneral; and by putting forward proposals and helping promote the necessary political consensus on those aspects of reform that require decisions by Member States. There are three basic components to my reform strategy, all of which are being initiated now in parallel. They should produce concrete results at different stages during the course of the year, and will, I hope, lead to the adoption of a comprehensive package of reforms at the fall session of the General Assembly. I am optimistic because, in relation to each of these components, some of the foundations on which to build have already been laid; and because, already in my first few days in office, I have been able to test and, I believe, strengthen some of these foundations. The first component involves expanding and accelerating the managerial reforms and efficiency review processes that are under way under the direction of Under-Secretary-General for Administration and Management Joseph Connor. Building on this work, I have challenged my senior programme managers and the staff at large to help me develop a further set of managerial improvements that can be implemented in the short term and that can significantly strengthen Secretariat efficiency and cost-effectiveness. I expect these measures to cover the whole spectrum of management: the way we manage our financial resources; the way we manage personnel; and the way we manage our

18 • 24 January 1997

operations. I am looking forward to a far-reaching streamlining and simplification of our administrative processes; and to a significant shift of resources from administrative routines to investments in information technology and management training, and from administration to programmes that can achieve concrete results on the ground. And I am looking forward to a further strengthening of the independent internal oversight function established in the Organization through the Office of Internal Oversight Services. This should include a strengthening of internal control standards and more effective methods of costing and evaluating the quality of our work products. I trust that there will be visible progress on all these fronts already in the next few months. This should prepare the ground for the Organization to live, and function effectively, within the parameters of the budget for 1998–1999 to be approved at the next session of the General Assembly. On the basis of the outline already approved by the Assembly, that budget will show, for the first time, negative growth in real dollar terms. By functioning effectively, I do not mean only administrative efficiency, but also the ability to deliver, within that budget, more focused programmes, effectively pooling capacities and resources around priority objectives. I have tried to set the example in my own executive office, by streamlining its functions and reducing significantly the size and level of its staff. I have also initiated a practice of very frequent cabinet meetings with all the Heads of Departments and Programmes, emphasizing accountability and delegation of authority, the need for greater policy and programme coherence within the Secretariat and the importance of teamwork and continuous communication to avoid duplication and achieve greater impact. Sectoral groups (sub-cabinets) have been established to provide policy leadership and coordination in the four key areas of the United Nations work: peace and security; humanitarian relief; economic and social affairs; and development operations. These encompass not only the central Secretariat, but also the various Programmes and Funds that are part of the Organization. These groups will meet weekly and allow, in some ways for the first time, for regular and systematic exchanges among different entities within the Organization that are working towards related objectives. The second component of my reform strategy builds on these measures and is aimed at a signifi-

cant simplification and rationalization of organizational structures. I have already laid the ground for a series of reviews in each of the major areas of the work of the Organization. The third component reflects the fact that I will not be undertaking reform alone. I will work in close partnership with Member States engaged in a parallel process. Some of the duplication in the United Nations system exists because governments have created overlapping agencies, and only governments can eliminate them. I have already begun to work closely with the President of the General Assembly to ensure that we are on the same track. I must be careful not to encroach on the prerogatives of governments. But I will not hesitate to offer them my own ideas when I judge it can be helpful to facilitate transactions and move the process forward. My report on United Nations reform will be completed by the end of July 1997, at which point I will initiate consultations with Member States and submit proposals to the General Assembly at its fifty-second session. For reform to succeed, we must build a consensus around it. I have appointed Maurice Strong, a wellknown reformer with both United Nations and corporate experience, as Executive Coordinator for United Nations Reform. Under my leadership, he will coordinate all aspects of the reform process, working closely with Under-Secretary-General Connor, former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Price Waterhouse, who is now in charge of the management of the Secretariat. When Americans think of United Nations reform, they are not only thinking of those reforms the Secretary-General can introduce by himself. There is, for instance, the issue of the Security Council. Many governments believe that the size and composition of the Council reflects the political realities of 1945. They feel it should be enlarged to become more representative and take on other members to better reflect today’s geopolitical realities. I share that view. But it is for Member States to decide the nature and extent of Security Council reform. It is my hope that the prolonged debate on this subject will be brought to closure this year. Similarly, Americans are concerned that the scale of assessments places too high a burden on them. That scale was agreed with the rest of the world. It is based principally on your share of the world economy. If you were a poorer country, the United Nations would ask you for less. But the formula is not sacrosanct. The United States can

24 January 1997 • 19 negotiate a lower scale for itself—but it must persuade other Member States first. I am always willing to help move such a process. But this is a challenge for American diplomacy, not for the Secretary-General. Another issue we must address openly is the financial crisis of the United Nations and the American debt. Some have urged me to be reticent about this subject. But I know that most Americans do not like their country being thought of as one that does not keep its word, and many are eager to bring this problem to an end. Let me make it clear: the United States dues are the result of an open process amongst all Member States to which the United States has freely agreed. The United States plays a major part in deciding how the United Nations is run. But it cannot be run without the dues of its Members. We must understand first of all that the crisis facing the United Nations is not one that can be dealt with by tinkering with the budget or using better cash management techniques. It is rather a political crisis—a crisis of faith in the Organization. As Secretary-General of the United Nations, I have committed myself to restoring that faith. The world must have an efficient and effective United Nations Organization. An Organization more adapted to the needs of the international community, with clear priorities and effective means of responding to the international crises and emergencies which confront us. An Organization which is well-managed, more open, more transparent, with simplified structures and new levels of accountability. Such an Organization, more focused in its aims, can achieve more with less. And this Organization must better serve the Member States. Take peace-keeping. Member States decide on peace-keeping operations, not the Secretary-General. My role is to assist the Security Council in arriving at its decisions, to execute those decisions as efficiently and effectively as possible and to report fully and honestly with recommendations as to future action to be taken. American interests are directly involved in the successful conduct of peace operations. Over the past few years, we have witnessed barbarism and injustice on a scale that, after the Second World War, we had hoped we would never see again. If the United Nations did not exist, world public opinion would in all likelihood turn towards the sole super-Power to ask it to intervene. Instead, the United Nations provides the United States and other countries a way to share responsibility for

peace and order around the globe and to take on collectively the political costs, the financial burden and the human risks involved. If war is the failure of diplomacy, then surely diplomacy, both bilateral and multilateral, is our first line of defence. Any experienced Commander will tell you that without a strong defence, you cannot conduct an offence. The world today spends billions preparing for war. Shouldn’t we spend a billion or two preparing for peace? It does not cost much to strengthen this vital line of defence. The United Nations actions in preventive diplomacy can avert the immense costs—in lives and resources—of war. At the same time, the United Nations must be better able to meet the economic and social development challenges of tomorrow. These are the primary concerns of the majority of the United Nations membership. Economic globalization is unquestionably the shape of the future. But with globalization comes the risk of marginalization for whole parts of the world. I am thinking of Africa and of its severe problems, as well as its great potential. As the one body that brings the world together—rich and poor, big and small—the United Nations cannot avoid being a major actor in economic and social development. The United Nations will not compete with the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—but our efforts will be complementary. Globalization is a source of new challenges for humanity. President Clinton has stressed the need for nations to work together to deal with the new realities of the global era. I agree with him: when we act together, we are stronger and less vulnerable to individual calamity. But we must help each other. To quote one eminent statesman, the late French President François Mitterrand, “if we buy into the illusion that we need only make the planet inhabitable for a few, it will end up becoming uninhabitable altogether”. Only a global organization is capable of meeting these global challenges. I want to say to the American people: you have such an organization. You have the United Nations. The challenges facing the international community do not diminish with time. If anything, they grow more pressing and more difficult. The constant threats of terrorism, civil strife, violent conflict and environmental degradation remind us that the world is a fragile, uncertain, and at times, brutal place. Meeting these challenges requires trust, part-

20 • 24 January 1997

nership and commitment from us all: national governments, parliamentarians, regional and international organizations, non-governmental organizations, the media, the public—in short, from all who make up the United Nations. Today, I ask for partnership. I ask for rededication and reaffirmation of the ideals of the United Nations Charter. The vision which prompted leaders 50 years ago to create the United Nations remains just as relevant today, perhaps even more so. Where we have differences, let us address them openly and honestly. But let us at last put an end to the accusations, counter-accusations and name-calling. We share the extraordinary opportunity of taking the world into the new millennium. Let us leave behind the missed opportunities of recent years. Let us work together to build a world we can all be proud of.

29 January 1997 Letter (EOSG); Sahnoun appointment Letter sent in English to Frederick J. T. Chiluba, president of Zambia; Sam Nujoma, president of Namibia; Meles Zenawi, prime minister of Ethiopia; Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe; Nelson Mandela, president of South Africa; and Benjamin William Mkapa, president of Tanzania, in whose letter there is an additional note asking President Mkapa to meet with Ambassador Sahnoun. The letter was also sent in French to Pasteur Bizimungu, president of Rwanda; Pierre Buyoya, president of Burundi; Léon Kengo wa Dondo, prime minister of Zaire; and Pascal Lissouba, president of Congo-Brazzaville. Dear Mr. President, I am writing on behalf of Secretary-General Salim A. Salim of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and on my own behalf to seek your support for the efforts of our joint Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region of Africa. As you know, the Security Council approved on 24 January 1997 my proposal, made in consultation with Mr. Salim and leaders in the region, to appoint Ambassador Mohamed Sahnoun (Algeria) to this important position. This proposal was submitted with a renewed sense of urgency brought about by the threat of resumed hostilities in eastern Zaire, the continuing plight of refugees and displaced persons in the region, the reported massacres of civilians and returnees and other developments of concern.

Ambassador Sahnoun brings to his mission a deep commitment to Africa, a keen knowledge of the United Nations and the OAU as well as the experience of an accomplished peacemaker. As joint UN/OAU Special Representative, he has been mandated to: (a) use his good offices to promote peaceful settlements of the various conflicts in the region, with special reference initially to the situations in eastern Zaire and Burundi; (b) prepare an international conference on peace, security and development in the region, as endorsed by the Security Council and the OAU; and (c) use his good offices to help preserve the unity and territorial integrity of Zaire and to help restore that country’s national institutions, including through support for the electoral process. Mr. Salim and I cannot overemphasize, Mr. President, how important it will be for our Special Representative to be able to count on your support, wisdom and advice throughout his mission. Ambassador Sahnoun is well aware of Namibia’s influence in the region and intends to work in close consultation with you and your Government so as to improve the prospects of restoring peace and stability in the Great Lakes. As he takes up his new and daunting responsibilities, we wish therefore to commend Ambassador Sahnoun to you and ask, on behalf of the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity, that you extend to him all possible assistance. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

30 January 1997 Secretary-General Speaks at Disarmament Conference

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6151); weapons of mass destruction Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Conference on Disarmament, in Geneva. I am honoured and delighted to be able to address this vital forum, so early in my term as SecretaryGeneral. The world no longer lives under the shadow of the cold war. But today, the nations and peoples of the world are looking to this Conference to press ahead with the global disarmament agenda. They hope that this Conference can bring the twin threats of weapons of mass destruction and the world’s growing stockpile of conventional weapons under control. They expect this Conference to advance one of the fundamental objectives of the United

30 January 1997 • 21 Nations: the maintenance of international peace and security. Ten years ago, even the most optimistic supporters of disarmament could not have expected the cold war to end so abruptly. Nor could we have imagined that its end would lead so rapidly to so much positive cooperation at the unilateral, bilateral, regional and global levels. Today, we have all been jolted out of established strategic concepts born of the cold war and the constant threat of nuclear confrontation. As Secretary-General, I welcome the positive efforts made to advance international cooperation in the three vital areas of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. A variety of successful unilateral measures and mutual agreements on the downsizing of nuclear stockpiles have been put in place. And the nuclear Powers continue to cooperate in seeking safer ways of dismantling weapons and of handling and storing fissile material. The Treaties of Bangkok and Pelindaba, and further consolidation of the Treaties of Tlatelolco and Rarotonga, provide an ever stronger foundation for further advances in the field of nuclear non-proliferation. These Treaties have enhanced the security of the States which are parties to them. Within a few months of its approval by the General Assembly in September 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) had already been signed by 140 States. These include all five nuclear-weapon States, and more than two thirds of the Member States of our Organization. We shall soon witness the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the inauguration of its implementing organization. I urge all those States that have not yet ratified the Convention, and in particular, declared possessors of chemical weapons such as the Russian Federation and the United States, to do so before it enters into force. I welcome the commitment of their Governments to achieving that important goal. The States parties to the Biological Weapons Convention met last year. They agreed to continue seeking ways of reinforcing its international authority through the negotiation of a verification regime. I strongly support these efforts. All of these developments add up to a new and positive climate in the international security arena. We know, however, that uncertainties and serious challenges remain. We must do more, all of us, to develop and enhance new international struc-

tures, and to redefine the mechanics of international relationships in the post-cold-war era. A new international security agenda must be agreed, which takes account of our rapidly changing world. This Conference, therefore, faces a new and serious challenge. Its mandate makes it the sole international body with responsibility for negotiating agreements on arms regulation and disarmament. That is a heavy responsibility. How can your Conference best discharge it, and help to define a new disarmament agenda for the closing years of this millennium? Further decisive progress towards nuclear disarmament has become an expectation of the new era. I add my voice to those who have expressed strong support for the urgent need to continue with the process of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The possibility of nuclear accidents, illicit trafficking in nuclear materials and the threat of nuclear terrorism all underline the need to maintain progress in this area. Nuclear disarmament must remain a priority for the international community. In this respect, your Conference has a unique opportunity to build on the successful work of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT). Although the Treaty has not yet achieved universality, it embraces almost the entire membership of the United Nations. Its decisions could, therefore, constitute a broad guideline for further steps in this field. One such step should be a convention banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. I am aware that this issue poses enormous technical and political difficulties. But I would also remind the Conference that we can never move forward, unless we are prepared to start talking. In my view, the mandate of the ad hoc committee established by the 1995 Conference is inclusive of the positions of all States. I urge the Conference to find a way to build on this positive start and to begin negotiations as soon as possible. The implementation of the international community’s commitment to the irreversible process of nuclear disarmament represents one of the overarching challenges of our time. The specific character of your Conference—a forum of high-standing and broad representation—makes it eminently qualified to lend its support to efforts aimed at furthering this noble objective. I hope that the Conference will be able to avoid a situation which could jeopardize this shared goal.

22 • 30 January 1997

In addition, your Conference has long been concerned over the related issue of security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. This issue could be usefully re-examined to determine how such assurances can be strengthened further. The traditional concerns of this Conference have been weapons of mass destruction. But the increase in local and regional conflicts since the end of the cold war have made the issue of conventional weapons an urgent and important one. These are the weapons which are actually killing combatants and civilians in the tens of thousands every year. We know just how helpless the international community can be when massive amounts of conventional arms are allowed to accumulate, legally or illegally within States. Of course, weapons in themselves, do not cause war. But an excess of arms breeds the suspicion and mistrust that can heighten tensions and lead to violent conflict. Our challenge today is to build on our hope and optimism at the end of the cold war, and not allow real progress in international security to be undermined by new conventional arms races at the regional and subregional levels. On a personal level, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to the courage and devotion of United Nations peace-keepers and to other international personnel. They face the daily threat posed by millions of indiscriminately laid anti-personnel land-mines. These weapons have become weapons of terror. That is why I urge all States to ensure that amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons enters into force as soon as possible and to comply fully with its provisions. I welcome the growing movement in favour of national measures to curb the transfer and use of these weapons and the commitment of more and more States to negotiate an effective legally binding total ban on them. While it is for the international community to decide the best venue for the negotiating process, it would seem logical for the Conference on Disarmament to play a role. The security challenges facing the international community can appear daunting. But they are far from being insurmountable. There are solid grounds for optimism. The Conference has the vision and the tools needed for success. An increased membership gives greater scope for new ideas, suggestions and proposals. Any further expansion of membership must ensure that the

effectiveness of the Conference is preserved, while maintaining its important geographical and political balance. One of the strongest instruments the Conference has, at its disposal, is a consensus approach to problem solving. Without consensus, the solid foundations needed for further disarmament agreements and concerted international action cannot be built. Consensus protects the interests of each State, big or small, and ensures that negotiated treaties and conventions command the widest possible support. The Conference has a proud record of endeavour and of lasting achievement. In short, there is no institution on earth better qualified than your Conference to translate the world’s constant yearning for peace into practical, negotiated measures for enhancing international understanding and the security of all nations. I pledge my full cooperation, and that of the United Nations, for your essential work. I wish you all a productive and successful session in 1997.

30 January 1997 Press Conference at the UN Office in Geneva

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6152) THERESE GASTAUT, Director, United Nations Information Service at Geneva: I have pleasure in opening this press conference of the SecretaryGeneral 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 SecretaryGeneral: 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 SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations. We hope that you

30 January 1997 • 23 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? S-G: 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 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? S-G: 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? S-G: 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 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?

24 • 30 January 1997

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? S-G: 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 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. S-G: 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

30 January 1997 • 25 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 UnderSecretary-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 historical record straight about what really happened in Srebrenica? S-G: 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? S-G: 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

26 • 30 January 1997

scheme went forward and that the needy did get food. And so the 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? S-G: 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. S-G: 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 weapons? S-G: 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? S-G: 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

30 January 1997 • 27 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. S-G: 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. S-G: 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? S-G: 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 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? S-G: 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 BoutrosGhali 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? S-G: 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 peacekeeper 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 military training would be to sensitize the troops to this kind of problem and make them aware and be gender sensitive.

28 • 30 January 1997

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? S-G: 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? S-G: 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 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.

1 February 1997 • 29 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.

31 January 1997 Letter (EOSG); Guatemala Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Hisashi Owada, and to the president of the General Assembly, Ismail Razali. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to the peace accords signed by the Government of Guatemala and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG), which came into force on 29 December 1996. In those accords the parties requested the United Nations to establish a mission to verify all agreements reached between them. In the report promised in paragraph 10 of my report of 26 November 1996 to the General Assembly (A/51/695-S/1996/998) I shall propose that the new mission be called the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) and that it subsume the functions currently performed by the existing United Nations Mission for the Verification of Human Rights and of Compliance with the Commitments of the Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights in Guatemala (also abbreviated as MINUGUA). The purpose of this letter is to inform you that, after consulting the two parties, I have decided to appoint Mr. Jean Arnault as my Special Representative and Head of the United Nations Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA). Mr. Arnault was appointed Unitcd Nations Observer to the peace negotiations in June 1992 and United

Nations Moderator of the negotiations when they were resumed under United Nations auspices in January 1994. His appointment will be with effect from 1 March 1997, on which date Mr. David Stephen, who has led MINUGUA with great distinction since 1 June 1996, will return to New York to assume important functions in my Executive Office. I should be grateful if you would bring this information to the attention of the members of the General Assembly. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

1 February 1997 Secretary-General Stresses Strengthened Partnership Between the UN and Private Sector

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6153); private sector Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland. I am honoured and delighted to address you at such an early stage in my term as SecretaryGeneral. The close link between the private sector and the work of the United Nations is a vitally important one. Working together, our partnership has already achieved important global economic goals. We have promoted stability. We have encouraged economic and political transition. And we have established new levels of trade and economic development. Cooperation in all of these areas has never been greater, nor more successful. Today, economic and political liberalization is being embraced by countries throughout the world. In Asia, Latin America and the Commonwealth of Independent States, governments have made the building of political institutions and the restructuring of economies urgent priorities. They are making room for the dynamism of the private sector. And in Africa, countries are working hard to strengthen institutions and to create more favourable conditions for private investment. We can all be blinded by statistics, but one struck me recently as remarkable—the private capital flows to developing countries have risen 35 times from $5 billion in the early 1970s to $176 billion today. And, at the same time, official development assistance flows are decreasing. Of course, official government spending remains vital to attaining the social, economic and environmental goals of the United Nations. But we at the United

1 February 1997 • 29 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.

31 January 1997 Letter (EOSG); Guatemala Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Hisashi Owada, and to the president of the General Assembly, Ismail Razali. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to the peace accords signed by the Government of Guatemala and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG), which came into force on 29 December 1996. In those accords the parties requested the United Nations to establish a mission to verify all agreements reached between them. In the report promised in paragraph 10 of my report of 26 November 1996 to the General Assembly (A/51/695-S/1996/998) I shall propose that the new mission be called the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) and that it subsume the functions currently performed by the existing United Nations Mission for the Verification of Human Rights and of Compliance with the Commitments of the Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights in Guatemala (also abbreviated as MINUGUA). The purpose of this letter is to inform you that, after consulting the two parties, I have decided to appoint Mr. Jean Arnault as my Special Representative and Head of the United Nations Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA). Mr. Arnault was appointed Unitcd Nations Observer to the peace negotiations in June 1992 and United

Nations Moderator of the negotiations when they were resumed under United Nations auspices in January 1994. His appointment will be with effect from 1 March 1997, on which date Mr. David Stephen, who has led MINUGUA with great distinction since 1 June 1996, will return to New York to assume important functions in my Executive Office. I should be grateful if you would bring this information to the attention of the members of the General Assembly. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

1 February 1997 Secretary-General Stresses Strengthened Partnership Between the UN and Private Sector

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6153); private sector Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland. I am honoured and delighted to address you at such an early stage in my term as SecretaryGeneral. The close link between the private sector and the work of the United Nations is a vitally important one. Working together, our partnership has already achieved important global economic goals. We have promoted stability. We have encouraged economic and political transition. And we have established new levels of trade and economic development. Cooperation in all of these areas has never been greater, nor more successful. Today, economic and political liberalization is being embraced by countries throughout the world. In Asia, Latin America and the Commonwealth of Independent States, governments have made the building of political institutions and the restructuring of economies urgent priorities. They are making room for the dynamism of the private sector. And in Africa, countries are working hard to strengthen institutions and to create more favourable conditions for private investment. We can all be blinded by statistics, but one struck me recently as remarkable—the private capital flows to developing countries have risen 35 times from $5 billion in the early 1970s to $176 billion today. And, at the same time, official development assistance flows are decreasing. Of course, official government spending remains vital to attaining the social, economic and environmental goals of the United Nations. But we at the United

30 • 1 February 1997

Nations welcome the growth in the role of the private sector. Today, the programmes, funds and specialized agencies that make up the United Nations family are working with Member States, as never before, to foster policies that encourage further growth of the private sector and the free market. These initiatives reflect the realities of a changing world. First, there is the new universal understanding that market forces are essential for sustainable development. Second, the role of the State is changing in most of the developing world, from one that seeks to dominate economic life, to one which creates the conditions through which sustainable development is possible. Third, there is growing and compelling evidence that the poor can solve their own problems if only they are given fair access to financial and business development services. If we are to ensure that these positive changes continue and are developed, it is essential that the partnership between the United Nations, governments, and the international corporate community be reinforced. Today, market capitalism has no major ideological rival. Its biggest threat is from within itself. If it cannot promote both prosperity and justice, it will not have succeeded. In the post-cold-war era, peace and security can no longer be defined simply in terms of military might or the balance of terror. The world has changed. Lasting peace requires more than intervention of Blue Helmets on the ground. Effective peace-building demands a broader notion of human security. We cannot be secure amidst starvation. We cannot build peace without alleviating poverty. We cannot build freedom on foundations of injustice. In today’s world, the private sector is the dominant engine of growth; the principal creator of value and wealth; the source of the largest financial, technological, and managerial resources. If the private sector does not deliver economic and economic opportunity—equitably and sustainably—around the world, then peace will remain fragile and social justice a distant dream. This is why I call today for a new partnership amongst governments, the private sector and the international community. I welcome the explosion in trade and capital flows linking people and markets in a new global economy. But the dramatic increase in world trade and the emergence of powerful new trading blocs have also served to add to the marginalization of the world’s poorest nations. Will these blocs be competitive, complementary, or reciprocal in their efforts? It is vital, in my view,

that decision-makers in the new global economy not forget the developing world, especially in forums in which developing countries are not represented. We must bury the myth that development cooperation is no longer needed in light of private sector flows, trade opportunities, and other benefits of globalization. Eighty per cent of direct foreign investment in the developing world goes to only a dozen countries—all middle-income countries with the exception of China. Just 5 per cent goes to Africa and 1 per cent to the 48 least developed countries. By contrast, United Nations assistance goes predominantly to low income countries, where it can pave the way for private sector development. Globalization has given hope that human ingenuity and enterprise will take us forward in to a new golden age, but serious development challenges remain. Globalization in itself cannot be seen as a magical panacea. The benefits of globalization are not always apparent to the poor, the hungry and the illiterate. Over 60 per cent of the world’s population must subsist on $2 or less per day. One hundred of the world’s countries are worse off today than they were 15 years ago. And increasing disparities between the rich and poor within and between countries remain a serious threat to stability and to long-term economic growth. The United Nations and the private sector can and must work together to bring 60 per cent of the world’s population into the market. That will bring prosperity to all. Let us move beyond the traditional dogma of North and South. In every country of the North, there is a bit of the South; in every “South,” there is a “North.” Much of the dramatic growth in the world today is led by countries from the South. The South is the driving force of economic change and offers you, corporate leaders, unprecedented opportunities. Today, there is a clear and demonstrable link between profitability and raising living standards for the world’s poorest people. Profitability and equity are not mutually exclusive goals. Quite the reverse. We can do more, all of us, to address these issues with greater urgency. For our part, the United Nations has established and is promoting a common platform for development action. Our job is to help create the conditions that make your job successful. Working together with Member States, the private sector, and other non-governmental organizations, our platform emphasizes social responsibility, interdependence and, above all, the

4 February 1997 • 31 common pursuit of practical and achievable development goals. At the operational level, partnership is crucial. The United Nations has a vital role to play in supporting and preparing the ground for domestic and foreign private investment. Our detailed work in this area has included assistance for public administration reform, for economic restructuring, for privatization programmes and for essential infrastructure, as well as the strengthening of legal and regulatory frameworks. We set the international norms and standards that make progress possible. The United Nations has played its part in creating special economic zones, removing trade barriers, supporting entrepreneurs, and in the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. In all of these areas, we have a proud record. The United Nations system has often been the principal, if not the sole, source of financial and technical support to over 100 States since the end of the Second World War. Our record is clear: we have made a difference by helping to build new societies, by acting to cease human misery, and by contributing to the peaceful transition from repressive to free and democratic societies. But we can do more. Strengthening the partnership between the United Nations and the private sector will be one of the priorities of my term as Secretary-General. Without greater cooperation, the social and economic needs of the developing world cannot be met. Without greater cooperation, the benefits of foreign investment will not flow to those who need them most. Without greater cooperation, the United Nations cannot learn from, nor utilize fully, the skills, capital, and management expertise of the private sector. We at the United Nations are committed to the long-term view. We are dedicated to reform, in order to build a more efficient and effective Organization, including building ever closer links with the private sector. We can only do this and create an effective organization you can be proud to do business with, by urgently addressing the United Nations’ ongoing financial crisis. We need all Member States to meet their financial obligations to the Organization in full. Today, the United Nations is ready to help you make the case for long-term investments, which are both good business and fundamental to securing the peace and security of our planet. For both the United Nations system and the private sector, our goal for the twenty-first century is nothing less than the creation of a true global economy, genuinely open to all of the world’s peoples.

But this vision is not enough. It must go hand in hand with urgent practical programmes and projects to help unlock the vast human and economic potential of an underdeveloped world. As Secretary-General, I am committed to doing just that. I am open to your advice and I look forward to hearing from you.

4 February 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); East Timor ... Mr. Eckhard said that the Secretary-General was back at Headquarters this morning following his trip to Switzerland. In Davos, the SecretaryGeneral had met with many political leaders whom he had not had the opportunity to meet before. Some of those meetings were substantive. On East Timor, the Secretary-General’s meeting with Portuguese and the Indonesian officials had provided fresh impetus to a political solution. The Secretary-General told both leaders that he would be naming a special representative to conduct sustained and intensive three-way talks on the subject. On the question of Cyprus, the SecretaryGeneral met with Glafcos Clerides, and he hoped to soon meet with Rauf Denktash, the Spokesman said. Despite the increased tension on the island, the Secretary-General believed the efforts to find a political settlement needed to be intensified, particularly before elections were held in Cyprus next year. Mr. Clerides had agreed, Mr. Eckhard added. The Secretary-General’s meeting with the President of the Palestinian Authority Yasser Arafat, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, had provided him with important contacts, Mr. Eckhard said. The problems of non-implementation of agreements and access of Palestinians to places of work was introduced by President Arafat. The Secretary-General discussed those problems with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, who explained that those actions were linked to Israel’s security needs. He added that in the longer term he wanted the Palestinians to have those jobs because their prosperity would contribute to the security of Israel. Mr. Netanyahu also told the SecretaryGeneral that he looked forward to turning a new page in Israel’s relations with the United Nations. In Davos, the Secretary-General had also met with many business leaders, Mr. Eckhard said. That had provided an opportunity to discuss his

32 • 4 February 1997

ideas on a partnership between the private sector and development, Mr. Eckhard said. The Secretary-General said there was a natural partnership between the Organization and the private sector because the work of the United Nations in developing countries often prepared the way for private investment. The Secretary-General also said that it was not enough that companies reap huge profits; they also needed to have a social conscience. Current private investment went to a relatively small number of developing countries, the Secretary-General said, adding that a partnership with the United Nations could encourage companies to focus their resources on the least developed countries. . . . During the subsequent question-and-answer session, a correspondent asked if there was a schedule for the proposed meetings on Cyprus and what the Secretary-General’s intentions were on the proposed meetings. Mr. Eckhard said that the Secretary-General hoped to begin with proximity talks in order to address the concerns of both sides and then move those to higher level discussions later in the year. Mr. Eckhard said that no dates for those meetings had been scheduled as yet. A correspondent asked if the SecretaryGeneral’s management team was complete. Mr. Eckhard said that the team was largely complete. In addition, a number of assistant and under-secretaries-general had been reconfirmed, reassigned or were leaving the Organization. A few additional announcements were yet to be made. A correspondent asked the Secretary-General’s position on the issue of Security Council reform. Mr. Eckhard said that Security Council reform was in the hands of Member States, but that the Secretary-General had offered his help if the five working groups of the General Assembly entrusted with reform issues stalled or became bogged down. The Secretary-General would also have to interact with Member States on that issue as he presented his overall package on reform of the United Nations by July.

5 February 1997 Letter (UN archives); policy coordination Letter to the Secretary-General from under-secretary-general for political affairs, Marrack Goulding, submitting his recommendations for the newly created Executive Committee on Peace and Security. This committee will regularly bring together the heads of the departments that deal with these matters.

NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Policy Coordination Group: Executive Committee on Peace and Security (ECPS)

1. As requested in Mr. Riza’s memorandum of 31 January, I submit my recommendations on the Executive Committee on Peace and Security for which the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs is the designated convenor. They have been agreed with the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and the Officer-in-Charge of DPKO but I have not yet consulted the proposed external members. 2. Composition: It is recommended that the core members of the ECPS should be the UnderSecretaries-General for Political Affairs (convenor), Humanitarian Affairs and Peace-keeping Opera-tions and the Administrator of UNDP. It is further recommended that a representative of EOSG should attend. The heads of DAM and OLA and the New York representatives of the High Commis-sioners for Human Rights and for Refugees would be invited to attend when the agenda so indicates. The High Commissioners would be invited to attend themselves when they were in New York on the day of a regular meeting of ECPS and, if necessary, a special meeting could be arranged to hear them. I will inform them in writing of these arrangements. Visiting SRSG/SESG’s would also be invited to brief the ECPS when they were in New York. 3. The practical arrangements for the meetings would be as follows: (a) Periodicity: every second Tuesday at 3:15 pm, beginning on Tuesday, 11 February; (b) Venue: conference room of the UnderSecretary-General for Political Affairs (S-3770F), unless the size of the meeting makes it necessary to use the conference room of one of the ASGs for Political Affairs on the 35th floor; (c) Attendance: as in paragraph 2 above; meetings to be kept small but principals would be entitled to bring aides, as required by the agenda, but with an absolute maximum of one plus three in the room at any one time; (d) Note-taker: to be provided by DPA; notes to be circulated to participants; recommendations to the Secretary-General to be transmitted in a separate note signed by the convenor; (e) Agenda: to be circulated by the convenor after consultation with the other core members. 4. The weekly meetings restricted to the Under-Secretaries-General of Humanitarian Affairs, Peace-keeping Operations and Political

6 February 1997 • 33 Affairs will continue to be held at 9:00 am on Wednesday mornings on a rotating basis. 5. The tri-departmental “Framework for Coordination” meetings (which are held at Director/Principal Officer level) will continue as at present but with the proviso that one should always take place in the week preceding the regular meeting of ECPS. Copy to: Mr. Akashi Mr. Eisele

5 February 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/114, A/51/796); Guatemala Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Njuguna Moses Mahugu O. G. W., and the president of the General Assembly, Ismail Razali. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to transmit herewith the texts of the last two agreements pertaining to the Guatemala peace process which were signed by the Peace Commission of the Government of Guatemala and the General Command of the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG) under the auspices of the United Nations on 29 December 1996. The Agreement on the Implementation, Compliance and Verification Timetable for the Peace Agreements was signed by the parties in Guatemala City on 29 December 1996 in the presence of the United Nations Moderator, Mr. Jean Arnault. This Agreement is a detailed guide for the implementation of all the commitments undertaken by the parties in agreements signed since 1994. It sets out a calendar for the phased implementation of these commitments from 1997 to the end of 2000 and for the establishment of the Follow-up Commission to ensure that the process is carried out effectively. The Agreement also requests the Secretary-General to establish a Mission to verify all the agreements, into which the current Human Rights Verification Mission, MINUGUA, is to be absorbed. The Agreement on a Firm and Lasting Peace was signed in the National Palace of Guatemala City on 29 December 1996, in a formal ceremony attended by President Alvaro Arzú, by the heads of State of numerous nations, and by my predecessor, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who was, in addition, a signatory of the Agreement. This Agreement brings into effect all the previous agreements encompassing military, political, social, economic

and environmental issues and binds them into a comprehensive nation-wide agenda for peace. It is a milestone both for Guatemala, where it ends 35 years of internal conflict, and for Central America, where it ends the last war in the isthmus and thus completes the principal task which the Presidents of the region set themselves when they signed the Esquipulas II agreement in 1997. As requested by A/RESI5 1/198, I shall submit recommendations shortly to the General Assembly on how the structure and staffing of the current MINUGUA should be redesigned to allow the new Mission to fulfill the new responsibilities arising from the signing of peace. I should be grateful if you could convey the contents of this letter and its enclosures to the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

6 February 1997 Letter (UN archives); UN reform In this memo, Joseph Connor, under-secretarygeneral for management, lays out some thoughts on management reform, followed by the two documents mentioned below. To: The Secretary-General From: Joseph E. Connor Subject: United Nations Reform 1. Your conversations with regional groups, officials and parliamentarians of Member States and the media have conveyed a strong understanding and commitment on your part to reform. 2. At the same time, your conversations with Ambassadors Dejammet and Gnehm last week emphasized not only that you have determined the direction and set forth the process of reform, but also that there will be progress to report each step of the way. 3. Most “early” progress will be in the management reform area . . . a series of “progress steps” building toward your July report, establishing a continuum and following a timetable. 4. Attached is a list of possible substantive actions and potential “events” that could highlight progress on reform over the next several months, maintain the pace and contribute to a series of positive reviews leading up to the July report. These actions can be carried out under executive authority, a course of action you have already signaled you plan to take in full measure. 5. It would obviously be very helpful if the

34 • 6 February 1997

communique from the G-7 (P-8) Economic Summit were able to include a strong endorsement of the direction and pace of the actions that you are taking. Also, by highlighting actual results that benefit Member States and the Organization, it may make it easier to gain consensus on more difficult changes. 6. I would welcome a chance to discuss this further.

You could drop by the work shop or meet with the teams to reinforce your support for simplification and delegation of administrative processes. February

Address the High Level Group on Strengthening the United Nations You could use this occasion to lay out your framework, timetable and benchmark for reform, using as a base the National Press Club speech.

March

Press Conference on release of 1998–1999 budget

April

ACC: You could use this opportunity to lay out a vision of UN-wide reform and ask heads of all agencies to lead reform.

Other Events

Announcement of other appointments You could use this occasion to address all UN managers and to set your expectations for reform.

* * * Potential Executive Actions

Announce framework for reform. Release new organization chart with 4 key strategic areas. Announce heads of each area indicating that they will be leading a reform/rationalization of that cluster. Initiate the consolidation of Economic and Social departments. Announce the composition of your cabinet. Announce reform benchmarks that you are using (based on National Press Club speech). Announce integration of Efficiency Task Force Effort into a Change Management Office within the Secretariat. Present 1998–1999 negative growth budget. Announce continuation of early retirement programme. Issue code of conduct. Announce first quarter managerial reform report on results and further directions managerial reforms will take. Announce plan to shift 5–10% resources from administration to programmes, with a slogan such as “one dollar less in administration is one more dollar for programmes.” Initiate second round of efficiency reviews. Ask heads of all UN system to lead reform in their funds, programmes and agencies. Ask for report from them by 15 June on what they are doing and plan to do. Announce Management Pilots for Increased Accountability in ECLAC, Conference Services, UNOV, etc. Announce subject-specific clusters of reform efforts, for example, a package of information technology changes in the Secretariat, such as proposed Security Council Geographic Information System, negotiation room, video-conferencing capacity, remote translation, etc. * * * Events and Opportunities for Reform Statements or Announcements

February 18–21

Process simplification workshop

UN 21 Awards You could give the next set of UN 21 Awards to teams achieving significant results in enhancing effectiveness and efficiency of the organization. Press Conference on early results of managerial reform Managers Forum You could address UN managers in this weekly New York/Geneva forum.

7 February 1997 Letter (EOSG); Liberia Letter sent to Don Abel Matutes, minister of foreign affairs of Spain; UNDP administrator James Gustave Speth; US secretary of state Madeleine Albright; and, in French, to Erik Derycke, minister of foreign affairs of Belgium. Excellency, I have the honour to invite you, or a representative, to attend the Ministerial Meeting of the

14 February 1997 • 35 Special Conference to Support the Peace Process in Liberia, which will be held at United Nations Headquarters in New York on 20 February 1997. The convening of such a meeting was agreed at the first Ministerial Meeting of the Special Conference, held in Brussels on 21 November 1996 and chaired by His Excellency Mr. Jan Pronk, Minister for Development Cooperation of the Netherlands. The Ministerial Meeting, which I will be chairing, has been organized at the request of the Governments of the Netherlands, the United States and Nigeria and the Liberian National Transitional Government. In addition to these Governments, the meeting will bring together the members of the International Contact Group on Liberia, the members of the Committee of Nine on Liberia of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Bretton Woods Institutions and relevant United Nations departments, programmes and agencies. Building on the momentum generated by the positive outcome of the disarmament phase, the Ministerial Meeting will focus on identifying and addressing the immediate needs of the peace process in Liberia, as well as on the critical requirements which are seen for the medium term. A draft agenda for the Meeting is attached. A background paper on each of the agenda items will be prepared by the Secretariat and distributed to participants by 10 February. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

10 February 1997 Letter (EOSG); Liberia Letter sent to Njuguna M. Mahugu O. G. W., president of the Security Council. Excellency, I have the honour to transmit to you a copy of the United Nations Recommendations on a Framework for the Holding of Elections in Liberia. The Recommendations, which were prepared in response to a formal request from the Council of State of the Liberian National Transitional Government for United Nations assistance in developing a suitable electoral framework for the holding of elections in Liberia by the end of May 1997, have been transmitted to the Chairman of the Council of State and the Chairman of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). I should be grateful if you would bring the

contents of this letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

10 February 1997 Letter (EOSG); Liberia Letter sent to General Sani Abacha, head of state, Nigeria. Excellency, I have the honour to transmit the United Nations Recommendations on a Framework for the Holding of Elections in Liberia. The Recommendations were prepared in response to a formal request from the Council of State of the Liberian National Transitional Government for United Nations assistance in developing a suitable electoral framework, for the holding of elections in Liberia by the end of May 1997. They take into account the conclusions of a technical survey team from the United Nations Electoral Assistance Division which visited Liberia in December 1996, as well as the subsequent consultations conducted with ECOWAS, the Liberian parties and others by my Special Envoy in January 1997. I am also forwarding copies of the Recommendations to the President of the Security Council and to the Chairman of the Council of State of the Liberian National Transitional Government. Once an electoral framework has been formally enacted, I will present specific recommendations to the Security Council on the assistance that UNOMIL and the United Nations could provide to the electoral process. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

14 February 1997 Secretary-General Expresses Concern over the Militarization of the Main Refugee Encampment in Eastern Zaire

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6158); Eastern Zaire The Secretary-General is deeply concerned about recent developments in eastern Zaire, and in particular about reports of the militarization of the main refugee encampment near Tingi-Tingi, which now hosts an estimated 150,000 refugees in makeshift camps, including several thousand unaccompanied minors. This situation puts at risk the lives of innocent refugees and humanitarian workers in the area.

36 • 14 February 1997

According to reliable reports, former Rwandan soldiers and militia in the settlement are receiving weapons, ammunition and uniforms by air and are being sent to the front line. Military elements are being deployed in positions near the camps, and sections of the encampment are being used as storage facilities for arms and ammunition. Young male refugees are being actively recruited. The Secretary-General conveyed his concern this afternoon to the President of the Security Council, as well as to its five permanent members. He appeals to the parties to stop turning the refugee camp into an armed base and to ensure the safety and security of all refugees and humanitarian personnel. He hopes that leaders in the region will prevail on the protagonists to the conflict to accept a cease-fire and allow time for negotiations to resume.

18 February 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/136); Zaire Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Njuguna M. Mahugu. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to the mission of the joint United Nations Organization of African Unity Special Representative for the Great Lakes region, Mr. Mohammed Sahnoun, who is currently in Kinshasa. Mr. Sahnoun is at present working on a fivepoint peace plan, which is based on your statement (SIPRST/1997/5) of 7 February 1997 and which he hopes will be accepted by all parties. The points are as follows: (1) immediate cessation of hostilities; (2) withdrawal of all external forces, including mercenaries; (3) reaffirmation of respect for the national sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Zaire and other states of the Great Lakes region; (4) protection and security for all refugees and displaced persons and facilitation of access to humanitarian assistance; (5) rapid and peaceful settlement of the crisis through dialogue, the electoral process and the convening of an international conference on peace, security and development in the Great Lakes region. As you know, numerous initiatives are currently underway to restore peace in eastern Zaire. The Foreign Ministers of Kenya, South Africa and Tanzania are in Kinshasa. The Foreign Ministers

of Cameroon, Congo and Zimbabwe are arriving there today, as is the Secretary-General of the OAU, Mr. Salim Salim. It would greatly assist the efforts of the joint United Nations/Organization of African Unity Special Representative if consideration were to be given by the Security Council, on an urgent basis, to an appropriate acknowledgement and support of his initiative. I should be grateful if you could bring this letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

20 February 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Zaire At the outset of today’s noon briefing, Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the Secretary-General, apologized for starting the briefing later than usual. The Secretary-General had been trying to get through to South Africa to get a handle on what’s going on there, he said. Eventually, the Secretary-General had gotten through to VicePresident Thabo Mbeki who had confirmed that a Zairian delegation had arrived in South Africa and a delegation on the side of the rebels, headed by Laurent Kabila, was expected to arrive by the weekend. The effort of the South Africans would be to eventually bring the two sides to face-to-face discussions, Mr. Eckhard said. However, at the outset, they might have to operate on a proximity basis. A first and probably difficult objective would be to arrive at an agenda for discussions. The aim would be to get both sides to accept the elements of a peace agreement put together by the United Nations/Organization of African Unity (OAU) Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region, Mohamed Sahnoun, and endorsed unanimously by the Security Council. The Secretary-General is grateful for this important initiative by South Africa, Mr. Eckhard added. He went on to say that correspondents might have noticed that the United Nations flag was flying at half mast and all other flags had not been hoisted. That was in commemoration of the death of China’s paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping. Statements by the Secretary-General and the General Assembly President had been issued yes-

24 February 1997 • 37 terday and were still available in the Spokesman’s Office. The Second Ministerial Meeting of the Special Conference to Support the Peace Process in Liberia had started in the Trusteeship Council at 10 a.m., he said. The first meeting of the Special Conference had been held in November 1996. The Secretary-General had opened the meeting and called for a common approach, as well as a common strategy for implementation of the final phase of the peace process in Liberia. Although the present meeting was not a pledging conference, the Secretary-General had said additional resources would be needed for humanitarian assistance, the electoral process and reconstruction. He had appealed to Member States not to pull the financial rug out from underneath those efforts. The full text of his statement, as well as the programme of the Conference, was available in the Spokesman’s Office. Next week, starting on Tuesday, 25 February, the Secretary-General would begin a three-nation visit to Europe, Mr. Eckhard said. He would arrive in London on Tuesday. On Wednesday morning, he would have an audience with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of England and would lunch with parliamentarians. At 3 p.m., he would attend the unveiling of the Wallenberg Monument by Her Majesty, the Queen, at Western Marble Arch Synagogue. Later that day, he would meet with the Deputy Chairman of Nat West Markets, Douglas Hurd. Thereafter, he would pay a call on Prime Minister John Major and meet with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Malcolm Rifkind. On Thursday, 27 February, the SecretaryGeneral had a full programme, starting with a meeting with President Ezer Weizman of Israel, Mr. Eckhard said. Following that, he would meet with the leader of the opposition in the British Parliament, Rt. Hon. Anthony Blair. Later on Thursday, he would travel to Paris, where in the afternoon he would meet with the President of the National Assembly, Phillippe Seguin, and Prime Minister Alain Juppé. On Friday, he would meet: the Minister of Defence, Charles Millon; the Secretary of State for Humanitarian Affairs, Mr. Emmanueli; the President of the Commission of Foreign Affairs and Defence of the Senate, Xavier de Villepin; and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Hervé de Charette. That would be followed by lunch at the Foreign Ministry in the afternoon, a meeting with the President of the Commission of Foreign

Affairs of the National Assembly, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, and a meeting with the Minister of Environment, Madame Lepage. The Secretary-General would meet with the President of France, Jacques Chirac, on Saturday, 1 March, Mr. Eckhard said. The rest of his programme included a meeting with the Director of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Frederico Mayor, in the afternoon. On Sunday, 2 March, the Secretary-General would travel to The Hague, he said. He would meet with the Minister for Development Cooperation of the Netherlands, Jan Pronk, on Monday morning. Following that, he would have a working lunch with President Stephen Schwebel of the International Court of Justice, as well as the Judges. In the afternoon, he would meet the Judges of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and visit the courtroom. Thereafter, he would meet the Prosecutor, Registrar and the staff. On Tuesday, 4 March, the Secretary-General would meet with the Prime Minister, Wim Kok, and have an audience with Her Majesty Queen Beatrix, in the afternoon, Mr. Eckhard said. He would return to New York that afternoon. . . .

24 February 1997 Letter (EOSG); Bosnia Letter from Michael Steiner of the Office of the High Commissioner, Sarajevo, to Alija Izetbegovic, chair of the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This letter was forwarded to the Secretary-General with its attached report. It is included here as an example of the ongoing violence in Bosnia at the time. Alija Izetbegovic Chair of the Presidency Kresimir Zubak Member of the Presidency Bosnia and Herzegovina Confidential until Tuesday, 2100 hrs. Dear Presidents, Please find enclosed an advance copy of the UN IPTF Report in pursuance of the 12 February Decisions on Mostar. This Report has been submitted to the Principals of the Major Implementation Agencies in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Contact Group today and will form the basis for our meeting with the Federation partners scheduled for Tuesday, 25 February, when

38 • 24 February 1997

decisions on the necessary conclusions shall be taken. Please keep this Report absolutely confidential until after tomorrow night’s meeting. With the full support of the Principals and the Contact Group, I request from you the following: I. As you will see from the Report, the UNIPTF Special Investigation Group has succeeded in establishing the facts related to the intended Bajram visit to the Kneza Mihajla Humskog/ former Liska Street graveyard on 10 February in full. The Report contains irrefutable proof that plainclothes and uniformed West Mostar police officers opened fire at the backs of citizens who had at that moment already given up on visiting the graveyard and were retreating. One person was killed and at least 20 persons were wounded. The investigation did not reveal any provocations justifying the use of force by police. Instead, the investigation has shown that the West Mostar Police had received advance notification of the planned visit to the cemetery, had acknowledged the visit and had assigned police officers to the route in advance. There was no connection between the graveyard visit and the festivities on the Rondo. Nevertheless, rather than performing their duty of protecting the public, the police not only participated in but instigated the violence. It is vital now to demonstrate to the citizens of this country that crimes do not go unpunished. In particular, the following must be undertaken immediately: 1. Ivan Hrkac, Deputy Chief of the West Mostar Police, and Zeljko Planinic, West Mostar police officer, have been identified as firing into the retreating marchers on Kneza Mihajla Humskog/ former Liska Street on 10 February 1997. One plainclothes officer, Bozo Peric, was identified by witnesses and seen firing into the crowd. They must be dismissed from office and arrested by 26 February, and then prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 2. Police officers Zlatko Pavlovic and Josip Cvitanovic have been photographed with their weapons drawn during the shooting. They must be suspended from their duties by 26 February and their actions must be criminally investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 3. Contrary to his obligation to co-operate fully, the Chief of the West Mostar Police Marko Radic obstructed the UN IPTF investigation. He must be dismissed from office by 26 February and replaced by a professional police officer from outside the Mostar region.

Criminal investigations and judicial proceedings relating to all police officers involved in the 10 February incident must proceed promptly and be pursued to the full extent of the law with complete international monitoring. In addition, as I have announced in Point 11 of the Mostar Decisions, I will recommend to the EU Governments and to the Steering Board members to bar those who have been identified in the Report as perpetrators of the violence, including Mr. Hrkac, Mr. Planinic and W. Peric, from travelling to Europe and overseas. II. The shooting of 10 February is inexcusable. But it cannot be seen in a political vacuum. The weeks preceding 10 February saw a sequence of incidents, including grenade attacks on both sides of the city and on the Franciscan Monastery located at the Boulevard, without the political leadership undertaking serious joint efforts to calm down the growing tensions. It is distressing that neither the Mostar Mayor and his Deputy nor the Canton Minister of Interior and his Deputy, notwithstanding their political differences, addressed the public jointly and undertook all efforts to keep extremists in check. Their political performance and their efforts to put an end to inflammatory statements issued by public figures and in the press will have to be monitored closely. I will not hesitate to request your intervention and action of the EU Governments regarding travel restrictions against any politician in the Herzegovina Neretva Canton who continues to pour oil into the flames. Additional steps need to be taken to further normalise the situation in Mostar and other parts of the Federation. The Report states that as information of the violence of 10 February spread, random and sporadic attacks on citizens in locations around the city and on routes out of and into Mostar (M 17) were reported. These attacks involved Bosniak victims, but many of them were also directed against Bosnian Croats. The Report states that the failure of the police, both in East and West Mostar, to provide protection to potential and actual victims of the series of cross-ethnic attacks both in the incidents prior to and after the 10 February event illustrates the serious absence of professional police leadership throughout the area. Therefore, I request from both of you to address this issue and to replace the police leadership on both sides of the Neretva with professional police officers from outside Mostar. Violence spread beyond Mostar. On 20 February, unknown criminals attacked the Church and Monastery of St. Anthony in Sarajevo with

24 February 1997 • 39 hand grenades. This attack—in particular as it was directed against the Central Bosnian Franciscans who have long stood for tolerance and multiethnicity—is an assault on these values in Sarajevo, in the Federation and in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole. The Principals have requested the UN IPTF and the Human Rights Coordination Centre of the OHR to submit an additional report detailing the incidents preceding and following the violence of 10 February for consideration by the Federation partners. The Federation Partners must commit themselves to draw all necessary conclusions, including personal consequences for all of officials and police officers who have failed to perform their duties. III. Mostar must be addressed now. But beyond recent events in Mostar, the Federation as a whole is facing a severe crisis. More radical efforts must be undertaken to achieve a turning point in the relations between the peoples of the Federation and their leaders. In particular, you should now commit yourselves personally to speedy implementation of the Sarajevo Protocol, the adoption of a first Law on Municipal Reforms, and further progress in building the Mostar institutions. The Federation must take a new approach to the media as well. The return of refugees and displaced persons must also be addressed. It is unacceptable that three years after the conclusion of the Washington and Vienna Agreements, return to minority areas within the Federation has not yet really started. I have enclosed a detailed list of steps to be undertaken following the UN TPTF Report, and of urgent Federation issues on which I will request your agreement tomorrow. Yours sincerely, Ambassador Michael Steiner Principal Deputy High Representative * * * ADDENDUM TO THE LETTER OF AMBASSADOR STEINER TO PRESIDENT IZETBEGOVIC AND PRESIDENT ZUBAK OF 24 FEBRUARY

I. Implementation of the Decisions on Mostar of 12 February

1. The Reinstatement Team (composed of Mostar police, UN IPTF, and SFOR) formed under Point 4 of the decisions on Mostar has now successfully assisted in allowing all persons illegally evicted in the wake of the events on 10 February to return to their homes. The Team will continue its work. In

particular, it will reinstate any persons who the Mostar Deputy Federation Ombudsman has determined were illegally evicted, should the authorities fail to act promptly to implement the Ombudsman’s findings. 2. While the number of illegal evictions has substantially decreased, the threat of illegal eviction continues to cause many Mostar citizens to fear for their safety in their own homes. The report submitted by the Cantonal Minister of Interior and his Deputy relating to reinstatements will be supplemented by 1 March with an additional report concerning the specific steps taken by the authorities to investigate all cases of illegal evictions, as well as attempted evictions and threats, and to prosecute those responsible, as required by Point 4 of the Decisions. 3. As of 24 February, Point 6 of the Decisions on Mostar regarding the commitment to the United Police Force of Mostar and the full participation in its work has not been implemented. President Izetbegovic and President Zubak will ensure that the police receive immediate instructions to resume participation including in the joint headquarters. 4. Freedom of movement, under Point 8 of the Decisions, has not been fully established. Additional measures must be taken to restore confidence so that the citizens of Mostar feel able to move freely, including the removal of the sleeping policemen on the Boulevard. 5. Implementation of Point 10 regarding maximum restraint in public statements remains vital. In particular in light of the findings of the UN TPTF Report, the statement by the Ministry of Interior of the Herzegovina Neretva Canton on the opening of criminal investigations against the Deputy Mayor of Mostar and others in connection with the events of 10 February is unacceptable. The Minister of Interior, Mr. Valentin Coric, is requested to immediately retract this statement publicly. II. Conclusions to Be Drawn from the UN IPTF Report

1. The UN IPTF will deliver its Report to the Government of the Herzegovina Neretva Canton, to the judicial authorities of the Canton and the West Mostar police for further action. 2. Mr. Ivan Hrkac, Deputy Chief of the West Mostar Police, and Mr. Zeljko Planinic, West Mostar police officer, have been identified as firing at the retreating marchers on Kneza Mihajla Humskog/former Liska Street on 10 February 1997. One plainclothes officer, Bozo Peric, was identified by witnesses and seen firing into the

40 • 24 February 1997

crowd. The authorities shall immediately dismiss the three men from office and issue arrest warrants for them. The authorities will take all necessary steps to ensure their arrest by 26 February and to prosecute these men to the full extent of the law. 3. Police officers Mr. Zlatko Pavlovic and Mr. Josip Cvitanovic have been photographed with their weapons drawn during the shooting. The authorities shall indefinitely suspend them from their duties by 26 February. A criminal investigation shall be initiated against both men, as well as against the as-yet unidentified police officer who was also photographed with his weapon drawn. 4. The criminal investigation of Mr. Hrkac, Mr. Planinic, Mr. Peric, Mr. Pavlovic and Mr. Cvitanovic will be pursued vigorously and will be completed as soon as possible. Upon completion of the criminal investigation, these cases will be brought to trial before an independent and impartial court and prosecuted to the full extent of law. 5. All police officers identified as being present at Kneza Mihajla Humskog/former Liska Street on 10 February will be investigated to determine their involvement in the violence. Any police officer who assaulted, without any legal basis, any of the marchers will be immediately suspended from duty and will be criminally prosecuted. 6. Any person convicted in relation to the events of 10 February will be dismissed from office and barred from holding other public office or employment. 7. In accordance with Annex 11 to the Peace Agreement, UN IPTF will have complete access to any site, person, activity, proceeding, record or other item or event throughout the criminal investigation and legal proceedings. Trials will be open to the public. 8. The Chief of the West Mostar Police, Mr. Marko Radic, did not fulfil his obligations under the Decisions of Mostar to co-operate fully and in good faith with the UN IPTF Special Investigation Group. He will be dismissed from office by 26 February and replaced by a professional police officer from outside the Mostar region. 9. The Principal Deputy High Representative will immediately recommend to the EU Governments and the Steering Board members to bar Mr. Hrkac, Mr. Planinic and Mr. Peric from travelling to Europe and overseas. Should others be found guilty in the upcoming judicial procedures, similar recommendations will be made regarding these persons. 10. The Report states that the failure of the police, both in East and West Mostar, to provide

protection to potential and actual victims of the series of cross-ethnic attacks prior to and after the 10 February event illustrates the serious absence of professional police leadership throughout the area. Therefore, President Izetbegovic and President Zubak are requested to replace the police leadership on both sides of the Neretva with professional police officers. III. Request for an Additional Report by UN IPTF and the HRCC

UN IPTF in cooperation with the Human Rights Coordination Centre of the Office of the High Representative will submit an additional report detailing the incidents preceding and following the events of 10 February, including detention and assaults of motorists on the M-17 road. This report will be submitted to the Principals of the Major Implementation Agencies in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to the Contact Group within ten days. The Federation Partners agree to accept and endorse this report in full and to draw the necessary conclusions from it. IV. Federation Implementation

1. The Sarajevo Protocol must be implemented without delay. The Sarajevo Working Group shall complete its work within two weeks. The amendments of the Federation and Canton Constitutions shall be adopted by the Assemblies by 14 March. On 15 March, the City Council shall constitute itself, adopt the City Statute and elect the new Mayor of the City of Sarajevo. 2. In parallel work on the amendments of the Federation and Herzegovina Neretva Canton constitutions regarding Mostar shall be completed and the amendments shall be adopted by the Assemblies by 14 March. 3. The Advisory Commission on municipal reforms shall conclude its work on split municipalities and the formation of a first group of new municipalities as agreed in the Commission by 25 February. The Federation House of Representatives shall adopt the Draft Law on 28 February. 4. President Izetbegovic and President Zubak will be personally available to ensure that any obstacle to the implementation of points 1–3 above will be overcome and the deadlines met. 5. The next Federation Forum will devote its attention to the security situation in the Federation, in particular in Central Bosnian municipalities. For this purpose, the Federation Ombudsman together with the Human Rights Coordination Centre of the Office of the High Representative will prepare a report to be submitted to the Forum.

24 February 1997 • 41 6. President lzetbegovic and President Zubak agree to a meeting with the Principal Deputy High Representative and the UNHCR Special Envoy by 7 March concerning return in the Federation in order to decide on how the Federation authorities will overcome present obstacles to return. * * * DECISIONS ON MOSTAR OF 12 FEBRUARY 1997

On 12 February, President Izetbegovic, President Zubak, Co-Chairman Silajdzic, Vice Chairman Tomic, Foreign Minister Prlic, HDZ President Rajic, SDA Vice President and Prime Minister Bicakeic, Mostar Mayor Prskalo and Deputy Mayor Orucevic met in Sarajevo to address the recent events in Mostar. The meeting was chaired by the Principal Deputy High Representative, Ambassador Steiner. Also present were COMSFOR General Crouch, Acting Police Commissioner Wasserman and Head of OHR South Garrod. The participants condemned in strongest terms the violent acts committed in Mostar and all provocative acts preceding the present crisis. They equally condemned the evictions of Mostar citizens and the harassments on the road to and from Mostar which followed the events of Monday. They deeply deplored the bloodshed and the loss of life of Mostar citizens. They expressed their condolences to the bereaved, and sympathy to those who were injured. The participants committed themselves to all efforts to calm down tensions, to overcome the present crisis and to fully implement existing Federation agreements, including the Mostar provisions of the Agreed Measures of the Federation Forum of 3 February. All of the facts must be established. They agreed that the recent acts of violence should not go unpunished and that the perpetrators must be brought to justice. The following decisions were taken: 1. The participants reconfirmed the request to the UN IPTF to conduct an independent investigation into the events and to submit a report which should, in particular, identify those individuals responsible for the escalation of violence and the attacks on Mostar citizens. They took note of the fact that for this purpose the UN IPTF has established an independent investigation team on 11 February. Its findings will be submitted to the Principals of the Major Implementation Agencies in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to the Contact Group within one week.

2. The participants committed themselves personally to ensure that the UN IPTF will receive all available evidence and that police forces will cooperate fully and in good faith in the conduct of the investigation. Local police shall comply with all demands by the investigation team and will assist the UN IPTF in all stages of the investigations, including by making all persons immediately available for interviews by the investigators. The operational responsibility for the provision of the evidence to the UN IPTF lies with the Mayor and his Deputy. 3. The participants agreed that they would accept and endorse the report by the UN IPTF in full and that they would draw the necessary conclusions from it, in particular the following: (a) Perpetrators will be arrested and brought to trial. (b) Office holders including police found responsible of instigating or participating in violent acts will be dismissed from their offices. 4. The participants guarantee that all citizens who have been evicted from their homes in the course of the recent events will be enabled to return to their apartments without delay. The participants will also give instructions that all persons responsible for illegal evictions are identified, arrested, and prosecuted. All illegal evictions will be stopped. The participants decided that the Cantonal Minister of Interior and his Deputy would he personally responsible for the implementation of this provision and submit full compliance reports to the Head of the OHR South by 18 February. The participants stressed their determination to dismiss those policemen from their duties who in the judgment of the UN IPTF do not cooperate in the implementation of this provision in good faith. They requested the UN IPTF to closely monitor the return of evicted citizens to their homes. 5. The participants appealed to the UN IPTF and SFOR to keep an increased presence in Mostar until the situation has further stabilized and full freedom of movement is reestablished. They request the authorities that the nightly curfew should remain in place and be enforced by the local police forces of Mostar until UN IPTF determines that the security situation allows its suspension. 6. The participants reconfirmed their commitment to the UPFM and will instruct the police in Mostar to fully participate in its work with immediate effect including the proper functioning of the joint headquarters.

42 • 24 February 1997

7. The participants took note of the fact that the carrying of long-barreled weapons by the police in Mostar is not authorized by the UN IPTF and that UN IPTF/SFOR will continue to confiscate these weapons from both police and civilians. The participants instructed the local police to immediately remove these weapons and hand them over to SFOR immediately. 8. The participants reconfirmed their commitment to full freedom of movement in and around Mostar. They decided that all existing obstacles to freedom of movement and illegal checkpoints will be immediately removed and that the police forces will, upon the instruction and in cooperation with UN IPTF and SFOR, have prosecuted those who hinder freedom of movement. 9. The participants agreed to immediately reconnect the telephone lines between East and West Mostar and to keep those lines open. 10. The participants deplored inflammatory statements in the media which had aggravated the situation and contributed to the escalation of the crisis in Mostar. They committed themselves to show maximum restraint and to instruct the authorities of Mostar and the Herzegovina Neretva Canton to do likewise. Decisions of the Media Expert Commission of the Provisional Elections Commission on inflammatory statements will be implemented. The participants request the Canton Minister of Interior and his Deputy to nominate media liaison officers to the UN IPTF in Mostar who should disseminate, on a regular basis and as appropriate, reliable information to the media on the security situation in the city. 11. The Principle Deputy High Representative drew the attention of the participants to the request of the Presidency of the European Union and Steering Board of Peace Implementation Conference of 21 January 1997 to the Office of the High Representative to identify those individuals responsible for human rights violations and for serious contravention to the letter and the spirit of the Peace Agreement with a view to barring their travel to Europe and overseas. He announced that on the basis of the findings of the UN IPTF report, he would make recommendations to the EU Governments and to the Steering Board members accordingly. 12. The participants agreed to monitor the situation in Mostar closely and to convene a followup meeting as soon as the UN IPTF report is submitted. The participants requested in particular the media covering the Mostar region to carry the text of the Agreement in full in their news reporting.

In case of any dispute regarding these Decisions, the English language version shall prevail.

25 February 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/167); Liberia Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Njuguna M. Mahugu, and to the president of the General Assembly, Ismail Razali. Dear Mr. President, In accordance with my obligation to bring to your attention matters that may be of interest to the members of the Security Council, and in view of the ongoing role which the United Nations continues to play in efforts to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Liberia, I have the honour to inform you of the outcome of the second Ministerial Meeting of the ad hoc Special Conference to Support the Peace Process in Liberia. The meeting was organized at the request of the United States on behalf of the International Contact Group for Liberia, of Nigeria on behalf of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and of the Netherlands. It brought together the members of the International Contact Group on Liberia, those of ECOWAS, the Bretton Woods institutions and relevant United Nations departments, programmes and agencies. The purpose of the meeting was to build upon the momentum generated by the positive outcome of the disarmament process in Liberia, while identifying and addressing the immediate needs of the peace process, and critical requirements seen for the medium term. In my opening statement to the meeting, I noted that in the past three months the Liberian peace process had witnessed important positive developments but despite these positive developments difficult challenges still remained, and it was necessary to intensify rather than relax efforts. Three challenges would have to be met. First, it was necessary to have the political will to do what needed to be done in Liberia. Second, it was necessary for the various actors, both national and international, to have the courage to cooperate to get the job done. Third, it was necessary to find and contribute the resources needed to accomplish the job successfully. I appealed for additional resources to be made available to the ECOMOG peace-keeping force, for continued international support for humanitarian and reconstruction efforts, and for the electoral process. In the discussions that followed, there was strong support for the role played by ECOWAS,

March 1997 • 43 and a clear understanding of the importance of reinforcing ECOMOG. The meeting was appreciative of the substantial assistance provided to ECOMOG by donor countries, while noting that there was a need to coordinate efforts so as to maximize their effectiveness. There was also wide support for ongoing emergency operations and for bridging and reintegration programmes, and the meeting recognized the critical importance of these efforts to the success of the peace process. Participants noted the importance of striking a balance between providing assistance to ex-combatants and to those who had been the victims of the conflict, and there was universal condemnation of the use of child fighters. A useful and extensive discussion took place on the question of elections. Participants welcomed the recent progress towards establishing a framework for the holding of elections in Liberia, and consensus emerged on a number of issues, including the need to adhere to the 30 May 1997 election date. There were firm pledges of financial and other support from a number of donor countries and from the European Commission. Clear differences emerged, however, with respect to whether refugees should be required to return to Liberia in order to participate in the elections. Substantial repatriation was stressed by nearly all participants as the most effective solution to this problem, and it was noted that a tremendous voluntary repatriation effort would be required on the part of the international community. The Representative of the Chairman of ECOWAS, Chief Tom Ikimi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, briefed the meeting on the question of sanctions and observed that their availability had had a significant deterrent effect on the parties. The meeting took note of the statement by Mr. Jan Pronk, Minister for Development Cooperation of the Netherlands, that while the sanctions had not yet been applied, they remained in effect and could be applied against any party in serious violation of the Agreement. The Administrator of UNDP, Mr. James G. Speth, and the UNDP Resident Representative in Liberia, Mr. Adama Guindo, briefed the meeting on reconstruction and post-election development efforts. My Special Representative, Mr. Anthony Nyakyi, also briefed the meeting on coordination efforts, and it was announced that in order to further enhance those efforts, the UNDP Resident Representative would also be named as the Director of the Office of the Special Representative.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Chairman, Mr. Marrack Goulding, UnderSecretary-General for Political Affairs, took stock of what had been achieved. With respect to the three challenges which I had outlined in my opening remarks, he observed that these had been met. First, the high degree of consensus had demonstrated that there was now the necessary political will both inside and outside Liberia for the peace process to succeed. Second, the determination of donors, ECOWAS and the United Nations system to work together was evident, and was a clear signal that the leading actors did now have the “courage to cooperate” in Liberia. Third, donors had made it clear that they were ready to provide the resources needed, and the meeting had sent a very clear message to the parties that if they made progress the international community would respond generously. Before concluding, the participants expressed their readiness to convene again in support of the Liberian peace process, at whatever level and time I, in consultation with the three organizers, deemed appropriate. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

March 1997 Letter (EOSG); International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Draft of a letter sent to all member states, plus Switzerland and the Holy See. The Secretary-General of the United Nations presents his compliments to the Permanent Representative of . . . to the United Nations and has the honour to make reference to Article 26 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January and 31 December 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the International Tribunal for Rwanda”), which reads as follows: “Enforcement of sentences: Imprisonment shall be served in Rwanda or any of the States on a list of States which have indicated to the Security Council their willingness to accept convicted persons, as designated by the International Tribunal for Rwanda. Such imprisonment shall be in accordance with the applicable law of the State con-

March 1997 • 43 and a clear understanding of the importance of reinforcing ECOMOG. The meeting was appreciative of the substantial assistance provided to ECOMOG by donor countries, while noting that there was a need to coordinate efforts so as to maximize their effectiveness. There was also wide support for ongoing emergency operations and for bridging and reintegration programmes, and the meeting recognized the critical importance of these efforts to the success of the peace process. Participants noted the importance of striking a balance between providing assistance to ex-combatants and to those who had been the victims of the conflict, and there was universal condemnation of the use of child fighters. A useful and extensive discussion took place on the question of elections. Participants welcomed the recent progress towards establishing a framework for the holding of elections in Liberia, and consensus emerged on a number of issues, including the need to adhere to the 30 May 1997 election date. There were firm pledges of financial and other support from a number of donor countries and from the European Commission. Clear differences emerged, however, with respect to whether refugees should be required to return to Liberia in order to participate in the elections. Substantial repatriation was stressed by nearly all participants as the most effective solution to this problem, and it was noted that a tremendous voluntary repatriation effort would be required on the part of the international community. The Representative of the Chairman of ECOWAS, Chief Tom Ikimi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, briefed the meeting on the question of sanctions and observed that their availability had had a significant deterrent effect on the parties. The meeting took note of the statement by Mr. Jan Pronk, Minister for Development Cooperation of the Netherlands, that while the sanctions had not yet been applied, they remained in effect and could be applied against any party in serious violation of the Agreement. The Administrator of UNDP, Mr. James G. Speth, and the UNDP Resident Representative in Liberia, Mr. Adama Guindo, briefed the meeting on reconstruction and post-election development efforts. My Special Representative, Mr. Anthony Nyakyi, also briefed the meeting on coordination efforts, and it was announced that in order to further enhance those efforts, the UNDP Resident Representative would also be named as the Director of the Office of the Special Representative.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Chairman, Mr. Marrack Goulding, UnderSecretary-General for Political Affairs, took stock of what had been achieved. With respect to the three challenges which I had outlined in my opening remarks, he observed that these had been met. First, the high degree of consensus had demonstrated that there was now the necessary political will both inside and outside Liberia for the peace process to succeed. Second, the determination of donors, ECOWAS and the United Nations system to work together was evident, and was a clear signal that the leading actors did now have the “courage to cooperate” in Liberia. Third, donors had made it clear that they were ready to provide the resources needed, and the meeting had sent a very clear message to the parties that if they made progress the international community would respond generously. Before concluding, the participants expressed their readiness to convene again in support of the Liberian peace process, at whatever level and time I, in consultation with the three organizers, deemed appropriate. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

March 1997 Letter (EOSG); International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Draft of a letter sent to all member states, plus Switzerland and the Holy See. The Secretary-General of the United Nations presents his compliments to the Permanent Representative of . . . to the United Nations and has the honour to make reference to Article 26 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January and 31 December 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the International Tribunal for Rwanda”), which reads as follows: “Enforcement of sentences: Imprisonment shall be served in Rwanda or any of the States on a list of States which have indicated to the Security Council their willingness to accept convicted persons, as designated by the International Tribunal for Rwanda. Such imprisonment shall be in accordance with the applicable law of the State con-

44 • March 1997

cerned, subject to the supervision of the International Tribunal for Rwanda.” The Secretary-General has, therefore, the honour to invite His/Her Excellency’s Government to indicate whether it would be prepared to carry out enforcement of prison sentences pursuant to Article 26 of the Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda. Indications of willingness to accept convicted persons should be communicated to the Registrar of the International Tribunal for Rwanda who would prepare a list of States in which enforcement of sentences would be carried out.

4 March 1997 Letter (EOSG); International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Letter to the president of the Security Council, Zbigniew Maria Wlosowicz. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda adopted by the Security Council by resolution 955 (1994). Pursuant to Article 26 of the Statute, imprisonment of persons convicted by the Tribunal shall be served in Rwanda or in any of the States on the list of States which have indicated to the Security Council their willingness to accept convicted persons. The Statute of the Yugoslav Tribunal contains a similar provision. In the case of the Yugoslav Tribunal, the President of the Security Council requested the assistance of the Secretary-General in order to obtain indications of willingness on the part of States (S/1994/1090). Pursuant to this request the Secretary-General sent a Note to all States members of the United Nations and non-member States maintaining permanent observer missions at United Nations Headquarters inviting them to indicate their willingness to accept convicted persons in their territory, and to communicate such information to the Registrar of the International Tribunal, who would prepare a list of States in which enforcement of sentences would be carried out. The Rwanda Tribunal is about to start the prosecution of persons responsible for genocide and other crimes against humanity, and the question of serving their prison sentences, if convicted, will soon become acute. Given the similarity between the two International Tribunals, I suggest that a similar Note be addressed by me to all member States inviting them to indicate their willingness to

accept convicted persons in their national prisons. I would appreciate your concurrence in the proposal and in the text of the draft Note attached. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

5 March 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/197); Zaire Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Zbigniew M. Wlosowicz. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to resolution 1097 (1997) adopted by the Security Council on 18 February 1997 which endorsed the five-point peace plan for eastern Zaire set out in my letter of the same date. The joint United Nations/Organization of African Unity Special Representative for the Great Lakes region, Mr. Mohamed Sahnoun, has just informed me that His Excellency, Mr. Gerard Kamanda wa Kamanda, Vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Zaire, had issued a statement in Paris formally declaring his Government’s acceptance of the United Nations peace plan. I have the pleasure to enclose a copy of that statement which I should be grateful if you would bring to the attention of the members of the Security Council. It is my fervent hope that all the other parties will declare without delay their adherence to the peace plan so that we can turn our collective attention to the pressing task of devising the practical modalities for its implementation. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

6 March 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Arab territories Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s noon briefing by announcing that the Security Council was continuing its debate on the situation in the occupied Arab territories. That debate was expected to extend into the afternoon. The Secretary-General expected to be present in the Council Chamber should there be a vote on a draft resolution. The Secretary-General was now meeting with Mohamed Sahnoun, the United Nations/ Organization of African Unity (OAU) Special

7 March 1997 • 45 Representative for the Great Lakes Region, Mr. Eckhard said. The Secretary-General welcomed Zaire’s acceptance of the United Nations fivepoint peace plan, which was conveyed in a letter he had received last night and which would be circulated today as an official document. His preference continued to be for a political solution, including a cease-fire and protection for aid workers and refugees. If that was not possible, he felt consideration must be given to how to provide that protection to the aid workers and refugees in the absence of a cease-fire. Mr. Eckhard went on to say that, when the Secretary-General was in Europe recently, one Foreign Minister said he found it strange that the media could visit eastern Zaire, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Sadako Ogata could visit eastern Zaire, and aid workers could work in eastern Zaire, but it was too dangerous for troops to go there. The SecretaryGeneral considered that to be a valid observation. In the meantime, he was continuing to consult with Member States and would brief the Security Council tomorrow. . . . Following informal consultations of the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) which is monitoring the sanctions against Iraq, and following the “no objection” procedure, the Committee late yesterday approved the points of understanding relating to the implementation of Security Council resolution 986 (1995), the “oil-for-food” plan. Copies of a press release on the “points” were available in the Spokesman’s office. “This understanding is intended to speed up the processing of sales applications for the purchase of humanitarian supplies for Iraq”, Mr. Eckhard said. As of this morning, 15 sales applications had been approved. The first nine contracts had already been announced. The other six involved beans and chickpeas from Turkey, worth $6 million; cooking oil from Turkey, worth $8 million; three contracts relating to surgical supplies from the United Kingdom, worth $3 million; and table salt from Jordan, valued at $250,000. The last four contracts had been put on hold, but that hold had been removed. There had been a total of 37 sales contracts submitted to the Committee out of some 280 that had been received, Mr. Eckhard said. With the new procedure, it was expected that more contracts would be submitted shortly. Last evening, the overseers approved one more oil contract, bringing the total of oil contracts to 36; the target of $1 bil-

lion for oil sales for the first three-period had more or less been met. It was expected that the Secretary-General’s 90-day review report on implementation of resolution 986 would be submitted to the Security Council by 10 March. . . .

6 March 1997 Letter (EOSG); Western Sahara Letter to the secretary-general of the Organization of African Unity, Salim Ahmed Salim. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, I have the honour to enclose for your information a letter addressed to his Excellency, Mr. Paul Biya, current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity, informing him of my decision to appoint Mr. James Baker III as my Personal Envoy on Western Sahara. I have already informed the parties, the Kingdom of Morocco and the Frente POLISARIO as well as the neighbouring countries, Algeria and Mauritania and the President of the Security Council of my decision. Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration.

7 March 1997 Letter (EOSG); Bosnia Letter to the president of the Security Council, Zbigniew Maria Wlosowicz. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to convey the attached communication, dated 7 March 1997, which I have received from the Principal Deputy High Representative, Ambassador Michael Steiner. I should be grateful if you would bring it to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

7 March 1997 Letter (EOSG); Bosnia Letter to Kofi Annan from Michael Steiner, Office of the High Representative, Sarajevo. Excellency, With reference to the deliberations of the Security Council of the United Nations on the situation in Mostar, please find attached the following documents: • The text of the Decisions on Mostar of 12 February 1997.

46 • 7 March 1997

• A copy of my letter to the Chair of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, and the Member of the Presidency, Mr. Kresimir Zubak, of 24 February 1997, together with the addendum to this letter. In the meantime, the Minister of the interior of Herzegovina Neretva Canton has announced the suspension of some police officers including the West Mostar police chief and his deputy from office, referring to the events in Mostar of 10 February. This would be, if realized, a step in the right direction, but falls short of the conclusions to be drawn from the report of the UN-IPTF. I would be most grateful to you if you could submit the attached documents to the Members of the Security Council. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Yours sincerely, Ambassador Michael Steiner Principle Deputy High Representative

7 March 1997 Secretary-General Says Good Management of Human Resources Not Possible Unless Attention Is Paid to Gender

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6178, WOM/954); equal rights for women Statement by the Secretary-General presented in New York to the Group on Equal Rights for Women. Thank you for inviting me to join you in this week’s celebration of International Women’s Day. I salute the Group on Equal Rights for Women in the United Nations. Your efforts in stimulating discussion, in presenting issues, in pressing for change are not only a vital spur to the improvement of the status of women in the Secretariat: they also provide impetus to the reform effort as a whole. I believe there is much we can accomplish together. The message of women’s rights and women’s advancement has been heard around the world. But now we must turn legal instruments and agreements, like the Beijing Platform, into tangible and effective action. And we must look towards our own institutions. Within the United Nations, the status of women is continuing to improve. But there is still a long way to go. The General Assembly lent its moral and

political weight to the cause of women’s advancement by endorsing the Strategic Plan of Action to Improve the Status of Women in the Secretariat during the period from 1995 to 2000. We have achieved the first goal: an overall female staff representation of 35 per cent in posts subject to geographical distribution. But more effort is needed if we are to reach the twin targets of 25 per cent women in all senior positions and attaining complete gender equality—that is, 50 per cent women—in the Secretariat by the year 2000. Full equality, of course, means more than the accomplishment of statistical objectives. The culture has to change. Management must show a sensitivity overall to the needs of women as staff members. I wish to restate my total commitment, both to the targets and, more generally, to the achievement of full equality between women and men in the Secretariat of the United Nations. I have acted on this principle throughout my career. In 1986, I was among the first members of the Steering Committee for the Improvement of the Status of Women in the Secretariat. While serving as Assistant Secretary-General for the Office of Human Resources Management, I instituted the first series of special measures for the advancement of women. As Under-SecretaryGeneral for Peace-keeping Operations, I encouraged governments to send women police and soldiers to serve in United Nations peace-keeping operations. I have appointed Angela E.V. King, at Assistant Secretary-General level, as my Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women. Ms. King reports directly to me. She will assist me in ensuring the system-wide coordination of policy for implementing the Beijing Platform, as well as for mainstreaming a gender perspective in all United Nations activities. I am actively seeking names of qualified women candidates for senior posts. Judge me not on the basis of these first few weeks in office, but on what my cabinet and administration will look like in the months to come. Judge me, too, by how effectively, over the long term, my administration supports women’s equal rights. Allow me to mention a few specific issues and plans. I intend to hold senior managers accountable for the implementation and success of the personnel policies put in place to fulfil the goals set by the General Assembly. These policies are outlined in two documents, “Policies to achieve gender

8 March 1997 • 47 equality in the United Nations” and “Special measures for the achievement of gender equality”. No department will be exempted. I look forward to working closely with the Steering Committee for the Improvement of the Status of Women in the Secretariat. Already, thanks to its work and that of the Office of Human Resources Management, a number of the Committee’s recommendations have been incorporated into the “special measures” policy. I will rely on the Committee to propose further remedial action, and to monitor progress closely. Affirmative action is not a United Nations mandate. But the Charter establishes the basis for our actions in Article 8. It states that the “United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs.” This principle was reaffirmed by the Administrative Tribunal in two recent cases. In them, the Tribunal upheld the legitimacy of affirmative action measures. It established a right to preferential treatment for women whose qualifications are equal or superior to the qualifications of competing male candidates. I am also aware of the concerns of the General Service staff. I know of their frustration over limited prospects for advancement, especially from the General Service to the Professional category. I hope we can ensure that women in the General Service category have access to a full range of career development opportunities. At the same time, there should be more lateral and interdepartmental movements. I will encourage the Office of Human Resources Management to make immediate improvements in this area. The working environment must be free of bias and harassment, especially sexual harassment. I will not tolerate any such abuse. The Office of Human Resources Management, in consultation with the Staff-Management Coordination Committee and the New York Joint Advisory Committee Task Force on Harassment, has prepared a questionnaire on harassment in the workplace. It will be used to develop policies, complaints procedures, training programmes and means of redress when harassment occurs. The data, analyses and recommendations are expected to be presented later this year. The goal of women’s equality and advancement is not only a key part of our Charter mandate; it is also good management. Good management of human resources is not possible unless full attention is paid to the dimension of gender. An

Organization that is sensitive to women’s needs is one which is well managed and clear-headed about its role and function. Dear colleagues, change requires commitment from the top. I pledge that established policies and targets will be implemented aggressively. That there will be a change in the organizational culture. That this will be an organization in which men and women are represented equally at all levels of employment and decision-making. The United Nations must become a role model for efficient, modern, gender-enlightened and multi-cultural management for all its Member States. That, no less, is my aim.

8 March 1997 Secretary-General Pledges Continued Solidarity with the Women’s Campaign for Equal Rights

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6176, WOM/952); women and diplomacy Speech delivered by the Secretary-General on the occasion of International Women’s Day. International Women’s Day is the day on which women on all continents bridge national, ethnic, cultural, economic and political divides to come together to celebrate their efforts towards the goals of equality, development and peace. It is the day on which we applaud the struggle of ordinary women. Few causes promoted by the United Nations have generated more intense and widespread support than the campaign to promote and protect the equal rights of women. The Charter of the United Nations was the first international agreement to proclaim gender equality as a fundamental human right, thanks largely to the efforts of a handful of women delegates to the Charter Conference in San Francisco in 1945. Since then, the United Nations has helped to create a framework of internationally agreed strategies, standards, programmes and goals to advance the status of women worldwide. A leading actor in this effort has been the Commission on the Status of Women, which this year celebrates its fiftieth anniversary. During this half century, the women’s movement has become a truly global phenomenon. The Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 was the largest conference ever held by the United Nations, with some 17,000 participants representing 189 States and more than 2,500 nongovernmental organizations. The commitments made by governments in Beijing reflect the under-

48 • 8 March 1997

standing that women’s equality must be a central component of any attempt to solve the world’s social, economic and political problems. Thus, where once women fought to put gender equality on the international agenda, gender equality is now one of the primary factors shaping that agenda. On International Women’s Day 1997, I would like to draw special attention to the role of women in questions of international peace and security. Women are notably absent from the peace table, despite evidence suggesting they bring a particular and positive perspective to preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping. Those United Nations peace and security missions which were characterized by gender balance in their management and staff clearly benefited from the involvement of women. Assessments of operations in Guatemala, Namibia and South Africa indicate that the women who participated were perceived to be compassionate, averse to choosing force over reconciliation and willing to listen and learn. As the United Nations continues to strengthen its capacities for conflict resolution, I will call upon women in increasing numbers for their unique skills in promoting environments conducive to stability and peace. In a similar vein, I encourage Member States to nominate women candidates to serve as Special Representatives or Special Envoys and in other assignments in preventive diplomacy and peacemaking. It is also timely this year to mention the process of reform and revitalization, which the United Nations continues to pursue as a matter of priority. Reform is essential if the United Nations is to be equipped and structured to face the challenges of the twenty-first century. Whatever shape reform takes, I remain dedicated to mainstreaming a gender perspective into the work of the entire United Nations system and to ensuring that women’s rights and women’s programmes remain integral parts of the Organization’s global mission. In making these commitments on this important day, and as we observe the anniversary of the Commission on the Status of Women, I offer to the world’s women my pledge of continued solidarity with your long and worthy campaign for equal rights, development, freedom and peace.

10 March 1997 Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 11 of Resolution 986 (1995)

Report to the Security Council, (SC, S/1997/206); Iraq

This is an example of a number of reports the Secretary-General submitted to the Security Council on the oil-for-food program. Other such reports will not be included in this publication in the interest of space. I. Introduction

1. The present report is submitted to the Security Council pursuant to paragraph 11 of resolution 986 (1995), by which the Council requested the Secretary-General to report to the Council 90 days after the date of entry into force of paragraph 1 of the resolution. On the basis of observation by United Nations personnel in Iraq and in consultation with the Government of Iraq, this report was expected to provide information on whether Iraq had ensured the equitable distribution of supplies for essential civilian needs, in accordance with paragraph 8 (a) of resolution 986 (1995). As at 3 March 1997, no consignment of humanitarian goods authorized under resolution 986 (1995) had reached Iraq. This report will, consequently, focus on the status of preparations for the observation process and for the implementation of activities in the three northern governorates. The report also covers information on the sale of Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products; the purchase of supplies for essential civilian needs; and the status of funds received and disbursed from the escrow account established under paragraph 7 of resolution 986 (1995). 2. On 9 December 1996, my predecessor informed the Security Council, pursuant to paragraph 13 of the resolution, that all the actions necessary to ensure the effective implementation of that resolution had been completed and that the Secretariat stood ready to proceed with its implementation (S/1996/1015). Accordingly, the resolution came into force at 0001 Eastern Standard Time on 10 December 1996. Loading of oil started at Mina al-Bakr on 15 December 1996. The first proceeds from the sale of oil were deposited in the United Nations Iraq account (escrow account), in the Banque nationale de Paris, on 15 January 1997. As at 3 March 1997, some 52.3 million barrels of oil, worth an estimated total of $1.07 billion, had been approved for sale within the first 90 days of the coming into force of the resolution. 3. Within the Secretariat of the United Nations, there has been extensive interdepartmental coordination to ensure that the exceptionally complex requirements of the resolution are met as effectively as possible. In order to strengthen coordination among United Nations entities involved, I have re-

10 March 1997 • 49 established the Steering Committee for the implementation of resolution 986 (1995), under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs. On 28 February 1997, I appointed Mr. Staffan de Mistura as United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq to succeed Mr. Gualtiero Fulcheri, who concluded his assignment on 24 February 1997. II. Sale of Petroleum and Petroleum Products

4. The work of both the oil overseers and the monitors has proceeded smoothly. During the period covered by this report, the overseers have advised the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) on the pricing mechanisms for sales of petroleum and contract modifications submitted by Iraq and on other pertinent questions related to the import of petroleum originating in Iraq under resolution 986 (1995). In addition to performing other functions assigned to them pursuant to the procedures approved by the Committee on 8 August 1996, the overseers have worked closely with the independent oil monitors (Saybolt). As at 3 March 1997, a total of 14 monitors had been deployed to observe oil loadings and transfers: four at Mina al-Bakr oil terminal in Iraq, four at Ceyhan oil terminal in Turkey and six at the metering station near Zakho on the KirkukYumurtalik oil pipeline. The oil overseers have reviewed a total of 38 contracts, 35 of which have been approved. Owing to the sharp decline in oil prices in February 1997, spot contracts based on the approved pricing mechanisms were concluded by Iraq with the intention of realizing the 90-day revenue objective of $1.07 billion (including the proceeds to cover the pipeline transportation fee). 5. The total quantity of oil approved for export under those contracts corresponds to approximately 52.3 million barrels for the first 90 days at an estimated value of $1.07 billion. Forty-three loadings, totalling 44.7 million barrels, with an estimated value of $907.6 million, have been completed. About 66 per cent of the liftings have been made at Ceyhan in Turkey. If current market prices remain unchanged and the lifting programme is fulfilled, total revenue generated should be within the range of the 90-day objective of $1.07 billion, including the pipeline fee. The overseers are confident that, in the remainder of the 180-day period, Iraq would be able to export sufficient oil to generate the sum specified in paragraph 1 of resolution 986 (1995). In accordance with the procedures adopted by the Security Council Committee, the overseers report to it, at least once a week, on con-

tracts scrutinized, the cumulative quantity and the approximate value of oil authorized for export. III. Purchase and Confirmation of Arrival of Humanitarian Supplies

6. As at 3 March 1997, a total of 267 applications for the export of humanitarian supplies to Iraq had been received by the Secretariat of the Security Council Committee. Thirty-seven of these have been submitted to the Committee for approval under the “no objection” procedure: 19 are for foodstuffs, 13 for soap/detergent and 5 for health supplies. As at 3 March 1997, a total of 11 applications have been approved. The secretariat of the Committee screens applications for humanitarian supplies and processes them in the order in which they are received. In accordance with the procedures of the Committee, applications are submitted to the Committee immediately upon receipt of confirmation from the Controller of the availability of funds. Pending the full deployment of the observers, the Department of Humanitarian Affairs has been requested to inform the Committee that a sufficient number of observers are available to cover deliveries. Applications submitted to date have been mostly for the food and health sectors. In accordance with resolution 1051 (1996), the secretariat of the Committee and the United Nations Special Commission have coordinated procedures to scrutinize items submitted for approval which may have potential dual-use capability. As at 3 March 1997, the full complement of 32 independent inspection agents (Lloyd’s Register) had been deployed to confirm the arrival of authorized goods at the agreed entry points: 10 inspectors at Umm Qasr, 11 at Zakho on the Turkish border and 11 at Trebil on the Jordanian border. 7. The Committee has convened a number of informal meetings at expert level with a view to expediting the processing of applications presented to it, and has agreed to free funds allocated to applications which have been placed on hold or blocked so that those funds may be made available for further applications which follow in sequence. Applications are also now forwarded to members of the Committee for pre-screening prior to their official circulation under the “no objection” procedure. The Government of Iraq has requested the Committee to give priority to those applications for the purchase of specific items which are needed to reach Iraq at the earliest. The Committee is currently reviewing that request. 8. The first letters of credit for the supply of humanitarian goods were issued on 14 February

50 • 10 March 1997

1997. The work on letters of credit by Banque nationale de Paris has proceeded without any major difficulty. In some cases, however, suppliers have delayed the shipment of goods in order to amend letters of credit. Some of the requested amendments have been for valid business purposes, others have either been inconsistent with the memorandum of understanding between the United Nations and the Government of Iraq of 20 May 1996 (S/1996/356) or have been unnecessary. In order to minimize delays in shipments due to requests for changes in the letters of credit, suppliers will be requested to exercise restraint in seeking such amendments. A sample letter of credit will be sent to potential suppliers so that they can seek clarifications before the applications are submitted to the Committee. IV. United Nations Iraq Account

9. The first proceeds of oil sales were deposited into the United Nations Iraq account (escrow account) on 15 January 1997. As at 3 March 1997, the United Nations Treasury had processed letters of credit for approximately $1 billion worth of petroleum and petroleum products, and a total of $625,596,347.69 has been paid into the Iraq account by Banque nationale de Paris. These funds have been distributed as follows: (a) $322.6 million has been allotted for the purchase of humanitarian supplies by the Government of Iraq, as specified in paragraph 8 (a) of resolution 986 (1995); (b) $79.1 million has been allotted for the purchase of humanitarian supplies to be distributed in the three northern governorates by the United Nations, as specified in paragraph 8 (b) of resolution 986 (1995); (c) $182.6 million has been transferred directly to the United Nations Compensation Fund, as specified in paragraph 8 (c) of resolution 986 (1995). Of this amount, $145.9 million has been allotted for the payment of the first installment of “A” and “C” claims ($144.0 million) and for the operating expenses of the Compensation Commission ($1.9 million); (d) $13.4 million has been allotted for the operational and administrative expenses of the United Nations associated with the implementation of the resolution, as specified in paragraph 8 (d) of resolution 986 (1995). Of this amount, $12.7 million has been allotted to the Department of Humanitarian Affairs and the United Nations agencies, $144,000 has been allotted for costs incurred by the independent oil experts (Saybolt),

and $593,100 has been allocated for other administrative costs; (e) $4.9 million has been transferred to the Special Commission for its current operating costs, as specified in paragraph 8 (e) of resolution 986 (1995); $6.1 million has been allocated to the escrow account established under resolutions 706 (1991) and 712 (1991) for the payments envisaged under paragraph 6 of resolution 778 (1992), as specified in paragraph 8 (g) of resolution 986 (1995); (f) Pursuant to paragraphs 8 (f) and 9, $16.9 million has been allotted for other expenditures approved by the Security Council Committee as being reasonable and necessary for the sale of oil. 10. Pursuant to paragraph 7 of resolution 986 (1995), in which the Secretary-General was requested to appoint independent and certified public accountants to audit the United Nations Iraq account, my predecessor, in June 1996, requested the United Nations Board of Auditors to audit the account and related transactions. The Board of Auditors will commence work in April 1997. V. Observation Mechanism

11. In December 1996, a mission was undertaken by the United Nations Secretariat to assess the administrative and logistics requirements of the Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq for the implementation of resolution 986 (1995). The mission recommended the strengthening of the Office, including the appointment of an internal auditor and a legal adviser. These recommendations are being implemented. 12. As outlined in the interim report of the Secretary-General (S/1996/978), the United Nations observation mechanism in Iraq will comprise three tiers of separate but complementary observers from the United Nations agencies and the Department of Humanitarian Affairs. The sectoral observers from the United Nations agencies will be responsible, at the national level, for observing the distribution of commodities imported under the resolution in regard to their sectors. They will also provide analysis and assessment as appropriate on the effectiveness and equitability of the distribution systems relating to their sectors and on the adequacy of supplies. The geographical observation unit in the Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator will collect and consolidate all relevant information concerning the delivery, storage and distribution of commodities at governorate and district levels as required. A methodology is being developed to help assess the equity and ade-

10 March 1997 • 51 quacy of distribution of commodities as well as services provided. The multidisciplinary observation unit comprises international experts in the areas of food logistics, public health, pharmaceuticals, hospital equipment, water and sanitation, agricultural inputs and machinery, animal health, plant protection, education and electricity. Its principal functions are to increase the range of expertise available to the observation mechanism in Iraq, to maintain a tracking system for all supplies imported under resolution 986 (1995) and to report its analyses, conclusions and recommendations directly to the Department of Humanitarian Affairs. The overall responsibility for the observation process will rest with the Department and its observation and analysis unit will review all reports received from the Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator and the multidisciplinary observation unit. VI. Pre-Observation and Implementation Activities

13. In accordance with its obligations under resolution 986 (1995) and the memorandum of understanding, the Government of Iraq has taken a number of measures to facilitate the work of the observers. It has reaffirmed its commitment under the memorandum of understanding to guarantee to the United Nations personnel unrestricted freedom of movement in connection with the performance of their functions, and has authorized the use of Habbaniya airport for international staff deployed under resolution 986 (1995). The Government of Iraq has also agreed to the establishment of appropriate communications systems by the United Nations. Pursuant to paragraph 16 of resolution 986 (1995) and paragraph 44 of the memorandum of understanding, the Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator and United Nations agencies are working with the Iraqi authorities to obtain a range of official baseline data essential to the work of the observation process. This information will assist the observers in tracking supplies imported under the resolution and facilitate reporting on the efficiency, equitability and adequacy of those supplies. 14. As part of the preparatory measures taken by the United Nations in Iraq, the Humanitarian Coordinator established an Inter-Agency Technical Working Group, chaired by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), to prepare six specific studies on: (a) the implementation plan, North Iraq; (b) logistical arrangements; (c) observation, reporting and assessment for central and southern Iraq; (d) personnel, administrative and

financial set-up; (e) communications systems; and (f) information dissemination. These reports have helped to establish initial criteria and guidelines for the effective implementation of resolution 986 (1995). 15. The Department of Humanitarian Affairs has designed a training programme for observers. This programme, which has commenced, includes familiarization visits to government distribution facilities, and will cover the humanitarian situation in each sector, the functioning of national and local distribution networks, the interaction needed between observers and local authorities, and a variety of related issues. Guidelines have been developed to clarify the scope of observation activity and define the observers’ reporting obligations. Geographical observers are being organized into teams equipped with a basic range of experience and skills to cover each governorate. 16. A database has been designed to facilitate the work of all components of the observation process. In addition to tracking systems developed by individual United Nations agencies, a unified tracking system has been designed to identify the status and location of any given shipment as required. It will function under the responsibility of the multidisciplinary observation unit, which will, for this purpose, draw on reports from all components of the observation mechanism. The United Nations agencies, the Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator and the Department of Humanitarian Affairs have established preliminary observation criteria and reporting formats for the effectiveness, equitability and adequacy of supplies distributed under the resolution. A reporting system has been designed to ensure regular updates on the status of authorized supplies received, stored and distributed throughout Iraq. 17. As specified in the interim report of the Secretary-General (S/1996/978), 151 United Nations observers are to be deployed: 76 by the Department of Humanitarian Affairs and 75 by United Nations agencies. As at 3 March 1997, a total of 56 have been deployed by the Department and 28 by United Nations agencies. It is expected that by 15 March these numbers will have risen to 76 and 49, respectively. The main constraint on the deployment of observers, particularly by the United Nations agencies, has been the shortage of funds in the relevant escrow account for operational and administrative expenses. 18. The United Nations agencies involved in the implementation of the resolution have taken a range of measures to prepare for observing the dis-

52 • 10 March 1997

tribution of supplies imported under the resolution for central and southern Iraq. The World Food Programme (WFP) is responsible for observing the storage and distribution of foodstuffs, and has established a tracking system to follow the movement and distribution of these goods. A WFP technical mission has designed a survey system to measure the effects of food distribution on the nutritional status of families, particularly those from vulnerable groups. The system will measure changes in overall household food security and coping strategies, taking into consideration data furnished by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on agricultural production and markets. FAO is responsible for observing the storage and equitable distribution of agricultural imports, including plant protection inputs, agricultural equipment and veterinary supplies. 19. The United Nations Children’s Fund is responsible for observing and assessing the distribution of supplies in respect of water and sanitation, nutritional surveillance and immunization programmes. It has completed preparatory activities relating to the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey in all governorates. An existing computerized tracking system for the water and sanitation sector has been adapted to follow the distribution and utilization of supplies for all designated water and sewage-treatment plants. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is responsible for observing the distribution of supplies for the education sector and in this regard will also work in conjunction with UNICEF. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is responsible for observing the distribution and use of electricity generation/transmission equipment imported under the resolution. It is currently discussing with the relevant government authorities its requirement for detailed baseline data to support the observation process. UNDP and the Department for Development Support and Management Services have completed work on initial observation criteria. Preparatory work by the World Health Organization (WHO) has focused on the procurement, storage and distribution systems for drugs and medical supplies. It has developed an initial methodology for observation and reporting, including the development of software for tracking supplies. Fifty-nine pharmacists have been trained to use the system, which is being installed in warehouses at both central and governorate levels.

Pre-Implementation Activity in the Northern Governorates

20. In consultation with local authorities, FAO has prioritized and finalized lists of agricultural inputs. The distribution plan, criteria for identifying beneficiaries and proposed distribution mechanisms have been reviewed and refined. Local authorities and the farmers union will participate fully in distributing agricultural inputs. FAO has established an observation system, including preand post-monitoring and spot-checks, which will be carried out jointly with local authorities. WFP has undertaken a population survey in conjunction with local authorities and has taken the necessary steps to ensure effective food distribution arrangements. The Government of Iraq has assigned warehouses in Mosul and Kirkuk to WFP for the storage of foodstuffs to be distributed in the northern governorates; these facilities are now under WFP administration. In collaboration with WHO, WFP and UNESCO, UNICEF is responsible for a range of activities within the health, nutrition, education and water and sanitation sectors. It has developed a computerized mapping programme in the northern governorates to identify all settlements, their characteristics and access to basic services. UNICEF has undertaken a risk-mapping exercise for water and sanitation services to define priority areas where problems are most acute. It has also undertaken a survey of primary schools in order to provide a more accurate assessment of sectoral needs and priorities. 21. WHO is responsible for distribution of medicine and medical equipment. UNESCO is responsible for implementing school rehabilitation and refurbishment schemes. Surveys of the most needy schools are close to completion. In due course, these surveys will be extended to all schools. UNDP and the Department for Development Support and Management Services have prioritized lists of equipment needed in the electricity sector. The first consignment of electrical equipment is not expected before the end of June 1997 because of the long lead time for procurement in this sector, involving extensive technical exchanges with suppliers of spare parts, some of which need to be manufactured to order. The United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) undertook a mission which designed an implementation plan for the shelter and resettlement programme. In late January 1997, the Department of Humanitarian Affairs sent a technical mission to assess the requirement for mine-

10 March 1997 • 53 clearing activities in the northern governorates and an implementation plan has been finalized. 22. Since it has been determined that the procurement of food supplies for the three northern governorates may be undertaken in the most efficient and cost-effective way through the bulk purchase of similar supplies by the Government of Iraq, it has been decided to purchase such supplies under the bulk purchase agreement with the Government of Iraq, as foreseen in paragraph 3 of annex I to the memorandum of understanding. Other materials and supplies are being procured directly by the United Nations agencies. The related guidelines for submission of applications to the Security Council Committee have been provided to the United Nations agencies. As at 3 March 1997 seven applications have been submitted through the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, of which two have been approved. Funds are released to the agencies as soon as applications are approved by the Committee. VII. Observations

23. Council members will be aware that the operation in Iraq is a highly complex and complicated undertaking in the light of the arrangements set out in resolution 986 (1995). The full ramifications of these arrangements, specifically the time lag between the initial flow of oil and the actual delivery of foodstuffs, are only now becoming clear. For instance, the first proceeds from the sale of petroleum and petroleum products in the amount of $68.8 million were received in the United Nations Iraq account only on 15 January 1997, more than one month after the activation of the resolution. Then, it was not until 14 February 1997 that the first letters of credit for the purchase of humanitarian goods were issued. While these time lags are in keeping with commercial practice, the timing of the receipt of funds as well as the staggered payment schedule have a direct impact on the implementation of the Inter-Agency Humanitarian Programme, including on the deployment of staff and the arrival of food shipments. Under these circumstances, the distribution of supplies envisaged in the distribution plan could not commence before March 1997. 24. Nevertheless, I have had strong concerns about the pace at which the provisions of resolution 986 (1995) are being implemented. I have directed that a number of steps be taken both within the Secretariat and in the Security Council Committee to look for innovative and flexible approaches to overcome the constraints that the Programme has encountered. Pursuant to para-

graph 12 of the resolution, the Committee has developed expedited procedures to implement the arrangements required by the resolution. While the Committee will be reporting directly to the Council on the implementation of those arrangements, I should like to acknowledge these latest measures taken by the Committee to further expedite the processing and approval of contracts for the purchase of humanitarian goods. These measures will accelerate the pace for the delivery of food, medicines, and other supplies that are urgently needed by the people of Iraq. 25. Simultaneously, I am taking steps to ensure that adequate funds are available to the Department of Humanitarian Affairs and United Nations agencies so that the necessary arrangements are completed for the delivery and observation of humanitarian assistance provided for in resolution 986 (1995). Nevertheless, the lack of sufficient funds to meet the start-up costs of the Department and the United Nations agencies has caused delays in the procurement of equipment and the deployment of personnel to carry out the different tasks stipulated in resolution 986 (1995), the memorandum of understanding and the distribution plan. The amount actually available for operational and administrative expenses has been very limited owing to the staggered receipt of funds and the procedures established for their simultaneous distribution to the subsidiary accounts of the United Nations Iraq account. Arrangements have been established by the Controller to advance funds to help cover start-up costs of the Department and the United Nations agencies. Several agencies have used their own funds to meet these costs. 26. On the basis of contracts approved thus far by the Security Council Committee, only food shipments are expected to reach Iraq during March 1997. That notwithstanding, the Department of Humanitarian Affairs expects to have deployed all its observers by 15 March 1997. WFP and WHO, the agencies responsible for observing the distribution of food and medicine, will also have deployed most of their observers prior to the arrival of shipments. I am confident, therefore, that sufficient observers will have been deployed to observe and report on the delivery and distribution of humanitarian goods for which applications have been submitted to the Security Council Committee. I should also like to draw attention to the fact that pending the distribution of humanitarian goods under resolution 986 (1995), United Nations agencies have continued with the imple-

54 • 10 March 1997

mentation of the Inter-Agency Humanitarian Programme in order to meet the most pressing needs of vulnerable groups throughout Iraq. 27. Taking into consideration the fact that no humanitarian goods, under resolution 986 (1995), have been delivered to date and, in spite of the additional measures being taken to expedite the approval of contracts for humanitarian goods, it appears unlikely that all of the humanitarian goods in the distribution plan will be delivered and distributed within the initial 180 days established by the resolution. The United Nations agencies involved in the implementation of the Programme in the three northern governorates have also raised concerns about the constraints caused by the limited time-frame of the resolution for the proper implementation of their activities. The Council may wish to consider the implications of these constraints for the remaining period of 90 days and for the renewal of the provisions of the resolution in accordance with paragraph 4. 28. The Foreign Minister of Iraq, His Excellency Mr. Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf, who met with me on 5 March 1997, reaffirmed his Government’s commitment to cooperate with the United Nations in implementing all provisions of resolution 986 (1995) and the memorandum of understanding. At the same time, the Foreign Minister of Iraq conveyed to me his Government’s serious concern that, under the present circumstances, it would not be in a position to arrange for the simultaneous distribution of all food items as envisaged in the distribution plan. 29. I shall keep the Council fully informed of the progress achieved in the implementation of resolution 986 (1995).

17 March 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/230); Western Sahara Letter to the president of the Security Council, Zbigniew Maria Wlosowicz. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to Security Council resolution 1084 (1996) of 27 November 1996 in which the Council requested me to continue my efforts with the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco and the Frente POLISARIO to break the impasse blocking the implementation of the Plan for the settlement of the question of Western Sahara. As indicated in my interim report of 27 February 1997 (S/1997/166) pursuant to that resolution, the impasse persists. I intend therefore to

intensify the examination of all the questions blocking the implementation of the Settlement Plan. In this spirit and in accordance with paragraph 17 of my report, I have decided to appoint Mr. James Baker III as my Personal Envoy to help me assess the situation and to make recommendations to me. I hope that an exploratory visit can be undertaken to the region soon, in view of the time frame of the current mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). I should be grateful if you would bring this information to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

17 March 1997 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6183); UN reform FRED ECKHARD, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral: The Secretary-General has a brief presentation for you on the latest steps in his efforts at United Nations reform. He will take your questions afterwards, and following that Maurice Strong, the Executive Coordinator on United Nations Reform, will brief you in detail and respond to your questions in full. Mr. SecretaryGeneral? SECRETARY-GENERAL: Thank you very much, Fred. Good morning. I am pleased to be with you today, and to be able to announce some of the managerial initiatives which I am going to take today. I think I made it clear from the beginning that I was approaching it on a two-track basis: track 1 covering actions and initiatives that I can take under my own authority; and track 2 dealing with longer-term and strategic issues which only the Member States can decide. I consider reform a powerful tool for strengthening the Organization, and not an end in itself. The management reform measures I have indicated are designed to help transform the Organization into a more effective instrument and for serving the international community. These improvements will be accomplished—and in a manner that revitalizes the spirit and commitment of the staff and renews confidence in the future of the Organization. I believe that after 50 years of existence this institution that we call the United Nations has brought immeasurable good into the world.

17 March 1997 • 55 Looking at the institution today, I am proud of what we accomplish every day in every one of our posts. But I am also convinced that through these reforms we can do even more good, even more efficiently, in this era of challenge and expectation, by revering our heritage, by embracing our current initiatives and by reshaping our United Nations. I feel certain that we can continue to fulfill our mandates as we move into the next millennium. Today I have 10 points to propose to you, and they are all within track 1. I think you have on the board the first steps that I have taken; these were announced about six weeks ago. I have appointed an Executive Committee which is made up of all the Under-Secretaries-General and Heads of programmes and funds. We meet regularly under my chairmanship to harmonize our activities, to share information and to take collective decisions. We have also established in this area what I call the Executive Committees, which is empowerment of the Departments. Here, I have grouped together 30 United Nations entities into four areas, covering: economic and social; developmental operations; humanitarian affairs; and peace and security. They meet regularly to coordinate and harmonize the activities, take decisions and refer to me those decisions that they think I should take. And so by grouping 30 units into four, they are required to cooperate and to work together. That is also a powerful message for the rest of the Organization and for the Secretariat, not only here at Headquarters but down in the field. If those in the field realize that their Heads of departments and agencies are coordinating and sitting regularly in New York, they will begin to do the same in the field. On top of this card is the Executive Coordinator, Mr. Strong, whom most of you know. He is here, and after this interview, Mr. Strong will be available to give you further background briefing. He is a key man in this effort. Although I am leading the effort, Mr. Strong is here to assist me in coordinating the reform effort and to ensure that our efforts are comprehensive and that every part of the Organization is involved in that effort. Before I get to the next step, I will turn to the measures I am announcing today. The first is the budget. I intend to submit a 1999-1998 budget that will be $123 million less than the current one— $123 million cut. Concerning staffing levels, my budget submission will indicate a cut of 1,000 posts. Turning to item 3, administrative costs, it has been determined that 38 per cent of our budget goes to administrative costs. I believe this is too high and have instructed that measures be taken to

reduce that percentage by a third by the year 2001, freeing up additional resources for economic development. Four, improved United Nations integration at the country and field level. Here I have decided that the position of United Nations Resident Coordinator as my representative in the field must be strengthened and enhanced, that he should be the team leader at the country level, and that all the United Nations agencies operating on the ground should come together and prepare a country programme in coordination with the Government concerned and play their role in implementing their respective components of the programme they have thus elaborated. I would also push ahead with common premises for the United Nations in all the countries concerned. This will require them to work daily to coordinate their efforts, and it would also permit us to take advantage of common staff cuts and pooling of efforts, which would also release additional funds for the field. The next item concerns the consolidation of the economic and social departments. At present, we have three departments in the economic and social area. I believe that it is essential to bring them together to consolidate our efforts in the economic and social field. I have decided, therefore, to integrate these three departments into one. Some of the activities of the third department, Department for Development Support and Management Services, will also be redistributed to the other departments. Next is the streamlining of technical support for the intergovernmental bodies. I believe that it is possible to improve and strengthen the way we service intergovernmental machinery. I have therefore decided to create a new department of General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services. This, I hope, will strengthen the services we provide to Member States and introduce coherence, quality and efficiency of services that we provide to intergovernmental bodies. The next item I will announce today concerns the Department of Public Information, and I am sure you all are very interested in this one. I intend to reorient the work of the Department of Public Information. The Department of Public Information, as it now exists, will be transformed into a new Office of Communications and Media Services to strengthen the capacity to provide relevant and timely communication services to Governments, media and civil society. The next item on the list is the consolidation of administrative, financial, personnel, procurement and other services. These are areas that I

56 • 17 March 1997

believe may benefit from common services by pooling our efforts. When I refer to common services it does not mean I am taking anything from the managers. I have indicated I will delegate authority to managers, but in some instances, by creating a common service, one is able to give them much more economic and effective support for their work. We will try and see to what extent we can consolidate all the different offices which exist within the United Nations and its programmes and funds for procurement, personnel, financial and other services to see if we cannot all gain from consolidation. Now the code of conduct. We heard a great deal about this and we have created a new code of conduct which I have asked the staff to review and to comment on. We are consulting the staff, as good managers, and once we have the staff comments we will put this to the Member States for approval in the course of the next few months. The final item on this list is a reduction of documentation. I think we produce far too much paper in this Organization and I am determined that we should reduce it. I have set an immediate target of 25 per cent reduction by the end of 1998. I think we can do further reductions and I will press on. I think most of you are also concerned with the volume of paper you have to go through. I once jokingly said that I sometimes worry that this building will sink under the weight of the paper it generates. So I am happy to be able to do something about that. This is a part of track 1. It is not excluded that between now and July I will make other announcements and take other initiatives in the managerial and organizational area. We will then continue to work on track 2. The work has already begun where we will give longer-term proposals to the Member States. That report in July will include a summary of all the actions I have taken from January until then and give proposals to Member States on the big issues that they will have to pronounce themselves on. This will include the mission of the United Nations—what we should be doing, what the core activities would be—and I hope that we will get clear support and signals from the Member States. Once we get that we will begin again to reorient the work of the Organization to focus on those core activities. I will now take your questions and then Mr. Strong will be available. QUESTION: Thank you Mr. Secretary-General. On behalf of the United Nations Correspondents’ Association (UNCA) I would like to welcome you

here and wish you the best of luck on your reform steps. I have a two-part question. Reform. There is an impression that this is very much a prerequisite by the North, whereas in effect the reform of the United Nations is just as good for the South. Are you satisfied with the level of involving the South in this process, governmental and otherwise? My second point is on your code of conduct. Do you have in mind accountability, and in what shape? S-G: I think the reform is welcomed by all Member States, North and South, if we define the objective as an attempt to make the United Nations a leaner, efficient, more effective and more relevant Organization to serve better the interests of Member States. I have had the opportunity, since my appointment, to consult, I would say, all the Member States in the five regional groups—in large groups and in small groups—and they are all for reform, but the right kind of reform. My hope and trust is that they—both North and South—will support the package I put forward today. Obviously, not everybody will like all the proposals I put forward. I consider them comprehensive, fair and competent, although they are only part of the package that I will be putting forward over the course of the year. But I think when it comes to reforming an organization like ours, it is one of those situations where we should all remember what Ben Bella once said: We should all be prepared to die a little and give a little to allow things to move forward. And I am sure that this will happen in this case. As regards the code of conduct, yes, it deals with accountability, it deals with financial disclosure by senior officials, and it also deals with the question of the highest levels of conduct and professionalism. QUESTION: Regarding the consolidation of the three economic and social departments: It was tried in your predecessor’s time, and it did not work. How is it going to be different this time? Who is going to lead the effort? S-G: First of all, I was not too involved with what my predecessor did at that time, so I cannot comment on how it was done. On this occasion, we have undertaken intensive consultation and analysis of what needs to be done and why it has to be done. We have not only analysed it and consulted extensively; we have also come up with a timetable and a scheme for implementing the decision. It is not going to be done in a rushed manner. It is going to be managed. Change has to be managed and we will manage the process. It is hard,

17 March 1997 • 57 thought-out analysis and consultation which have led to this decision, and I am convinced that with the effort and thinking that went into it, we are going in the right direction, we are taking the right decision, and I can assure you that I have no intention of coming back a year or six months from now and recreating three departments or two departments. We have given it a lot of thought, and I think it will stand the test of time. QUESTION: Who will head it? S-G: I will come back to you on that later. I had not intended to make personnel announcements. I think that when we confuse the personnel with the organizational structure sometimes the discussions get distorted. So you will hear about the personnel aspects of this later. QUESTION: You say that 1,000 posts will be cut. How will those cuts be distributed over the various departments and what portion of those posts are already vacant? S-G: I think that as we prepare the next budget, we will be strongly guided by the priorities established by the Member States, and we will distribute the resources of the Organization in accordance with the priorities set by the Member States. And so the cuts and the resources assigned to departments are not going to be done across the board, which is really a blunt way of doing it. There has to be some analysis and some priority setting. We have quite a lot of vacancies already. We have about 1,000 posts, and probably more. And I do not intend to fill them. I intend to cut them. I will propose that they be reduced. Of course the decision is up to the Member States. But in making this proposal, I will be able to convince the Member States that we are restructuring and streamlining ourselves so we can do more with less, or the same with less. And, therefore, the programmatic aspects of our work will not suffer unduly. QUESTION: Can you tell us how you are going to reorient the Department of Public Information? My concern is for a small, beneficial office of the Department of Public Information. Are we going to lose it? S-G: No, I think there will be extensive consultations with Member States and with groups like UNCA as to how we go about this reform. It is not anything we are going to do in a hasty manner and create a counterproductive situation. The objective is to make us more effective and more relevant, and as I said, to provide better service to the media, civil society and others. And so, in

effect, if we do it well we will strengthen our cooperation with you and you will get better service from the Organization. QUESTION: I imagine your critics in the United States Congress are going to want more than 1,000 jobs cut. What is your response to that? And also, how does the plan by the United States to pay the $900 million only if they see progress affect all of this planning? S-G: If they are going to want more than 1,000 posts cut, I cannot comment on that. From where I stand, you can only make these cuts after serious analysis, consultations and review of what needs to be done and what mandates the Organization has. If they want to cut more than 1,000 posts, I really cannot comment, because I do not know the analysis, the thinking and the rationale behind any such position. But this is a serious proposal. It has been analysed, it has been discussed and we know that it will not gut the Organization. And after all, the purpose of the reform is to make the United Nations a much more efficient, much more effective Organization better able to serve the Member States. And at this stage, any demand for deeper cuts I do not think would be wise, in accordance with our analysis. QUESTION: Is the debt of $900 million holding that back? S-G: I have always been optimistic that the money will come. I think the President and the Administration are committed to paying what they owe and I think there is a large number of Congressmen and Congresswomen who also want to pay. I think a large number of American citizens are embarrassed that their Government owes. They are not happy and impressed to see their Government described as the largest deadbeat by small and poor countries. So I think there is lots of goodwill out there to pay. The Congress has said they would pay if there is reform. I think you can see from this morning that we are giving them reform. Reform is good for the Organization. Member States want reform. What the United Nations wants is what the United States wants. We will deliver and I hope that they will also deliver their part of the bargain. QUESTION: On the question of accountability, one of the problems over the last few years has been that there have been lots of disciplinary cases against staff where the Administration has ignored the lower tribunal’s finding of innocence and then pursued it right to the Administrative Tribunal, where the verdicts have been overturned. The

58 • 17 March 1997

Skylink people, for example; the recent Washington, D.C. information officer case; the Somalia case. In all of these, somebody has taken precipitant decisions against people, ignored all of the impartial tribunals and left it to the final stages before a costly verdict for the United Nations. Are you going to reform the internal justice system and make sure that its verdicts are speedily adhered to rather than dragging it out and fighting it right to the end? S-G: I think that this is an Organization that should respect the rule of law. It is an Organization that should accept and respect our own internal legal procedures and practices. It is an Organization that should not condone the kinds of things you have referred to. As part of the new spirit of accountability, I would hope that that, too, will change. I know staff have often asked me: “What do you do to those managers who commit these errors and go on to have a career and sometimes get promoted?” I think that also ought to change and I trust you will see some changes in that area as well. QUESTION: With the cuts in the budget, the United Nations budget will perhaps fall below that of the New York Police Department. This Organization is servicing 185 countries. Do you think that, with the cuts in the budget and the reduction in staff which started several months ago—and you are going to reduce again by more than 1,000 posts—it will be good enough to keep the level of the servicing of this Organization? Secondly, with the budget reduction, are you going to change the ratio of the payments of the Member States? S-G: Let me first say that the United Nations budget as it now stands is already lower than the budget of the New York Police Department. So, by streamlining it, yes, it will still be less. But still, the Member States do not pay. About 80 Member States owe. We often refer to the United Nations budget being “peanuts” and lower than the budget of the New York Police Department. I agree with you. Why, then, are Member States not paying? The weight we are putting on them is not onerous. I would hope that part of the reform that we are all discussing will be rededication by Member States to the ideals of the Organization and a commitment to pay their dues in full and on time. It should be an essential part of any reform that we are discussing here in this building. As far as the impact of the cuts on the activities is concerned, we have studied it and reviewed it and indicated that, with different work methods,

further computerization and streamlining of our procedures, we should be able to deliver on mandates without negatively impacting on them because of the cuts. QUESTION: Any views on the ratio of the scale of assessments? S-G: A fair assessment. In fact, there is a committee of Member States reviewing the scale of assessments. Obviously, if the budget is reduced everybody will pay a little less. But over and above that, there is a committee discussing the scale of assessments. There are indications that the United States may wish to reduce its contribution from 25 per cent to 20 per cent of the regular budget. But this is a discussion that they will have to hold with the other Member States, whom they have to convince. QUESTION: On the staff reductions, what is the deadline? When would you have 1,000 fewer people? You mentioned that there are about 1,000 vacancies right now. Is that normal, or has there been a conscious effort not to fill posts? That would also suggest that this can, perhaps, be done without laying off anybody who is here right now. Is that what you have in mind? S-G: Let me say that, yes, there are about 1,000 vacancies. It was a deliberate policy to try to streamline the Organization. The next budget, which I will be putting forward to the Member States, will get to them next month, in April. The Member States will determine the level of the next budget, and the level of staffing, by December this year. So, as we move into the next budget period, 1998–1999, the budget of the United Nations will show 1,000 fewer posts. As I indicated, if the currency and inflationary figures hold, that will be $123 million less than we spent during the current biennium. And if I cut the assistant posts which are vacant, the impact on the staff will be minimal. I think the house has been perturbed for quite a long time. We will make the economy; we will streamline; we will eliminate the 1,000 posts, and then begin to train the staff who are on board; give them the skills they do not have; bring in, down the line, skills we do not have; and invest further in computerization. QUESTION: The list does not include the question of raising the resources of the United Nations as a priority. Is it not a priority to try to get countries to pay, and raise funds in other ways, rather than, like the three first points, reduce, reduce, reduce? S-G: I made a reference to that. That is why I said that payment of obligations to the

17 March 1997 • 59 Organization is an essential part of the reform. And I think you are going to see that very much as part of track 2, when we put together our detailed and comprehensive package. This is only part of the effort. This is not a comprehensive package. It is part of track 1; there will be a further track 1 announcement. And then, in track 2 in July, when we do the comprehensive package, some of the things you are not seeing here today will be there. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, while you propose the reduction of the staffing level here in the Secretariat, you are proposing to improve United Nations integration at the country level. Does the second step entail any budgetary posts? S-G: I think I have explained why we can cut 1,000 posts and why we can do it without impacting negatively on the programmes. And I have referred to our activities at the country level, where we would hope to be able to consolidate our efforts and pool our efforts on the ground to have a greater impact. If additional resources are needed in the field in the programmes, and the funds to get the work done on the ground, this will be determined by analysis of the programmes that have to be implemented. I do not think I can say off the cuff that the field will require and should get additional resources. It will depend on programmes and what they have to do. I will take two more questions. I have been talking a lot today: I just came from the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary), so do excuse me. QUESTION: Something of a clarification, then a sort of housekeeping question. You mentioned the media services. A lot of the information coming out of the building most rapidly comes out of the optical disk system (ODS). There have apparently been a lot of complaints from nongovernmental organizations that access to them is going to be provided at a cost of something like $1,000 a month. I do not know whether that stuff is available to the press, but can you give us some idea. The problem with this is that, down the line there is some concern that information that is made available on the Internet for free will not be accessible, or that certain agencies will not put information on the Internet, but they will put it on the optical disk. The basic question is, are we all going to start having to pay for information we get from the United Nations in a timely manner? S-G: I do not think our intention is to make things even a bit more difficult or a bit more expensive for you. I think everybody is excited:

every time I turn around, they say, “We got 2 million hits this week. We got 3 million hits on the Internet!” I think the intention is very much to go that route: to simplify your lives and to simplify and enhance our capacity to get the news out. So I am not sure that the intention will be to go via optical disk and create more financial costs or difficulties for you. But as I have indicated on this—and I think that Mr. Strong will be talking to you further—we are going to have further consultations, and everybody in the group will be set up to implement the transformation of the Department of Public Information (DPI). QUESTION: Just a clarification on the staff cuts. Last year, your predecessor tried to forcibly remove people from posts in this building, and the General Assembly basically sent them back upstairs and said, “Forget it.” Do you have the power to undertake the kind of staff cuts that he tried, or are there limitations on what you can do in terms of reducing staff here in the building? S-G: We can make the cuts; we can make the changes. But I would also have to respect the rule of the General Assembly and the Member States. In any organization, change has to be managed, and part of that management process is touching base with all the stakeholders and all those who can make your reform proposals unravel. That is also one of the reasons why I have taken considerable time to consult extensively with Member States and with the Staff Council to make sure that they all understand what I am doing, and hopefully to get them to embrace our programme for reform and work with me in implementing it. I think we have a solid proposal; we have a bold proposal. We are going to manage the change, and we will get it done. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, you mentioned that you had already proposed a reduction of 25 per cent of paperwork here in the United Nations. There is an estimate that per month there is a production of even 1 million photocopies in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague. You have been there; have you proposed something that would confirm your decision to stay on the track of reform even in that field? S-G: I did not go to The Hague, to the Tribunal, to discuss paper reduction, so I am afraid I did not go into that. I discussed much more substantive and political issues, and the viability of the Tribunal, and how we can make it more effective and how we get the indicted to the court so that they can do their work. But I am sure that the

60 • 17 March 1997

decision to reduce 25 per cent is not lost on any entity within the United Nations.

21 March 1997

19 March 1997

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6188); human rights

Secretary-General Says South African Experience Should Be Example for Continent

Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the South African Institute of International Affairs, in Johannesburg.

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6182), Africa Remarks made by the Secretary-General upon his arrival in Cape Town, South Africa. I have been looking forward to this trip very much. The United Nations and South Africa have had a lot of history together. I would hope that, as you continue to develop your country and build a multi-racial South Africa, your example will be a good one for other countries around the continent. Yes, there are difficulties around the continent, but there’s also good news. When we look at what happened here in South Africa, when we look at the ways you resolved your problems, it reminds me of the great African capacity for forgiveness, for reconciliation. Even though we have difficult crises in the Great Lakes region, in eastern Zaire, I hope that the kind of experience, the kind of spirit, that made it possible to bring South Africa to where it is today would also prevail in our discussions with the other governments and the other peoples of the continent, as we move ahead to discuss their crises. Africa cannot develop economically and socially unless we can resolve some of these political conflicts. We cannot even pretend that “my country is OK; we are safe; we are stable”. Because for those outside, when you mention Africa, they consider it as a concern to all of us. From here, I go to Angola, where I hope we will be able to encourage the protagonists to put their differences behind them and follow the example of South Africa. If we can resolve the conflict in Angola, for the first time in many years the entire southern African region will be conflictfree. We can all imagine the great economic potential of the region. This region can put together a tourist package which no other part of the world can match. You can then go on to joint projects and focus on economic and social development of the people. I applaud what has happened here. I applaud President Mandela, and the effort South Africa has made in helping me and other governments resolve some of the African crises. I look forward to my stay here. Thank you very much.

Secretary-General Says Victory Against Apartheid Is a Sign of Hope for Humankind

I am delighted to visit South Africa. And I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the Institute of International Affairs in an event organized jointly with two of the most outstanding African Centres for the constructive resolution of disputes. Groups such as yours—research institutions, universities, think tanks—are increasingly active players on the international scene. This is a positive trend. You are key members of global civil society, whose efforts enrich the work of the United Nations. We are natural allies. It is particularly appropriate that I address you on this national Human Rights Day. The massacre of Sharpeville brought home to millions of people across the globe the plight of the majority of South Africans. On this day, let us pay tribute to all those who struggled and gave their lives in the fight against apartheid. That was a struggle not only for South Africa, but for the world, and the victory for freedom, equality, non-discrimination and justice, is a victory for human rights across the globe. As Secretary-General of the United Nations, this moment has special significance. In 1948, shortly after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, there was a historic debate in the General Assembly over its right to express concern over the apartheid system. The General Assembly decided that the principle of international concern for human rights took precedence over the claim of non-interference in internal affairs. As Secretary-General from the continent of Africa, I place great personal and symbolic importance on strengthening the already close ties that exist between the United Nations and the new South Africa. Our relationship was forged during the long struggle to eliminate apartheid. This fight was waged first and foremost by South Africans, for South Africans. But it embodied the struggle of all Africans, and all peoples, for emancipation and liberation from colonization, oppression, tyranny and discrimination. Those who struggle to defeat injustice are ultimately martyrs who sacrifice to enlarge the freedom of all. Thus the victory over apartheid was a sign of hope for all humankind. The campaign was also a formative experience for the United Nations. In solidarity with the South

21 March 1997 • 61 African majority, the General Assembly and Security Council took major initiatives to assist those suffering under apartheid and to pressure the regime into taking steps towards a democratic, non-racial, united South Africa. These initiatives included the application of economic, military, cultural and sporting sanctions. They also encompassed less well-known, but equally important, programmes of education and training that enabled disadvantaged communities to develop skills abroad that they are investing today in the new South Africa. Together, these actions proved to be a powerful and effective means for the international community to express both its sense of outrage and its solidarity with the people of this country. The experience helped define the role the world Organization could play in resolving seemingly intractable confrontations. We continue to profit from the lessons learned from this experience. Moreover, the triumph over apartheid gave the Organization’s credibility a powerful boost. Today, at the invitation of President Mandela, the United Nations is helping South Africans confront the legacy of the post-apartheid era. The scars inflicted by decades of institutionalized discrimination run painfully deep—economically, socially, physically and psychologically. The task of healing, rehabilitation and reconstruction will take years of sustained effort. The international community understands this, and wants to help. Already, working together, we succeeded in the realm of politics. Let us build on this achievement. In the field of education, South Africans are striving to build a more creative, more tolerant and more caring society. Serious challenges resulting from the inequitable distribution of resources and inappropriate teacher training, curricula and instructional materials are being addressed. In the health sector, South African medical professionals are immunizing children and treating the many young South Africans who show symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. South Africans are also taking urgent steps to confront the AIDS pandemic. But above all South Africa needs to enlarge the choices and opportunities for all its people. South Africa’s workers need jobs and training. South Africa’s towns require electrification and other basic municipal services, such as sanitation and safe water. National and local governments, as well as the business community and grass-roots organizations, are working to fulfil these needs. Land reform is a crucial issue affecting both

employment and income generation. A main goal in this area is to improve the distribution of good farmland. Taken together, the enormous economic and social disparities created by apartheid pose a major challenge to South Africa’s stability and long-term development. In a sense, South Africans face another liberation struggle; a fight for freedom from want, from hunger and from ignorance. It is a fight that can and must be won. Another primary challenge involves the question of governance. South Africa has accomplished much in this regard: The democratic elections of 1994; the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; and the adoption of a new Constitution, a copy of which was presented to me this week, at the same time as it reached the citizens of this new nation. It is a Constitution that safeguards human rights and fundamental freedoms, through the establishment of such mechanisms as the Human Rights Commission, with its extensive mandate, responsibilities and powers. These are all promising developments. But South Africans have realized that more is needed, especially the training of personnel from all communities for positions in public administration, the judiciary and the other essential institutions of government and society. South Africans understand that such investments in the development of human resources will further entrench the practice of democracy. The United Nations is providing help in all of these areas. Even before the historic elections of 1994, the Organization began planning its contribution to post-crisis reconstruction and development. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and specialized agencies helped ease the return of South African exiles and the reintegration of former political prisoners. Today, United Nations departments and agencies are aggressively implementing programmes that reflect the priorities of the System-wide Special Initiative on Africa. The initiative is designed to maximize support for African development at a time when the prospects for African economic recovery are greater than they have been in recent years—thanks in large part to the kinds of changes that have been occurring in South Africa. In keeping with long-standing United Nations principles, the initiative promotes African selfsufficiency—and African ownership of the development process. In this connection, allow me to raise a related issue: South Africa’s relationship with the interna-

62 • 21 March 1997

tional community. The struggle against apartheid brought the people of South Africa into sustained, intimate and ultimately fruitful contact with the international community. But now that South Africa’s unique crisis is over, the country’s economic and social needs have moved to the forefront of the nation’s consciousness. South Africans thus face the question of their country’s profile on the international stage. In an era of accelerating interdependence, will South Africa remain engaged at the global level? Or will South Africa look primarily inward, given the magnitude of its domestic needs? The latter choice would be perfectly understandable. But South Africa has much to offer the world community. And I would like to make the case for the country’s emerging global role. In his first speech to the General Assembly as President, Mr. Mandela said: “Democratic South Africa rejoins the world community of nations determined to play its role in helping to strengthen the United Nations and to contribute what it can to the furtherance of its purposes.” I believe this position reflects a belief held by South Africans that, just as the international community rallied around them in their hour of need, so will South Africans now respond in kind to the needs of the global society. Already, there are excellent indications that South Africa is putting this belief into effect. South Africa maintains excellent ties with almost all other African countries. It plays a key role within the Southern African Development Community (SADC). With other SADC members such as Botswana, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, it has helped Lesotho and Swaziland to address critical challenges. South Africa has actively promoted the process of national reconciliation in Angola. It has provided logistical and material support to the United Nations peace-keeping operation there. It has become involved in efforts to mediate a settlement of the crisis in the Great Lakes region. And it is taking part in discussions aimed at establishing a mechanism for African peace-keeping. The South African people are bringing to these and other international initiatives the same determination they displayed throughout the decades of apartheid. Let us now focus those formidable energies on the great global challenges of peace, development and the realization of all human rights for all Africans and all people around the world. That is the United Nations global mission, and South Africa’s history suggests it should be your country’s mission as well.

Enormous goodwill towards South Africa continues to prevail as the international community, and especially its new-found partners in trade and investment, watches and increasingly participates in the country’s ongoing transformation. Of course, the fate and future of Africa lie in Africa’s hands. But the United Nations has a deep and abiding commitment to the well-being of the continent. Thus the entire system will strive to ensure that Africa’s vision, its needs and interests are at the top of the international development agenda. As someone whose own moral education and political development was greatly influenced by events in South Africa, I pledge to provide whatever support you might wish to ask of me as the dramatic, inspiring saga of your country continues.

24 March 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Angola Juan Carlos Brandt, Associate Spokesman for the Secretary-General, informed correspondents at the beginning of today’s briefing that the office of the Spokesman had put out a statement received from Fred Eckhard, who was travelling with the Secretary-General, and was currently with him in Angola. The statement said that the SecretaryGeneral had today been able to secure from the Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi a commitment to take the final step to implement the peace agreement with the Angolan Government. The Secretary-General had met privately with Mr. Savimbi at his headquarters in Bailundo in central Angola today, Mr. Brandt said. After the meeting, the Secretary-General told correspondents that he and Mr. Savimbi had agreed that all the deputies and ministers of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) would return to Luanda and sit in the National Assembly before the Secretary-General’s departure. By way of background, the Associate Spokesman recalled that there had been problems regarding UNITA’s activities in the Parliament, which had prevented the two sides from forming the Government of National Unity and Reconciliation, as was called for in the peace agreement that they had reached in Lusaka, Zambia, in 1994. Implementation of the agreement was being monitored by the United Nations current largest peace-keeping mission, with over 6,000 troops. The Secretary-General would address the Parliament tomorrow after the remain-

24 March 1997 • 63 ing UNITA members were flown into the capital by the United Nations in the morning. The Secretary-General would personally be at the airport to receive them. Mr. Brandt said that the Secretary-General, speaking from a balcony overlooking the assembled crowd, told them: “This is a happy day for the people of Angola. I thank Mr. Savimbi and the leaders of Angola for the courage they have shown. Now we can look forward to reconstruction and social development, and we of the international community will be there to assist and to support you and to do our part. Today is an important day for Angola and the people of Angola; today we decided to take that final and difficult step towards the formation of a Government of National Unity and Reconciliation”. The Associate Spokesman said that Mr. Savimbi had confirmed that the UNITA members of the Parliament would travel to Luanda tomorrow and that UNITA ministers of the government would also come to the capital in the next few days. Standing next to the Secretary-General, Mr. Savimbi had commented: “We will consolidate peace, so that this peace is secured”. There was a lot of hope, but, Mr Brandt said “it is not over till it’s over”. . . . On the Secretary-General’s activities in the past few days, the Associate Spokesman said that on Saturday, upon his arrival in Namibia, he had had a first meeting with President Sam Nujoma at the airport; later this was followed by another, more formal meeting with the President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and other members of the Government. They had talked about Zaire, African representation on a democratized Security Council, and other African issues. That was followed by a two-hour working lunch with President Nujoma. The Secretary-General had then left for his journey to Angola, where he met with the press upon arrival and told them that the people of Angola were tired of war, Mr. Brandt said. “They are looking to their leaders to provide the peace that they’ve been yearning for. The international community shares that dream.” The Secretary-General had further said that he hoped that a Government of National Unity could be formed, mentioning that was the first peacekeeping operation that he was visiting as Secretary-General, Mr. Brandt said. Asked if the withdrawal of the United Nations Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM III) would be postponed, he had replied that at the current stage

there were no plans to postpone the withdrawal of United Nations troops, making it all the more important that the Government of National Unity be formed. He had also pointed out that the international community had spent a lot of time and resources on the effort to find a solution to the conflict, and appealed to the leaders to have the courage to make peace. On Sunday, Mr. Brandt continued, the Secretary-General left for Cuito early in the morning. Upon his arrival he was greeted by thousands of spectators during an “incredible rainstorm”. The Secretary-General went ahead to address the crowd, telling them that he had come to extend the solidarity of the international community to their determined efforts to reconstruct their lives and their city. He then visited the Brazilian Battalion camp in the city before leaving for Luanda, where he attended a working luncheon hosted by the Foreign Minister, Venancio de Moura. Following that, he attended a meeting with United Nations representatives and then was briefed by UNAVEM military and civilian police personnel. The Secretary-General’s programme ended on Sunday with an official reception hosted by his Special Representative, Alioune Blondin Beye, at the United Nations compound. Still on Angola, the Associate Spokesman announced that the Secretary-General would be issuing another report shortly, possibly tomorrow, before the mandate of UNAVEM III expires at the end of March. He recalled that the Security Council had in February extended the mandate by only one month. . . . In connection with Liberia, he pointed out that the Secretary-General’s report was now out, as document S/1997/237, dated 19 March. In it, the Secretary-General reported that the progress made since last January was generally encouraging. The outcome of the disarmament and demobilization exercise could be considered to be in substantial compliance with the Abuja Agreement. He also said that the main focus of UNOMIL must now be the forthcoming elections, and made recommendations on the role of the mission in it. Among other measures, the Secretary-General had recommended that UNOMIL’s electoral unit, which currently comprised only one person, be strengthened, and that 200 additional personnel be recruited from among existing UNOMIL and United Nations staff members, as well as from Member States and regional organizations to observe the polling and counting of votes. He had

64 • 24 March 1997

also recommended that a clear understanding be reached with the Economic Community of West African States’ Monitoring Observer Group (ECOMOG), regarding its responsibilities for the protection of international personnel during the electoral process, and that UNOMIL be authorized to make appropriate arrangements for the production of broadcasts for daily radio programmes to make sure that Liberian voters received neutral, factual information about the electoral process, the Associate Spokesman added. . . . Mr. Brandt told correspondents that in a letter dated 6 February, the President of Algeria had requested United Nations assistance for the upcoming parliamentary elections in the country. The United Nations subsequently dispatched an evaluation mission to Algeria from 6 to 12 March, and the mission submitted a confidential report on 17 March. Based on that report and its conclusions, the Secretary-General had sent a response to the President of Algeria, basically making three points. The first was that the United Nations was ready to supply to the Government of Algeria a small technical team to coordinate and support the work of the international observers who would be invited on the occasion of the parliamentary elections which would take place there. In providing that assistance, the United Nations role would be to facilitate the international monitoring of the electoral campaign, as well as the progress of the tallying of votes. The United Nations itself would not observe the elections in order to ensure their proper course and its results, and similarly, the Organization would not make any declaration regarding the elections. Next, Mr. Brandt continued, the SecretaryGeneral said in the letter that the Government of Algeria should, of course, provide in an appropriate way for the security of those staff who were part of that small technical team. Finally, he stated that the United Nations would send the technical team as soon as possible, so that the international observers may ensure the widest possible coverage of that important process. In anticipation of questions, Mr. Brandt said the letter would not be released, nor would it be issued as a document, since it was a private letter. . . . A correspondent noted that the SecretaryGeneral had received a briefing from Executive Deputy President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa concerning the situation in Zaire, and wanted to know the current position of the joint Special Representative of the United Nations/Organization

of African Unity (OAU) Mohamed Sahnoun following the incident in Kisangani at the weekend when Mr. Sahnoun was present at the rally of rebel leader Laurent Kabila. Mr. Brandt answered that Mr. Sahnoun continued to be the representative of the United Nations and the OAU, and continued to be extremely committed to the cause of peace in Zaire. “He will attend—as will the Secretary-General—the meeting in Lome, Togo; the work continues.” Asked if the consolidation of Government in Angola struck the Secretary-General as any “kind of model, or example of what might or should happen with the United Nations”, Mr. Brandt replied that the Government of National Unity and Reconciliation should be established first. “If it is, it would be a good thing, a good example of the kind of work that the United Nations is able to do, as we have seen in other examples throughout the world.” . . .

24 March 1997 Secretary-General Says Peace in Angloa Would be Harbinger of Peace on African Continent

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6191); Angola Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Joint Commission related to Angola’s peace process, in Luanda. It is an honour for me to chair this Extraordinary Session of the Joint Commission on my first visit to Angola as Secretary-General. The main reason for my visit here, so early in my term as Secretary-General, is to give fresh impetus to the search for peace in this country. We are in the final lap of a long race. It is said that races are won in the final lap. The developments in Bailundo today confirm the validity of that old adage. I will elaborate on today’s significant developments shortly. In our endeavour to assist the Angolan people in their tireless search for peace, I seek your continued help, support and expertise. This Joint Commission has been a vital part of the peace process. All of you have worked long and hard to help bring peace to this country: many of you, indeed, have been members of this Commission since the days of the Lusaka talks. I am grateful for all you have done. I also thank the Observer States—Portugal, Russian Federation and the United States—for their valuable contribution to the work of this Joint Commission, and also for their support for the

26 March 1997 • 65 Angolan peace process in the United Nations Security Council. No one expected the task of this Commission to be easy or straightforward. It faced a daunting agenda—supervising the implementation of those aspects of the Bicesse Accords of a political, administrative or military nature which had not been implemented, and the carrying out of the Lusaka Protocol. There have been achievements. There has been a cease-fire, and the country has not been at war for a longer period than at any time since independence. Some combatants have been put in cantonments and arms have been handed in. There has been a reduction in the level of political propaganda. An amnesty law has been passed. Prisoners have been released. I know how much this Joint Commission has accomplished. It provided a forum where the parties could meet, confer and work out their differences together. It provided a place where informal dialogue could take place. It also gave clear parameters to the parties, by establishing clear timescales, and by organizing follow-up meetings between the delegation chiefs. The Joint Commission, in other words, has done what it can to implement the goals of the peace process. It held meetings not only in Luanda, but also in the provinces. It took the message of the peace process—the message of peace and reconciliation—to all parts of the country. And, by organizing transport convoys, it helped to re-establish the principle of freedom of movement of people and goods throughout the country. Yet, as we know, actual implementation of the accords has lagged lamentably behind. There have been many occasions on which you must have asked yourselves whether your efforts were worthwhile. Peace has been painfully slow in coming. Your patience has been sorely tried. But you stayed the course. Your persistence in the face of so much discouragement is admirable. However, we may all be nearing the end of the tunnel. Following my meeting with Dr. Savimbi today in Bailundo, I am encouraged that the major impediment to the peace process in Angola has been removed. Dr. Savimbi informed me that all the deputies of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) will take their seats in the National Assembly tomorrow when I will deliver my address to the unified legislature which will serve the interest of all the people of Angola. Forty-nine UNITA deputies are already in

Luanda and the rest will travel to Luanda early tomorrow morning by a special aircraft of the United Nations Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM III) and I will personally meet them at Luanda airport. Dr. Savimbi also informed me that the UNITA members of the Government will all be in Luanda on 26 March and that, following consultations with President Eduardo dos Santos, UNITA is ready for the formal installation by the end of March of the Government of National Unity and Reconciliation. In his address to the people of Bailundo and to UNITA in general following our talks, Dr. Savimbi said the following: “We will consolidate peace so that this peace is secured.” These developments are significant and I have no doubt that they will be quite welcomed by the Angolan people and by the international community. The Government and UNITA must now proceed without delay to implement the rest of the Lusaka Protocol. I hope that they will rise to this historic occasion, honour their commitments and show themselves worthy of the support of the Angolan people and the international community. Nothing would give me more joy at this time; nothing would give me greater satisfaction, as an African, than to see an end to this last internal conflict in the southern African sub-region. Peace in Angola would be the harbinger of peace throughout southern Africa, and, ultimately, on the African continent as a whole. So, despite the delays, the difficulties and the frustration, I hope that with the positive development of today, we can still win the peace here. Again, I thank all members of the Joint Commission for all you have done. Your role is, and will remain, crucial.

26 March 1997 Secretary-General Urges Renewed Commitment to Promoting Africa Stability

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6192/Rev.1); Africa Text of the Secretary-General’s statement to the Central Organ of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution, in Lomé, Togo. The original included some sections in French, which appear here translated into English. I should like, first, to tell you how happy and honoured I am to be here with you, today, in Togo. At this very crucial time for peace and stability in

66 • 26 March 1997

Africa, I am pleased that so many heads of State have responded to the invitation of President Gnassingbé Eyadéma. I see this as a vivid demonstration of African solidarity in the face of the tragedies that are today afflicting our dear continent and as a clear expression of your political will to work together to establish peace in the Great Lakes region. Since the start of the events that are unfolding in the eastern part of Zaire, the United Nations has spared no effort to try to resolve the political crisis and humanitarian tragedy which that country is undergoing. First of all, it has sought to provide aid and comfort to the affected populations, both refugees and displaced persons. I should like to pay a personal tribute to all those men and women who have devoted themselves untiringly under particularly difficult conditions, and to the humanitarian agencies whose actions have, at times, been unjustly criticized. It has also helped bring together the conditions for a peaceful settlement of the crisis, and it continues to grow its full weight behind efforts to facilitate the implementation thereof. Finally, it has sought to convince the actors of the twin necessities to renounce violence and at the same time sit down at the negotiating table. I am pleased that our two organizations, the Organization of African Unity and the United Nations, are working hand in hand to meet this major challenge. They share the same objectives. They are pooling their resources and capacities, as demonstrated by the appointment of Ambassador Mohamed Sahnoun as joint Special Representative of our two organizations. That is why I wish to tell you how pleased the United Nations is with the commendable and fruitful initiatives that many African heads of State have taken, individually and collectively, since the start of the crisis. The Nairobi meeting of 19 March was one fine example of this; today’s meeting is yet another. That is also why I should like, here, to pay tribute to my brother and friend, Salim Ahmed Salim, for the effective and trusting relations that he maintains with the United Nations. The United Nations and the OAU are working within a joint framework for peace: the comprehensive five-point peace plan endorsed by the Security Council. All aspects of the plan should now be pursued together, though flexibility in the interrelationship among the different points should be allowed for.

Zaire and Zairians must now move forward on a clear path towards lasting peace and reconstruction based on democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. But before that can happen, the fighting must stop and a dialogue must begin among Zairians. That is now the strong view of the international community. The Nairobi Summit called on the parties to cease hostilities and create the necessary environment to facilitate a negotiated settlement. I strongly endorse that call. I urge the parties to move to the negotiating table. In this regard, I am encouraged by the recent declaration of President Mobutu Sese Seko calling for a cease-fire and dialogue, as well as the decision by the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of CongoZaire to declare a temporary cease-fire in the region of Kisangani. The United Nations, through the efforts of the joint United Nations/OAU Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region, will continue to press the two sides in order that, without further delay, they accept total cessation of hostilities and commence negotiations. We have also continued our contingency planning for a possible United Nations monitoring mechanism designed to help monitor cessation of hostilities in Zaire and for implementation of the peace plan, including its humanitarian objectives and programmes. Should such a monitoring mechanism be established, African States and the OAU will have to play an important part in it. We would welcome any proposal from your Central Organ towards that end. The plight of the refugees and internally displaced persons is also a matter of widespread international concern. We in the United Nations, with the assistance of international humanitarian agencies, are doing our best, in very difficult circumstances, to provide relief and assistance. It is incumbent on the parties to act immediately and swiftly to help bring relief to innocent civilians caught up in the fighting. At this point, therefore, I make a special plea to all parties to arrange for the safety, security and return of the innocent refugees and displaced persons to their places of origin. That would be a tangible demonstration of goodwill and an indication of willingness to abide by international humanitarian norms. I also believe that we must keep human rights issues at the forefront of our consideration. Atrocities should be investigated. In the talks, the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human

27 March 1997 • 67 Rights and the international covenants should be given a central role. Security Council resolution 1097 (1997) is deliberately broad in scope. But its thrust is clear. Military might or intervention alone cannot successfully lay the foundations for lasting peace. Effective peacemaking and conflict resolution in the Great Lakes region must embrace the broadest humanitarian, social and economic dimensions. Hence our efforts to organize an international conference on peace, stability and development. In recent years, in one country after another— in Somalia, Burundi, Rwanda, Sudan and now Zaire—Africa has been in crisis. Ordinary Africans, especially women and children—have paid a terrible price for political instability, division and regional hostilities. But we know that things are changing. During my recent visit to Angola, I observed the unquenchable yearning for peace on the part of the people of that country, who have suffered for decades from a most brutal civil war. The people and leaders of Angola are now determined to end their conflict and put their country back on track. When Africans act together, it can make a world of difference. No longer do Africans shelter behind narrow nationalism and say “It isn’t my country, so it isn’t my problem”. They know that the sufferings of any African affect all Africans. I see a new African unity of purpose here today. As an African, I find that uplifting. We are beginning to end the stereotype of Africa as a continent in crisis, a house divided against itself. African unity is the key. Africa does not command great arsenals. But African unity can be a strong moral force. When Africa speaks with one voice, the world listens. But if Africa speaks with a cacophony of confused messages, few will listen, and no one will hear. In conclusion, I urge you all to join me in renewing our commitment to promoting on our continent stability, social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom for all Africans. This is the least we can do for the present and future generations of Africans. I have no doubt that Africa can count on all of us.

27 March 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Africa ...

Since the Secretary-General arrived in Lomé, Mr. Ueki said, he had participated in the formal meetings of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) summit and held a large number of bilateral meetings. Much of today had been spent with President Gnassingbé Eyadéma of Togo; President Paul Biya of Cameroon, who is also current Chairman of the OAU; the Zairian Government delegation headed by the deputy head of Parliament; and a two-person delegation representing Laurent Kabila of the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo/ Zaire (ADL). Last night, he continued, the Togolese leader hosted a meeting of the two Zairian delegations at which the heads of delegations shook hands. The Secretary-General and the President of Cameroon had been present at the occasion, which was photographed by United Nations photographer Milton Grant, he added. The objective of Mr. Annan and the OAU at the summit, the Associate Spokesman said, was to get talks started between the two Zairian parties; the issue was whether a cease-fire should precede the talks, or vice-versa. The Secretary-General’s position was for them to agree to talks and a ceasefire simultaneously. The plenary session of the OAU had ended last night, with a draft declaration on the table, but discussions had continued. Mr. Annan was due to leave the Togolese capital in a few hours, travelling through Amsterdam, and was expected to arrive in New York tomorrow morning at about 10:30 a.m. Turning to the Security Council, Mr. Ueki reported that it had held consultations this morning on Angola. Recalling that the Secretary-General had recommended a two-week roll-over of the mandate, he said that action by the Council was expected on Monday. The Secretary-General was also expected on Monday to brief the Council on his recent trip to Angola. Today, the Council had also discussed Bosnia and Herzegovina. It considered the report of the Secretary-General concerning his recommendations for an increase in the strength of the International Police Task Force (IPTF). The Council was discussing a draft resolution drawing attention to the cost estimates contained in a Security Council document. It estimated that approximately $14 million would be required for the international policing in Brcko for a 12-month period. For the expansion of the mandate of the IPTF in the investigation of human rights violations, approximately $9.5 million was projected, making a grand total of $24 million for the 12 months. The Council was at the time of the briefing

68 • 27 March 1997

holding a formal meeting on the United Nations Observer Mission in Liberia (UNOMIL), he said. It would consider the extension of the mandate of UNOMIL for three months until 30 June, as the Secretary-General had recommended. . . . Mr. Ueki drew attention to another report of the Secretary-General, on Afghanistan, where he had said that the situation in the country remained precarious, and peace remained elusive in spite of the United Nations efforts. According to the report, the military situation was dangerously fluid and might soon deteriorate further with the onset of the spring thaw. Despite the continuous suffering of the Afghan people, the warring factions had not heeded the repeated appeals for peace, and appeared determined to pursue the military option. However, the Secretary-General remained convinced, the Associate Spokesman noted, that a negotiated settlement was the only solution to that long-standing conflict, and that the United Nations was the most appropriate forum to bring that about. In that connection, he was proposing another meeting of concerned countries shortly, using the formula that had been used for the meeting held in New York last November. The proposed meeting might take place sometime in April. There had been several updates on the implementation of resolution 986 (1995) on the “oil-forfood” formula, Mr. Ueki informed correspondents, one of them detailing the actual dates of arrival of humanitarian goods in Iraq. So far, it was estimated that 16,500 metric tons of humanitarian supplies had arrived in the country, including one vessel that docked at Umm Qasr yesterday. Concerning the Thai rice that was brought in yesterday, he said there was available a fact sheet detailing where it would be stored in Iraq. On the observation and monitoring of the shipments, there was also available to correspondents a list of phone numbers, addresses, names of United Nations agencies, as well as the humanitarian coordinators. The updates were available in the office of the Spokesman, he added. . . . Answering a question on talks of a United Nations force in Zaire, he said that the main focus of the Organization’s contingency planning was the monitoring mechanism that the Secretary-General had talked about in his speech to the OAU Summit. That would presage a cease-fire, about which—as he had said earlier— there was as yet no agreement. He reiterated that the Secretary-General’s position was that both cease-fire and peace talks should take place simultaneously.

31 March 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Africa Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, told correspondents at today’s noon briefing that the Secretary-General was back from his Africa visit and was now briefing the Security Council on the subject of Angola. During that visit, the Spokesman said that the Secretary-General had convinced the leader of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), Jonas Savimbi, to send the UNITA members of the Parliament to Luanda to attend a session of the Parliament there. Accordingly, some 58 UNITA members came to hear the Secretary-General’s address the next day. Mr. Savimbi also sent a number of ministers, vice-ministers and other UNITA members of the Government of National Unity and Reconciliation, which was to be formed according to the Peace Accords. The Secretary-General was currently informing the Security Council that a date for the establishment of the Government of National Reconciliation had been agreed upon between the Government and UNITA for 11 April. Mr. Eckhard said that the Secretary-General felt that while there were still significant aspects of the peace agreement to implement—not the least of which was extending the Government’s administrative control over the entire nation of Angola— he also felt the peace process was back on track. The Council was expected to adopt a roll-over resolution today, on the recommendation of the Secretary-General, to extend the mandate of the United Nations Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM III) for two weeks. There was a second gratifying aspect to the Secretary-General’s visit, Spokesman Eckhard said. At the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit in Lomé, Togo, under talks hosted by President Gnassingbé Eyadéma of Togo and President Paul Biya of Cameroon and which included the Secretary-General, the two sides in Zaire had agreed to talks and a cease-fire at an early date. A specific date was impossible to make at the time because of communications problems with Laurent Kabila of the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo-Zaire (ADFL). The talks, led by Mohamed Sahnoun, the Joint United Nations/OAU Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region, were now expected to get under way this weekend in South Africa, where

2 April 1997 • 69 they would have the support of the South African Government. The Secretary-General would brief the Council on eastern Zaire tomorrow, he added. ... Mr. Eckhard said that the Secretary-General would be “leaving New York again” on Thursday for a visit to India where, in addition to having an official visit, he would address a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement. From India, he would travel to Geneva where he would chair a meeting of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), the coordinating mechanism for the entire United Nations system. He would then make an official visit to Italy from 11 April to 16 April, and finally arrive in Germany for an official visit from 16 to 18 April. . . . Reviewing today’s appointments of the Secretary-General, Mr. Eckhard said he was hosting a luncheon at the residence in honour of King Hussein and Queen Noor Al-Hussein of Jordan. He was meeting with the United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright this afternoon, as well as with representatives of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The luncheon for the King and the meeting with the Conference of Presidents were both scheduled sometime ago and were not related to the latest developments in the Middle East, although those developments would likely be discussed. . . . Mr. Eckhard also announced a meeting between the Secretary-General and James Baker III, the new Special Envoy for Western Sahara, scheduled for Wednesday at 3 p.m. He was trying to schedule a press briefing with Mr. Baker, as well, he added. . . .

2 April 1997 Letter (UN archives); UN reform To: Mr. Joseph E. Conner Under-Secretary-General for Management From: The Secretary-General Subject: Transfer of Resources from Administration to Programmes On the basis of a proposal submitted by you, I indicated to the President of the General Assembly in my 17 March letter to him (A/51/829) that a plan will be prepared for presentation to Member States for a reduction of at least one-third in the proportion of resources devoted to administration and other non-programme costs in the regular budget to be achieved by the year 2001. It was further indicat-

ed therein that the aim was to achieve an absolute reduction of resources devoted to administration with resources released made available to programmes in the economic and social areas. I wish to be in a position to provide details of the plan for the transfer of resources from administration to programmes in my July report. Consequently, I would appreciate it if you would submit this plan to me, through the Steering Committee on United Nations Reform, no later than 1 June 1997. The Executive Coordinator for United Nations Reform will assist me in overseeing the setting-up and functioning of the action processes outlined in my 17 March letter. Consequently, I should be grateful if you would consult with him in the implementation of this particular measure. Cc: Mr. Maurice Strong

2 April 1997 Letter (UN archives); UN reform To: The Secretary-General From: Joseph E. Connor, Under-Secretary-General for Management Subject: An accelerated process of managerial reform You have asked me to lead an accelerated and expanded process of managerial reform and laid out key goals which you want the organization to pursue as part of the first track of your overall programme of reforming the United Nations: Accelerate and expand managerial reform, placing greater emphasis on effectiveness and embedding efficiency reviews into the work of the organization, completing at least 400 efficiency projects, achieving efficiency savings of at least 100 million dollars in 1997 (regular and extrabudgetary) and similar levels in 1998–1999; and Reduce non-programme costs of the organization from 38 per cent of its budget to no more than 25 per cent by 2001, streamlining administration and reallocating resources to economic and social programmes; Modernize and enhance services and information provided to Member States, expanding the use of information technology and the availability and transparency of information, with key goals of connecting all Missions electronically to the Secretariat by 1 June 1997 and reducing the quantity of paper documents by 25 per cent no later than 1998; Increase the accountability and responsibility

2 April 1997 • 69 they would have the support of the South African Government. The Secretary-General would brief the Council on eastern Zaire tomorrow, he added. ... Mr. Eckhard said that the Secretary-General would be “leaving New York again” on Thursday for a visit to India where, in addition to having an official visit, he would address a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement. From India, he would travel to Geneva where he would chair a meeting of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), the coordinating mechanism for the entire United Nations system. He would then make an official visit to Italy from 11 April to 16 April, and finally arrive in Germany for an official visit from 16 to 18 April. . . . Reviewing today’s appointments of the Secretary-General, Mr. Eckhard said he was hosting a luncheon at the residence in honour of King Hussein and Queen Noor Al-Hussein of Jordan. He was meeting with the United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright this afternoon, as well as with representatives of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The luncheon for the King and the meeting with the Conference of Presidents were both scheduled sometime ago and were not related to the latest developments in the Middle East, although those developments would likely be discussed. . . . Mr. Eckhard also announced a meeting between the Secretary-General and James Baker III, the new Special Envoy for Western Sahara, scheduled for Wednesday at 3 p.m. He was trying to schedule a press briefing with Mr. Baker, as well, he added. . . .

2 April 1997 Letter (UN archives); UN reform To: Mr. Joseph E. Conner Under-Secretary-General for Management From: The Secretary-General Subject: Transfer of Resources from Administration to Programmes On the basis of a proposal submitted by you, I indicated to the President of the General Assembly in my 17 March letter to him (A/51/829) that a plan will be prepared for presentation to Member States for a reduction of at least one-third in the proportion of resources devoted to administration and other non-programme costs in the regular budget to be achieved by the year 2001. It was further indicat-

ed therein that the aim was to achieve an absolute reduction of resources devoted to administration with resources released made available to programmes in the economic and social areas. I wish to be in a position to provide details of the plan for the transfer of resources from administration to programmes in my July report. Consequently, I would appreciate it if you would submit this plan to me, through the Steering Committee on United Nations Reform, no later than 1 June 1997. The Executive Coordinator for United Nations Reform will assist me in overseeing the setting-up and functioning of the action processes outlined in my 17 March letter. Consequently, I should be grateful if you would consult with him in the implementation of this particular measure. Cc: Mr. Maurice Strong

2 April 1997 Letter (UN archives); UN reform To: The Secretary-General From: Joseph E. Connor, Under-Secretary-General for Management Subject: An accelerated process of managerial reform You have asked me to lead an accelerated and expanded process of managerial reform and laid out key goals which you want the organization to pursue as part of the first track of your overall programme of reforming the United Nations: Accelerate and expand managerial reform, placing greater emphasis on effectiveness and embedding efficiency reviews into the work of the organization, completing at least 400 efficiency projects, achieving efficiency savings of at least 100 million dollars in 1997 (regular and extrabudgetary) and similar levels in 1998–1999; and Reduce non-programme costs of the organization from 38 per cent of its budget to no more than 25 per cent by 2001, streamlining administration and reallocating resources to economic and social programmes; Modernize and enhance services and information provided to Member States, expanding the use of information technology and the availability and transparency of information, with key goals of connecting all Missions electronically to the Secretariat by 1 June 1997 and reducing the quantity of paper documents by 25 per cent no later than 1998; Increase the accountability and responsibility

70 • 2 April 1997

of programme managers for real results on the ground, provide better, more cost-effective support services and recast central management in a new Department of Management. As promised to the Member States, what follows is a situation report on where we are at the end of the first quarter of 1997 for each of these areas of managerial reform. In some areas, we have only begun the exercise. In others, we are well under way and producing measurable results. They build on the process that the Efficiency Board catalyzed over the last year and the efficiency projects initiated by UN managers and staff members (reported on in UN21: Better Service, Better Value, Better Management, September 1996). As you have requested, it focuses on steps that enhance the effectiveness as well as the efficiency of the organization and the provision of services to Member States. There is an excellent basis for achieving each of the goals that you have laid out. Well over 450 efficiency projects have now been initiated, more than 200 have been completed, the rest are underway. Concrete results from these projects are contributing to our keeping within a “no-growth” budget, living with reduced staff levels and laying the basis for future savings. They are also improving the effectiveness of the organization in key areas and expanding services that the organization provides to Member States and others. We have initiated pilot projects to demonstrate the benefits of enhanced accountability and flexibility for managers, and we have gotten a start on simplifying administrative processes. As we move forward, it will be important to build on what we have learned and accomplished so far. It is essential to expand on and support the ideas, involvement and initiatives of Secretariat staff members and managers. At the same time, the experience and expertise of Member States in achieving “value for money” in public-sector reform has been invaluable. Their experience provides useful lessons to consider as we embark on additional reform. Most important to the success will be to continue to focus on implementation, on real results that make a difference in how the Secretariat functions and the services it provides. This report that I am forwarding to you describes the significant challenges that we face in each of the areas you have identified and some of the results that we have achieved. It also describes activities that are “in the pipeline” and others representing future challenges, including changes that would need to be made by an inter-

governmental or other body. Together, I believe, these efforts will result in a significant improvement in the management of the organization and an important contribution to your reform efforts and to the management of this critical institution. This report could be issued by the USG of DAM, as part of an ongoing search for efficiency. Earlier reports had been issued. —K.A. 2/4

2 April 1997 Letter (UN archive); reduction in documentation To: Mr. Joseph E. Connor, Under-Secretary-General for Administration and Management From: The Secretary-General Subject: Reduction in Documentation In my letter dated 17 March 1997 to the President of the General Assembly (A/51/829), I had confirmed my intention to reduce the amount of documentation produced by the Secretariat. In particular, I set a target of twenty-five per cent for a reduction in documentation produced by the Secretariat to be achieved no later than the end of 1998. I wish to see action taken as rapidly as possible to achieve this goal. In this regard, I should be grateful if you could arrange for a draft of the necessary administrative instruction to implement the 16-page limit for Secretariat documentation to be submitted to me, through the Steering Committee on United Nations Reform, for approval as soon as possible. Similarly, I would appreciate your recommendations as to the course of action to be followed in seeking approval from intergovernmental organs to reduce the length of reports produced by these bodies from the standard 32 pages to 20 pages. I also invite you to provide me with options for streamlining reporting methods and further measures which could be submitted to Member States in the near future for reducing documentation and eliminating unnecessary paperwork. The Executive Coordinator for United Nations Reform will assist me in overseeing the setting-up and functioning of the action processes outlined in my 17 March letter. Consequently, I should be grateful if you would fully consult with him in the implementation of this particular measure. cc: Mr. Maurice F. Strong Mr. Jin Yongjian Mr. Benon Sevan

3 April 1997 • 71 3 April 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/276): Macedonia Letter to the president of the Security Council, António Monteiro. Dear Mr. President, I refer to my predecessor’s report of 19 November 1996 on the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP) in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (S/1996/961) and to Security Council resolution 1082 (1996) of 27 November 1996 on the same subject. In his report, my predecessor pointed out that the current mandate of UNPREDEP in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is of a preventive nature, aimed at enabling the country to weather a turbulent and hazardous period. The role of UNPREDEP—previously a part of UNPROFOR—under Security Council resolution 795 (1992) was to establish a United Nations presence on the border of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia with Albania and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, with a view to monitoring and reporting developments in those areas which could undermine confidence and stability in the country or threaten its territory. It was intended that such a presence would also deter threats from any source and help prevent the possibility of clashes between external elements and the country’s forces. As members of the Council will recall, my predecessor also noted in his report that peace and stability in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia were intimately linked to the overall situation in the region. However, recent developments had made the original purpose of deploying a United Nations mission to prevent conflicts elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia from spilling over to that country—more remote. The relative tranquillity in the area and the desire to achieve economies in peace-keeping operations therefore led my predecessor to recommend a phased reduction of the military component of UNPREDEP by 300 all ranks by 1 April 1997. The Security Council endorsed that recommendation in resolution 1082 (1996) and decided that the proposed reduction should be effected by 30 April 1997. Recent developments in Albania and the resulting situation of lawlessness and banditry in certain parts of that country have demonstrated that stability in the Balkan region remains extremely fragile. The Security Council, in its Presidential statement of 13 March 1997 (S/PRST/ 1997/14) and in its resolution 1101 (1997) of 28 March 1997, has expressed its deep concern over

this deteriorating situation, stressed the importance of regional stability and, in this context, expressed its full support for the diplomatic efforts of the international community to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. While there appears to be no imminent danger of the problems in Albania spilling over to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the current crisis is a source of great anxiety in that country. As members of the Security Council are aware, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in a letter addressed to me on 7 March 1997 (S/1997/205), has underlined the seriousness of the situation and requested that the reduction of UNPREDEP’s military component be suspended. The volatility of the situation has also caused both my Special Representative and the Force Commander of UNPREDEP to convey to me their concern about the timing of the downsizing of the Force. As the Council was informed, UNPREDEP began the mandated reduction of its military component at the end of March when it started the process of dismantling its observation posts along the borders with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Albania. Although this did not affect the number of patrols or the effectiveness of UNPREDEP’s monitoring activities, the commencement of the closure of the observation posts, which coincided with the crisis in Albania, was misperceived and resulted in immediate criticism of UNPREDEP in the local press. Considering the situation in the region, my Special Representative and the Force Commander, with my agreement, have temporarily suspended the draw-down of the military component. However, in order to meet the 30 April deadline for the mandated reduction in force levels, UNPREDEP will be required to resume the draw-down in the coming days. UNPREDEP has considered the possibility of concentrating the draw-down on the border between the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. However, there is a clear possibility that reducing UNPREDEP’s strength on the northern border at this sensitive time might have negative repercussions. This would be particularly true if the situation in Albania continued to deteriorate, with possible effects on minority Albanian speaking populations throughout the region. UNPREDEP has, to date, been a most successful mission. However, proceeding with the planned reduction during a period when further regional instability continues to be a possibility could put at

72 • 3 April 1997

risk the credibility of the international community’s first serious effort at preventive deployment. In light of the above, and on the basis of the advice of my Special Representative, I recommend that the Security Council approve the suspension of the UNPREDEP military component until the end of the current mandate on 31 May 1997. I should be grateful if you would bring this letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

3 April 1997 Letter (EOSG); Africa Letter to the president of the World Bank, James D. Wolfensohn. Dear Mr. Wolfensohn, I should like to thank you for your letter of 28 February 1997 concerning the World Bank’s initiative for a “Partnership for Capacity-Building in Africa.” I greatly appreciate the priority that the Bank, under your leadership, is giving to supporting African countries in addressing the many developmental challenges faced by the continent. This was reflected in the leadership you have provided in moving forward the Debt Initiative for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs), most of which are in Africa, and is now further evidenced by the strong support you are extending to this new initiative. Capacity-building is, indeed, one of the key requirements confronting African countries and their development partners and is, as such, a major element of the United Nations System-Wide Special Initiative on Africa. Capacity-building, as a prerequisite for countries to assume full “ownership” of their development, was also strongly emphasized during the mid-term review of the United Nations New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s (UN-NADAF) conducted by the General Assembly at its last session. In defining “capacity” as encompassing “people, institutions, and practices that enable countries to achieve their development goals”, the Bank’s report provides a clear framework of analysis. The strengthening, in this context, of physical, institutional and social infrastructures, as well as technology mastery, is especially crucial for the least developed countries. Clarity as to implementation modalities is also of great importance, and I note that the Bank’s report is very concrete in this regard.

At this stage, the added-value of international programmes aimed at supporting African countries in their development efforts depends to a large extent on the degree of collaboration that can be established within the United Nations system, as well as among all international partners. I am therefore pleased that the World Bank is cooperating, in the implementation of the initiative, with concerned United Nations organizations, in particular the United Nations Development Programme which is supporting a large number of on-going programmes of African governments relating to capacity-building. I would greatly appreciate, drawing on this collaboration, being kept informed of progress in the implementation of this important initiative.

4 April 1997 Letter (EOSG); chemical weapons Letter sent to the presidents of Indonesia, Venezuela, Ghana, Kenya, Pakistan, Iran, Zimbabwe, and China. Dear Mr. President, The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction will enter into force on 29 April 1997. It means that this historic disarmament agreement, which was negotiated within a multilateral framework and expresses the will of the international community to eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction, will finally become international law. So far the Convention has been ratified by 70 countries from all regions of the world. Among them are big industrialized nations and small developing countries, all of them equally convinced of the benefits that this treaty will bring to themselves, to their regions and to the world at large. But the key to the success of the Convention is the achievement of its universality. Whilst the timely adherence of the two major chemical weapons possessors is of critical importance at this stage, I consider it also very important that other nations that have already committed themselves to the goals of this treaty by having signed it speed up their ratification processes and finalize internal preparations for its implementation. Doing this before the entry into force of the Convention will not only give these countries a say in the setting up of the new organization to oversee the implementation of the Convention—the OPCW—but also help ensure that the treaty regime has a truly international character.

4 April 1997 • 73 I am planning to fly to The Hague in order to open the first session of the Conference of States Parties which starts its work on 6 May this year, and I would very much hope to see Indonesia among the full members of the OPCW contributing to the challenging work of setting in motion the most comprehensive disarmament regime developed so far. By this letter I am appealing for your leadership and personal involvement in finalizing the ratification process in Indonesia. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

4 April 1997 Letter (UN archive); chemical weapons convention This letter to Russian president Boris Yeltsin is similar to ones sent out to other heads of state, but demonstrates the personal effort that the Secretary-General put into encouraging Russia to become an original state party to the convention. Dear Mr. President, The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction will enter into force on 29 April 1997. It means that this historic disarmament agreement negotiated within a multilateral framework will finally become international law. I consider it critically important that the Russian Federation, as well as the United States, be among the original States Parties to this Convention. Given your country’s special role and responsibility in the matter of chemical disarmament and in the maintenance of international peace and security in general, its participation is vital for the full and effective accomplishment of the tasks and objectives of the Convention. Indeed, this conviction of the international community is amply reflected in the UN resolution 51/45 T adopted by the General Assembly last November. The timely adherence of the Russian Federation to the Convention would encourage many other countries to join, thus giving powerful impetus to achieving universality of the treaty. Since the Convention involves, in certain cases, the United Nations mechanisms responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, notably the Security Council, I would very much hope that all five permanent members of the Council are States Parties to the Convention

from the beginning. With France and the United Kingdom already having submitted their instruments of ratification, China having finalized all domestic ratification procedures and the United States rapidly moving towards a vote on the Convention in the Senate, this very much depends on the progress in Russia. Russian participation in the Convention from the very beginning is equally important for the international community and for Russia itself in light of the challenging tasks of shaping the new international organization—the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons—which will now be established to oversee the implementation of the treaty. I strongly welcome your recent decision to submit the Convention to the Duma and feel encouraged by your personal determination to work for the prompt ratification of the Convention as reflected in the joint statement issued at the Helsinki Summit. By this letter I am appealing for your continuing leadership and personal involvement in bringing the ratification process in Russia to a successful conclusion. I fully recognize the difficulties and challenges the Russian Federation is facing with regard to the implementation of some of the provisions of the Convention, most importantly those related to the destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles. I wish to emphasize in this connection, that the Convention’s provisions would allow a certain degree of flexibility not only with regard to a 5year extension of the deadline for completion of the destruction period but also with regard to application of the time frame for destruction at initial phases of this process, giving clear preference in this regard to original States Parties. In my forthcoming meetings with leaders of industrialized nations I will request them to consider sympathetically your situation with a view to taking further actions that would ease the economic strain and thereby contribute to helping you to fulfil your obligations under the Convention. I wish to assure you of my keen interest in this issue and very much hope that it will be possible to find the further assistance needed by the Russian Federation to resolve these difficulties. I very much hope that you would also convey my appeal to the leadership of the Duma and of the Federation Council. I am writing similar letters to President Clinton and to some other world leaders whose countries’ participation is considered important for the success of the Convention.

74 • 4 April 1997

Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

4 April 1997 Letter (UN archives); chemical weapons convention This letter to US president Bill Clinton is similar to those sent to other heads of state, but demonstrates the effort that the Secretary-General put into a personalized approach to President Clinton. Dear Mr. President, The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction will enter into force on 29 April 1997. Thus this historic disarmament and non-proliferation agreement designed to eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction will finally become international law. I have no doubt that you, Mr. President, share my strong belief that the effectiveness of the Convention and of the regime which will be based on it will depend to a great degree on whether the United States is among the original States Parties to this treaty. There are, indeed, many reasons underlying this belief, including your country’s leading role and responsibility in the matter of chemical disarmament, the need to assure the proper beginning of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ activities, providing a solid financial basis for the verification regime and putting in place sound longterm policies of the Organization with regard to personnel and financial management, to mention just a few. I also believe that the sooner the United States ratification is assured the better it will be for the Convention, since it will send powerful messages to other countries whose timely adherence is very important, in particular, the Russian Federation, to speed up these ratification efforts. It will enhance the disarmament objectives of the Convention and hence also reinforce its nonproliferation objectives. I am very much aware of the efforts that you, Mr. President, together with the Secretary of State and other colleagues in your Administration are presently undertaking to ensure the timely ratification of the Convention. I wish you all success in these efforts and am quite sure they will bear fruit. At the same time, I would like to take the liberty of sending copies of this letter to Senators Lott, Helms, Biden and

Daschle in order to convey to them my appreciation of how much the world community needs the US ratification of the Convention and how much it hopes this ratification will be possible before the entry into force of this unprecedented treaty. I am also writing to the leaders of Russia, China and several other nations, stressing the importance of their countries’ becoming original parties to this Convention. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. Copy: Senators Loft, Helms, Biden, and Daschle

7 April 1997 Secretary-General Calls for Increased Communication Between UN and Non-Aligned Movement

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6197); UN reform Statement by the Secretary-General to the XII Ministerial Conference of the Movement of NonAligned Countries, in New Delhi. I know that it is not usual for a Secretary-General of the United Nations to address a Ministerial Conference of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. But I welcomed your invitation to this meeting, so early in my term of office, precisely because of the high priority which I give to enhanced contact with your Movement. I see this Conference as a unique opportunity to deepen and broaden our friendship at a time of change, reform and decision in the international system. But first I offer warmest thanks to the Government and people of India for their generous hospitality. India has long been a leading force within the Non-Aligned Movement. For many of us, the name of Nehru is synonymous with the struggle for freedom. As a young man in Ghana I felt the full force of the Non-Aligned Movement’s principled stands against colonial oppression, and in favour of liberty, justice, development and cooperation. Ghana was the first African nation to gain its independence. Its coming to nationhood, and its early advocacy of pan-African unity, owed much to the inspiration and solidarity of the NonAligned Movement. So I can say that I—and my country—grew up with the Non-Aligned Movement. And India’s leadership role has been an inspiration to all of us. This important ministerial conference is further evidence of its creative leadership in the global arena, and of its commitment to

7 April 1997 • 75 the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Second, I congratulate President Ernesto Samper and Foreign Minister María Emma Mejía Vélez for the skill and sensitivity shown by Colombia during its chairmanship of the Movement. Colombia’s chairmanship faced many challenges. Adjustment and reorientation can be painful. But under Colombia’s chairmanship the Movement has continued to flourish. My message today is simple. In implementing my reform agenda, I am seeking to make the United Nations more responsive to the needs of its membership, and more able to tackle the real issues of the world of today. Today we stand at a threshold: between an old international system and a new framework that is yet fully to emerge. That is why we must work together. We must embark together on the path of reform. The Movement of Non-Aligned Countries has given its unwavering support for the goal of a more effective, modernized and relevant United Nations capable of meeting the changing needs of the international community. Indeed, the international community owes a profound debt of gratitude to the members of the Non-Aligned Movement for their active support of United Nations peace-keeping. Members of the Non-Aligned Movement have provided large numbers of personnel and valuable resources to peacekeeping. If I were to try to mention them all, I would have to list the contributions of many of the countries in this room. But let me express my satisfaction and gratitude that six of the top 10 contributors to United Nations peace-keeping are members of the Non-Aligned Movement. And I can understand why this experience has given added impetus and urgency to the Movement’s efforts to gain a greater say on questions of international peace and security. The reform process is an opportunity to advance that goal. We share a basic objective: to make of the United Nations a genuinely universal organization, representative of, and able to serve, its entire membership. So we have a natural alliance. I would go further. As I pursue the goals of reform of the United Nations system, I need the advocacy, the support and the active participation of the Non-Aligned Movement. You represent the greater part of humanity. You articulate the views of the strong and the powerless, of nations large and small, of many differ-

ent political and social systems and religious and cultural traditions. As a unified presence on the international scene you have much to offer the world of the future. The Non-Aligned Movement has become the voice of those nations whose voice has not always been heard. With 113 members and 13 observers, the Non-Aligned Movement represents some two thirds of the United Nations membership. It has become a major political force within the United Nations system. Your advocacy of the United Nations reform agenda will help to ensure its legitimacy and its effectiveness. Your active participation in the reform process will guarantee that the United Nations remains a genuinely representative and effective world body. In recent years, some have questioned the very meaning of non-alignment in what has increasingly begun to look like a unipolar world. The Movement has responded firmly, and in harmony, that the goal of a peaceful and equitable world order remains unfulfilled. That the Movement’s underlying principles remain valid. And that the Movement will now shift its emphasis to the new tasks at hand—to the challenges of the new global society that is simultaneously rich with promise and fraught with peril. Like the Non-Aligned Movement, the United Nations has faced grave questions about its relevance, mission and capabilities. We all face the challenge of reshaping our institutions in the light of changing geopolitical conditions. The United Nations still reflects, in some ways—for example, in the Security Council—the geopolitical realities of the 1940s. The Non-Aligned Movement, as its very name implies, came into being to defend its members’ interests in the bipolar world of the former superPowers. As you know, I am leading a thorough and wide-ranging review of the activities of the United Nations. I have introduced a number of managerial and organizational initiatives within the Secretariat that fall within my authority. Already, these steps have improved communication and coordination among United Nations departments, programmes and funds. Then there are fundamental issues which only the Member States can decide. Among them is reform of the Security Council. I do not disagree with those members of the Non-Aligned Movement who feel that the Council’s present make-up needs reform. It is not

76 • 7 April 1997

for me to say in what way that reform must occur to bring the Council into line with the realities of today. While an effective Security Council is vital for the United Nations, a more representative Security Council will enjoy even greater legitimacy and support. I would therefore hope that one of the consequences of an expansion in the Council’s membership would be to correct, among other things, the underrepresentation of non-aligned and developing countries. It is my hope that this issue can be resolved soon. The recent initiative of General Assembly President Razali Ismail (Malaysia), in his capacity as Chairman of the Assembly’s working group on Security Council reform, seems to me a serious step in that direction. I am conscious that there is a long way to go. But this is the only concrete proposal on the table, and it deserves to be discussed fully, even if the discussions are to be acrimonious and fierce. The surest foundation for peace, stability and security is economic and social development. That is why I intend both to reform the role of the United Nations in international cooperation for development, and to do all I can to ensure that greater resources are devoted to it. The commitment to development is one of the guiding beacons of the work of the United Nations. Peace-keeping and peacemaking may catch the headlines, but in terms of resources, and in terms of the changes made in people’s lives, the development work of the United Nations is far more significant. As I have often said, we need a broader understanding of human security. For we cannot be secure amidst starvation. We cannot build peace and prosperity without reducing poverty. We cannot build freedom on foundations of injustice. With the end of the cold war, we have been able to re-examine many of our traditional assumptions about development. It has become clear that while the eradication of poverty and securing development are the responsibilities of individual States, the United Nations system has a key conceptual and promotional role to play. The ultimate objective—securing the development of developing countries—remains the same. But we need to re-examine constantly the means of attaining that objective. We need to ensure that our approach to development takes full account of the economic, political and technological realities of our times—especially the role of the private sector and of civil society. That is how I am approaching the question of

reform of the United Nations development system. To make it sensitive to the concerns of developing countries; capable of mobilizing political support; able to enhance its capacity for data gathering and analysis and norm-setting; and, above all, able to provide assistance at the country level efficiently and cost-effectively. I would want to see any cost-savings in the larger reform effort being ploughed back into tangible development activities by the United Nations. A phrase in the San Jose Declaration on SouthSouth Cooperation struck me forcibly. It said “no one can do for us what we do not do for ourselves”. In simple form, that phrase expresses the essence of solidarity among the countries of the South. A solidarity which can ensure that the benefits of globalization are more widely spread, and more inclusive in their positive impact. SouthSouth cooperation should be more than a slogan. It should be visible as a viable platform, readily translatable into concrete joint programmes and projects. I should like to see more progress in this area. I offer the full support and collaboration of the United Nations in these efforts. The United Nations can become a powerful force for development: as a democratic voice of the weak; as a forum for consensus-based action; through its advocacy and outreach role; by forging new alliances and partnerships; through balancing private interests and the public good; through the promotion of shared values; and through costeffective and efficient development activities. But we can do only what you will us to do. Over the years, development activities have suffered from an accretion of mandates, considerable overlap in responsibilities and wasteful duplication of effort. Reform aims to achieve better focus and clarity through greater integration at Headquarters and even more so at the country level. The new arrangements, including a strengthened resident coordinator position and country team system, should bolster support for sustainable development, particularly in Africa and small island developing States. I strongly believe that such measures are in the interest of all nations, and in particular of developing nations and the Non-Aligned Movement. I believe that, together, we can do much. That is why I have come here. I want to develop still further the level and quality of the communication between your Movement and the United Nations Organization.

11 April 1997 • 77 In that spirit, I look forward to working with you in the years ahead and I wish you the very best for a successful and rewarding conference.

7 April 1997 Letter (EOSG); UN reform Letter sent to the permanent representatives of all member states. The Secretary-General of the United Nations presents his compliments to the Permanent Representative of . . . to the United Nations and wishes to draw his/her attention to his announcement concerning the establishment of a Trust Fund for United Nations Reform. In Section A of the Secretary-General’s letter to the President of the General Assembly of 17 March 1997, contained in document A/5l/829, he explains that while most reform changes will be accomplished within the current available financial resources, there will be a need, in some cases, for special external technical and professional expertise that will require extrabudgetary funding. Accordingly, he would be establishing a special trust fund for this purpose. The Secretary-General would therefore be grateful if His/Her Excellency’s Government would consider contributing to this Trust Fund.

11 April 1997 Italy Lands in Albania on a Humanitarian Mandate

Interview (OSSG); Italy Interview with the Secretary-General by La Repubblica correspondent Pietro Veronese in Geneva, on the eve of his visit to India. It was published under the title “Let Us Support the Italian Soldiers.” QUESTION: Mr. Kofi Annan you would be the man to interview even if you had not been elected Secretary-General of the UN on December 17 of last year. In fact, before that you were the person responsible at the UN for the missions of the blue helmets. Just in those years when peace operations had known a remarkable boom. In these matters there is no expert in the world more expert than you. Therefore, let me start by asking: The enormous difficulties that the Italian Government had to face in order to have the mission approved by the Parliament, do not constitute, right from the beginning an element of weakness? SECRETARY-GENERAL: I do not see anything

strange in the fact that, if before authorizing the despatch of its soldiers abroad, a Parliament discusses it seriously, even with sourness. It has already happened in other situations, in other capitals. In Washington, just to give an example. However, once the decision has been made and the force deployed, when the soldiers start moving in order to carry out their task, what really counts is the organization of the command and the control, which has to be efficient and effective. The force must have appropriate means and structures to permit it to defend both its mandate and the force itself. The goals entrusted to it must be clear. I know the soldiers and how they operate: when it is their turn to act, the discussions that have preceded their departure must not interfere any more. QUESTION: This is exactly the point where we are now: The men of the mission “Alba” are leaving. Do you think then that we have adequate structures, means and goals? S-G: I am not any longer the person that at the UN deals with these operations: I have not followed closely the planning of “Alba.” But, I believe that organization, logistic support, composition of the force will be up to the tasks that are to be carried out. QUESTION: About the mandate. There is a long and tragic list of deliberately ambiguous or too much limited mandates, in the history of the military missions authorized by the UN. Of course, the mandate stems from the Security Council, not from the S.G. However, your opinion counts. We read, for instance, in para 2 of the resolution: the force must “help create a secure environment for the missions of international organizations in Albania.” In your opinion, what does General Forlani, the commander of “Alba” should figure out [sic] from these words? S-G: “Alba” has a humanitarian mandate. Many international organizations, many governments are already at work in order to provide assistance to the Albanians. And it is in everybody’s interest that they should be able to freely operate in the country to distribute the aids [sic]. Often with their sole presence, the soldiers can facilitate the humanitarian action. They can have a soothing effect in a situation in which the armed forces of the country in which they are, are weakened and disintegrated . . . it is not always necessary, that a multinational force should be engaged in combatting [sic]; sometimes it must be able to show its own force in order to avoid having to use it. This in the Albanian context means “help to create a secure context.”

78 • 11 April 1997

QUESTION: In Albania, however, the situation can easily become uncontrollable. As it happens often in the world, it is not a matter of separate armies of different countries or opposing political ethnical factions, but to try to stop armed bands. Are you not too optimistic? S-G: These operations are not without risks. The risks exist but I would not emphasize them either. Many expected that Albania would blow up at any moment, especially and after having seen people that in successive waves assaulted the barracks and went back home full of arms, some of which lethal [sic]. And yet, the explosion, the war of everybody against everybody else did not take place. It is legitimate to hope that it will not take place in future either, and that the force be able to carry out its task without having to combat. QUESTION: This evening you will arrive in Italy to pay a visit which will last a few days. It looks as if your relations with the Italians be [sic] under the influence of a bad star. In the past, there was, in the days of the mission in Somalia, your clash with General Loi . . . S-G: Let me clarify once more that story. With Italy I have a personal friendship, for the country and for many Italians. This is true also for General Loi; on a personal basis I like him and besides we understood each other well. Our disagreement concerned the professional behaviour not the person who is extremely pleasant. To use that single episode to the extent of seeing an attack of Kofi Annan to Italy [sic] seems to me frankly exaggerated. QUESTION: Then there had been your words the day after the shipwreck of the “Kater i Radees” in the Channel of Otranto, with its 89 dead: You said that Italy should have carried out a psychological reparation towards the Albanians before sending the force, and that provoked the irritated reply of the Foreign Minister Lamberto Dini. S-G: My suggestion was reasonable and valid. And it is exactly what the President of the Council Prodi did six days after the tragedy of the Albanian ship: he went to Tirana to explain the accident and the international mission. It is a necessary preparation before sending a peace force. In this particular case, a clarification was necessary. Prodi did the right thing. QUESTION: Finally, there has been your declaration from New Delhi on the urgency of the despatch of “Alba.” Many Italian newspapers have seen in this a support from your aide to the President of the Council in his clash with Bertinotti.

S-G: It has been a reply to a journalist’s question. A reply perfectly adequate to the experience of my Organization and the decisions of the Security Council. The past UN missions teach us that the rapidity of action is decisive if one wants to have under control situations such as the Albanian one. Postponements serve only to make things deteriorate; the international community becomes nervous and ends up by intervening in the worst possible moment. Let us remember Bosnia, it is not such a long time ago: if we had acted timely perhaps we would have succeeded in preventing that the conflict could reach those proportions. QUESTION: Some thought that your declaration had been requested by the government. S-G: Listen, I spend my time to answer questions from the press. Sometimes I have the impression that I cannot walk ten steps in public without being thrown at me an interrogation [sic] mark. If, after all, every reply should be attributed to this or that government, think with how many governments around the world I would have problems. QUESTION: In your first speech as SecretaryGeneral, you said that your task would be that of healing the “wounded ideals” of the UN. Which ideals, which wounds, which treatment? S-G: The UN is in a crisis. When I spoke of wounded ideals, many thought that I was alluding to the Charter. That I wanted to say that the document signed in 1945 was no longer valid. It is not like that: I am convinced that that text is valid. In the past 50 years it has permitted us to go ahead and do lots of things. The problem is not the Charter. The problem is not the faith, but the faithful. The problem are [sic] the member states. We must reinstate the trust of the members in the Charter. We must reconsecrate [sic] ourselves to its ideals, go ahead, to make the dreams in that document come true. This means that the member states must not only re-discover those ideals: they must also honour their commitments towards the Organization.

14 April 1997 Secretary-General Stresses Need for a Cease-Fire in Zaire

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6204); Zaire While I am pleased that the parties to the conflict in Zaire have accepted the five-point peace plan endorsed by the Security Council, I am concerned that its implementation has not yet begun in earnest. There is no firm cease-fire. Mohamed Sahnoun, the joint United

18 April 1997 • 79 Nations/Organization of African Unity (OAU) Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region, has energetically pursued a peaceful and democratic transition in Zaire. I thank those countries that have supported his efforts; but more needs to be done. I, therefore, appeal to all Member States to press Laurent Kabila and his supporters in the Great Lakes region to seek a negotiated solution through a cease-fire and sustained talks on the future of Zaire. I am also encouraged that President Mobutu Sese Seko has agreed to a dialogue with Mr. Kabila. A durable solution cannot be achieved through military means. It is obvious that Zaire is on the verge of major political change; but this change has to be managed, with the support of the international community, in a concerted and focused manner. In such situations, progress is usually made when the entire international community comes together. The stakes are high. If we are successful, Zaire could begin to move in the direction of national reconciliation, democracy and prosperity. If we fail, it will mean misery and stagnation for millions of people in the region.

17 April 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/320); Cyprus Letter to the president of the Security Council, António Monteiro. Dear Mr. President, As you are aware, Professor Han Sung-Joo has informed me that, due to other pressing commitments, he will be unable to continue as my Special Representative for Cyprus beyond the expiration of his current appointment on 30 April. I have accepted his decision with much regret and wish to place on record my warm appreciation for his dedicated work in the last twelve months. I am determined to pursue intensified efforts to bring about a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue. In that regard, I hope that in the next two or three months it will be possible for me to convene direct talks between the two leaders. To this end, I have decided to appoint Mr. Diego Cordovez of Ecuador as my Special Adviser on Cyprus with effect from 28 April. His primary task will be to prepare and assist me in chairing the next rounds of the inter-communal talks. I should be grateful if you would bring this matter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

18 April 1997 Interview (OSSG) Interview with Heute Journal on ZDF television in Germany. MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary-General, welcome in Bonn at the Petersberg. Good evening, Mr. Annan. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good evening. QUESTION: On entering into office, you said your most important task was to reform the United Nations. The Organization is too big, too expensive, too bureaucratic. How do you approach this reform? S-G: Well, I am working with the Member States and the staff and I have taken time to consult all the 185 Member States, first of all for us to agree on the objective of reform. And I think I can say without hesitation, that all Member States want reform, provided it is defined as an attempt to make the United Nations leaner, efficient, more effective and relevant, and better adapted to taking on the challenges of the future, particularly as we move into the next millennium. And I have offered to do a document for the Member States which they will get by the end of July which will summarize all the initiatives I have taken on the managerial, administrative and structural sides of this and you may recall that I did forward a package on the 17th March doing exactly that. But a document would also deal with longer-term strategic issues of what the mission of the UN should be, what our goals, our objectives and priorities should be in a time of diminishing financial resources and a realization that the world around us has changed and is changing and the UN would also have to adapt to be better. QUESTION: And the United Nations is plagued by chronic financial problems. When will the UN be bankrupt, Mr. Secretary-General? S-G: In classic sense, if we were a company, we would have declared bankruptcy a long time ago. So theoretically we are bankrupt. But we have lot of IOUs to collect from our Member States and the US owes us $1.3 billion. And as you know I visited Washington to discuss this issue with the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of State and the entire Administration and I am happy to say that the President is committed to pay the debt. The President realizes the importance of the UN to the US and the rest of the world and also believes that if the US expects to be in the UN, expects to play an effective role, it has to pay its way. I also visited Congress and tried to explain to them the need to settle these bills. And just as the

80 • 18 April 1997

UN needs the US, US also needs the UN. And I think we were able to make some progress, we did clarify some of the misunderstandings and my sense is—and I am quite optimistic—that the money will come. When and how, and how much, I can not tell, but I am quite optimistic. QUESTION: There have to be reforms in the Security Council, these reforms are planned. The German Foreign Minister wants a permanent seat for Germany. What do you think about this? S-G: I think the Security Council reform is one of the most important issues for the Organization now. And all the Member States are engaged in discussing it and there are several proposals on the table including the one which was recently put forward by Ambassador Razali Ismail, the President of the General Assembly. I share the view of those Members States who believe that the Council’s structure and composition as it now stands reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945 and it that should be brought in line with realities of the Nineties. We all agree that an effective Security Council is vital for the United Nations, but a more representative Security Council would have much greater legitimacy and therefore the need to reform the Council. I think if one were to reform the Council, given the role of Germany and Europe in the world, given its leadership position in the world of today, it can not be excluded that Germany would be one of those joining the Council. QUESTION: Germany is already participating in international peace-keeping missions. Do you want a greater commitment of Germany to this? S-G: I think Germany has very good troops and they have done very well in peace-keeping operations. Germany has assets that other countries do not have, particularly in areas of logistics and other specialized units. And I think there will come times when we would want to rely on Germany and other governments with capability to participate in each of these operations. Obviously, I would not expect Germany to carry undue burden compared to what other governments are doing. But it does have capability. It believes in the international community and I would expect Germany to play its part in future operations. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, everywhere people are discussing the thesis of the American author, Mr. Huntington, according to which world peace is endangered by the clash of different civilizations, cultures and religions. Do you think the United Nations are [sic] facing new challenges because of this? S-G: Well, I don’t agree with everything in

that book. But let me say that today we are facing two phenomena, globalization and fragmentation, and both these phenomena have created major new agendas for the United Nations. On the side of globalization we are expected to tackle issues which cut across national boundaries, issues that no one country can deal with regardless of his power. We also would be expected to come up with international norms and international laws to regulate relations between States. And for example, we would be expected to play a major role in environment, a major role in containing terrorism, drug trafficking and international criminal elements as well as our efforts in democratization and human rights. On the side of fragmentations we have seen all theses conflicts happening, conflicts and crises springing up around the world. We cannot allow these brush-fires to burn unattended and as UN is often required to intercede whether in Bosnia, or be as occupied as we are with Zaire, in the Great Lakes, or in Georgia and Tajikistan. Today we have operations almost on all five continents. MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary-General. Thank you very much. S-G: Danke schön.

21 April 1997 Secretary-General Pleased with Positive Assessment on Eastern Slavionia Elections

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6214); Eastern Slavonia On 18 April the United Nations Transitional Administrator for Eastern Slavonia, Jacques Paul Klein, has reported to me on the elections in the region on 13 and 14 April. These were part of the first nationwide elections in Croatia since the conflict in the former Yugoslavia started six years ago. I was glad to hear the positive assessment of Mr. Klein on the provisional results of the elections. From my own time in the region, I understand the suffering and anguish this conflict has caused. The United Nations Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES) is proving that the wounds of war can be healed and a better future is possible. The next most significant challenge in the implementation of UNTAES’ mandate will be the establishment of the conditions necessary for the return home of all displaced persons and refugees. It is up to the Security Council, to which I will present my recommendations shortly, to decide on

22 April 1997 • 81 the modalities of the future United Nations presence in the region. I express my support to the Transitional Administrator and my deep appreciation of the dedicated work of the staff of UNTAES.

I urgently appeal to all States to take, in this final week, the step they must to allow the Convention to fulfil its promise and to foster a climate that will promote further advances in arms regulation and disarmament in the year ahead.

21 April 1997

22 April 1997

Secretary-General Urges States to Ratify Chemical Weapons Convention

Secretary-General Says World Needs Instrument of Global Action

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6216); chemical weapons convention

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6218); UN reform

Text of the statement of the Secretary-General to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and of Their Destruction, in Geneva.

Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Council on Foreign Relations titled “The United Nations: New Directions, New Priorities,” which was delivered to the Sorensen Distinguished Lecture on the United Nations, in New York.

In just one week’s time, on 29 April 1997, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction will enter into force. This historic agreement, which took the international community almost 30 years to negotiate and another five to win the requisite number of ratifications, will become an integral part of the web of international agreements designed to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. As of today, the Conventions has 74 States parties and 162 States signatories. The Chemical Weapons Convention will contribute to international peace and security in three important ways. First, it will create an international norm prohibiting the development, production and acquisition of chemical weapons. Second, it will lead to the destruction of chemical-weapon stockpiles, thereby eliminating the threat of chemical warfare. Third, it will establish very stringent verification measures. The great potential of the Convention to contribute to international peace and security will depend on the degree of universality it achieves. I have taken every opportunity to urge Member States to ratify the Treaty to ensure that the decades of difficult negotiations will not have been in vain. Over the last several weeks, I personally wrote to the heads of key States urging them to complete their ratification processes promptly so that they might be among the original parties to this Convention. This Treaty is too important for the security of every State and future international stability to be handicapped by the failure of some to become parties. Moreover, States that fail to ratify it will undermine their credibility in subsequent arms regulation and disarmament negotiations. I am heartened by the strong support voiced by the Presidents of key States.

I am greatly honoured and gratified by your invitation to speak to you tonight about my thoughts and ideas for the United Nations. It is good to be among friends. There are too many here tonight for me to be able to name all of you. But first, I must mention Ted and Gillian Sorensen. Their endowment of this lecture is yet another testimony to their lifelong devotion to the United Nations and to the vision which inspired its creation. Gillian is, of course, now a valued member of my advisory team. To both of them, my thanks for their sustained and admirable service and for making possible this presentation today. I would also like to thank Ambassador Don McHenry, a distinguished public servant with a remarkable record in multilateral diplomacy, for his generous opening words, and Pete Peterson for accompanying us tonight as chair of this meeting. The Council on Foreign Relations is well known to me as a place where discussions and debates about the United Nations are informed by knowledge, understanding and commitment. The Council has been a persistent source of new and constructive ideas about the United Nations. Your report on United Nations reform, to mention just one example, was a landmark document. Tonight, I intend in broad outlines to share some thoughts and ideas with you, and then—more importantly—to hear your reactions and comments. I would like to begin by referring briefly to the geo-political changes that have so dramatically altered the context of our work and mission over the last decade. Then I will discuss the tasks of the United Nations in this changed context, and how the Organization must change if it is to carry out those tasks effectively and efficiently. The end of the cold war signaled, in many ways, the end of the political universe in which the

82 • 22 April 1997

United Nations had emerged and developed. We had to adapt to this new world with no other maps than those we ourselves were able to create. This has not been an easy process. Faced with challenges of rare complexity, and assigned tasks of unprecedented scope and difficulty, the United Nations—often mistrusted and unfairly maligned —has had to navigate through new and uncharted waters. I am not here tonight to tell you that we did not make mistakes. We did. Nor am I here to say that changes are not needed. They are. But I am here to say, above all, that the United Nations is seeing its way forward—indeed is being recognized as the irreplaceable instrument of international cooperation for peace. And, second, that with the support of Member States and the commitment that I am calling for from the staff, change can happen and reform will be real. I say this with confidence—not only because change is demanded or because change is good for our institution—but because I believe that this new world of ours needs an effective United Nations more, not less, and that public demand for concerted action to avert global threats and secure peace will grow, not weaken, as this century draws to a close. New trends and forces are redefining global politics at a dramatic and dizzying pace. But, still, the central message of the United Nations Charter, with its call for justice and promise of peace, is as strong and compelling as ever. Our task now is to understand this new world, confident in the lasting truths of our Charter, and renew our commitment to their realization. To succeed, we must begin at home. And we have. As you know, I have begun to implement a sweeping process of reform throughout the United Nations system, with the aim of consolidating, streamlining and reorganizing wherever possible with three central aims in mind—efficiency, transparency and accountability. Without these changes, we will not be able to act and react in a world where interdependency calls for ever higher degrees of international cooperation. And clearly we cannot meet the challenges of the new millennium with an instrument designed for the very different circumstances of the middle of the twentieth century. That is why reform is so crucial, and so urgent. Reform is vital, too, because the last decade’s experience in peace-keeping has taught us important lessons about the limits of intervention and the value of prevention, both political and economic. Having launched more peace-keeping operations

in the past decade than in the previous 45 years of its existence, the United Nations found itself faced with challenges unprecedented in nature and in scope. Mandates began to extend far beyond the routines of classical peace-keeping, and were themselves often overtaken by events, leaving peace-keepers inadequately armed and insufficiently respected. One lesson that we learned from these experiences is that prevention is always better than cure. Peace-keeping is expensive. It is fraught with dangers, difficulties and uncertainties. Averting conflict saves far more lives and requires far fewer resources than stopping a conflict which has already erupted. That is why I am placing a great deal of emphasis on preventive diplomacy. I urge that the international community also give priority to the essential work of peace-making and mediation. Look to any post-conflict situation and you will realize the cost of diplomatic opportunities not seized and preventive initiatives not carried out. Post-conflict situations are teaching another lesson, though, one that requires even greater consideration and long-term dedication. And that is the vital significance of social and economic development, and the role that uneven growth and a skewed distribution of resources can play in the disintegration of States and the undermining of political stability. The difficulty of confronting the tortuous nature of State failures and regional explosions cannot be underestimated. What are commonly referred to as trends of “globalization” and “fragmentation” are, in fact, extremely complex phenomena encompassing both political progress and political failure at the same time. With the decline of ideological and political allegiances to one super-Power or another, movements for national self-determination and political liberalization have been given free rein—for good and, tragically in some cases, for bad. The global response to these recent developments has, to an alarming degree, been one of despair and resignation. It is said that these State failures and the civil and ethnic wars that too often have followed in their wake are inevitable, and that the difficulties occasionally faced by international interventions confirm precisely the intractability of these problems. I wish to propose a different view. And that is that these failures, these wars, these problems are political problems and economic problems with political and economic solutions. There is nothing inevitable about conflict in one part of the world,

22 April 1997 • 83 or tyranny in another. Freedom and human rights are concepts as universal as they are political, amenable to human agency of any colour or creed. The Charter of the United Nations was written in the name of “We, the Peoples of the United Nations.” And the promise of the Charter is what we are striving to realize. Recognizing the universality of political solutions, as well as political problems, brings with it great responsibilities. That is why the role of the United Nations must constantly be adjusted to the changing political realities of our times. In the former Yugoslavia and in Latin America, the United Nations is taking on the task of reinforcing democratic institutions where they have been abused and assisting in their creation where they have not existed. Human rights is beginning, once again, to take its central place in the promotion of peace and stability in societies in, or just out of, conflict. Increasingly, therefore, missions of institutionbuilding and democratization will have a strong human rights component. Together, institutionbuilding, democratization and the promotion of human rights can comprise the political response to the political problems that are afflicting large parts of the developing world. But political democratization is only part of the response. Economic progress must be the other. Development, during the cold war, became a competition for the attention and assistance of the super-Powers. Today, development is a global concern which transcends ideology and immediate interest. It is now as much a moral as a political challenge for the world, proving that stability and prosperity are indivisible. This is where I seek a more effective role for the United Nations, politically and economically. For the developing countries, the global economy is providing many advantages, but it also has its pitfalls and dangers. Investment flows unevenly, bringing rapid development and growth to some economies, but passing others by. For some countries and peoples, therefore, globalization brings only the risk of further marginalization. There are serious political consequences from such erratic and uneven growth in the developing world. Ideas and funds now move across the world in seconds and awareness of the plight and prosperity of other peoples is greater today than ever before. Expectations, therefore, have risen. As de Tocqueville taught us, however, there is no greater danger to political stability than the failure of rising expectations. Frustrations will grow as

inequalities become ever more apparent and, in some cases, peace and social cohesion will be endangered and conflict will result. I believe the United Nations can play a vital part in countering this trend and reversing its inequities. We can highlight the needs of those developing countries towards which little or none of the rapidly rising foreign direct investments are directed. And we can assist in creating and supporting those political and constitutional structures necessary for truly sustainable development. Through its developmental and political agencies, the United Nations is uniquely suited to playing a mediating and facilitating role in the space between long-term private investment and sociopolitical development in the poorest of countries. Once we can secure the long-term viability of democratic institutions and the rule of law in all developing countries, we will have ensured reliable markets and real prosperity. A new social agenda is needed to offer a resolute answer to those dangers than can only be met in global concert: intolerance and exclusion; drugtrafficking; terrorism; illegal arms-trading; and environmental calamities. This new social agenda is growing out of a number of global conferences sponsored by the United Nations over the last few years. From Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to Istanbul last year, topics such as the environment, human rights, population policy, social development, women and human settlements were covered with great attention and interest. The priority must now be to ensure that the global conferences are followed up seriously and effectively, and that their findings are integrated into a coherent meaningful agenda which places economic and social issues within an overall concern for sustainable human development and peace and security. Only then can we be certain that our work towards peace and development globally can create a stake—individually and universally—for every man and woman striving in developing countries to achieve lasting prosperity for themselves and for their children. These are some of the ideas and concerns that we are considering at the United Nations today, ideas that we are committed to advancing seriously and persistently. The past decade has seen the United Nations pass from cold war deadlock and low expectations through a time of high ambition and great euphoria, then to crisis and disillusion and finally to what is now, I think, a mood of sober optimism. But now we must move into a new era of political clarity and organizational stability.

84 • 22 April 1997

In all my efforts to reform our institution and refocus our mission, I seek the support of the United States. The United States is by far the most powerful Member of the Organization. Yet there are those who are still suspicious of multilateralism and the effect that it can have on the foreign relations of the United States. Multilateralism is not opposed to bilateralism; it is its irreplaceable ally. The two strands of diplomacy should be complementary in the international relations of every State. Acting together we can, in almost all aspects of the human endeavour, achieve more than when acting alone. There is only one United Nations. It can either be reformed and made to work as States want it to work, or it can continue to be the victim of unceasing criticism and ultimately be undermined. I believe that our world needs an instrument of global action as never before in history. I believe that the United Nations is the instrument for securing peace and for giving people everywhere, in poorer countries as in richer, a real stake in that peace by promoting development and encouraging cooperation. But the United Nations is only an instrument, an actor in need of props and cues from its directors. And so I will conclude this evening, if I may, by paraphrasing Winston Churchill: Give us the tools—the trust, the authority and the means—and we will do the job.

23 April 1997 Secretary-General Says Partnership Among Governments, Private Sector, and International Community Holds Promise

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6220); private sector Talking points from the statement of the SecretaryGeneral at a luncheon with the Business Council for the United Nations, in New York. It gives me great pleasure to welcome you to the United Nations. The Business Council has been a good friend of the United Nations for nearly 40 years, so I know you feel at home here. But I am not sure you realize just how important business and the private sector have become to our new way of thinking at the United Nations. That is one reason I look forward to talking with you today. As the partnership between the United Nations and the private sector grows ever stronger, I want to build on the dialogue with business and industrial leaders I have achieved earlier this year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and elsewhere in my travels since taking office. First I would like to salute Richard Voell, the

Chairman of the Business Council, and Samuel Brookfield, the Council’s President, for their dynamic and long-standing support. I have been particularly impressed by the Council’s National Conference Programme, which arranges for Permanent Representatives to be guests in cities across the United States and Canada. The programme promotes international understanding and also allows for a valuable exchange of information about trade, investment and related matters. It produces tangible results. I have just passed the first 100 days of my term in office. In this brief period, I have met with leaders from all regions, visited 11 countries, talked with hundreds of journalists, consulted with NGO representatives and other members of civil society, and set in motion a far-reaching process of organizational reform and renewal. I have also thought hard about how to expand and strengthen partnerships with the private sector. Everyone knows how important you are for the attainment of United Nations goals. Business and industry—whether multinational corporations or small-scale enterprises—are key agents for global prosperity. Flows of private capital to developing countries are growing while official development assistance (ODA) is declining. Job growth and technological innovation are fuelled by the expertise and entrepreneurial spirit of business and industry. Not surprisingly, private sector representatives have become increasingly prominent participants in the work of the United Nations. Less well known, perhaps, is how much the United Nations is doing for business and industry. In the broadest sense, our work—such as peace-keeping, the eradication of disease and the promotion of literacy—helps to create the conditions that business needs to succeed. The result is better living standards and stable, functioning, democratic societies. For business, this translates into reduced risk, new markets and new opportunities for global production, trade and investment. The United Nations system is also involved in a range of specific activities and technical assistance projects aimed at private sector development. They cover a broad spectrum, including: introducing market-oriented economic reforms; enacting business-friendly legislation; removing trade barriers; creating special economic zones; improving public administration; supporting privatization; building or rehabilitating essential infrastructures; and promoting micro-credit, especially for women, artisans, small traders, first-time

24 April 1997 • 85 entrepreneurs and others for whom a lack of finance has been a primary obstacle in the way of self-sufficiency and economic well-being. The United Nations system also helps devise the trade laws and other regulations that protect copyrights and allow businessmen and businesswomen to travel in safety. We define technical standards—in finance, shipping, telecommunication, postal services— that help make possible economic transactions across all sectors of the global economy. And we are a leading source of statistics, helping identify trends in energy use, demographics and other economic and social factors of direct consequence for trade and investment. The United Nations is also a major source of procurement. In each of the past two years, the United Nations system purchased well over $3.5 billion in goods and services—such as computers, tents, jeeps, medicines, food rations and uniforms for peace-keeping operations. United States companies receive the lion’s share of this spending, reflecting American industry’s reputation for high quality and productivity. For all these reasons, business and the United Nations are natural partners. I believe that the reform measures I have announced thus far, and the additional proposals I intend to present to the General Assembly in July, will enhance business confidence in the United Nations. We are seeking to create a culture of reform, so that the ability to embrace change and adapt to it quickly and creatively—the hallmark of private enterprise—becomes part of the way we, too, do business. At my most recent meeting with the heads of all specialized agencies, there was a consensus that strengthening links with civil society—including the private sector—was a crucial objective of reform. There is much that you can do as well. The global impact of American business and industry, and your access to American political leaders, place you in a uniquely influential position. Allow me to express certain hopes for the future. Abroad, it is my hope that foreign direct investment becomes more diversified. At the moment, 80 per cent of foreign direct investment goes to just 12 countries. Your attention to the world’s low-income countries would help with one of the biggest challenges facing the international community: integrating the developing world into the new global economy.

At the United Nations, I would hope that you will increase your participation in and contributions to the work of the United Nations Secretariat, where I have consolidated all economic and social activities in a single department, as well as the various United Nations programmes, such as the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Equally important is your relationship with United Nations agencies, including the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). And given your own experience with streamlining, downsizing and efficiency measures, I welcome your suggestions for reform. And here in the United States, it is my hope that you will help raise public awareness about United Nations successes and achievements, and in particular about why it is important for the United States to pay its financial assessments in full, on time and without conditions. If I understand the public opinion polls correctly, most Americans understand this already, and strongly support the United Nations. When I met with President Clinton he urged me to establish direct contacts with Senate and Congressional leaders of both parties, and I have indeed had many encouraging discussions. But I need your help. You are an influential constituency. In closing, I would like to stress again that a true partnership between Governments, the private sector and the international community holds great promise. The world public expects much from us—prosperity, freedom, social justice, environmental protection and more. Let us not disappoint them. Together, we can realize these goals. I am ready to hear your questions and comments.

24 April 1997 Secretary-General Stresses International Community’s Objective of Harnessing Information Revolution

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6224, PI/1002); information technology Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Working Group on Informatics, in New York. Thank you, Ambassador Ahmad Kamal, for your invitation to me to address the first formal meeting of your Working Group this year. I enjoyed your statement, which I found thought-provoking and challenging. It contained a good deal of interesting information about the

86 • 24 April 1997

work of your Group. It recognized what has been achieved, and also made a clear case for what still has to be done. I commend your efforts. In the area of work which your Working Group covers, forging a successful partnership between Member States and the Secretariat is essential if progress is to be made. I am proud of what has been achieved. I pay tribute, Ambassador, to you, for the enthusiasm and leadership of your Chairmanship, to the fellow members of your Group, and also to the Members of the Secretariat, and especially staff of the Department of Administration and Management and the Department of Public Information (DPI), as well as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), for all your efforts in fostering such an effective partnership. I accepted your invitation to attend this meeting so early in my term of office because, in general, I believe that full advantage should be taken of the opportunities offered to the United Nations by the communications and information revolution, and for three specific reasons: to emphasize the concern of the United Nations system that the extent and significance of that world revolution should be fully appreciated, especially by and in developing countries; to stress my own commitment to mobilizing the capacity of the United Nations to ensure that the benefits of the new information technology are made available to all countries; and to make it clear that the application of information technology to the operations of the United Nations itself is a vital and necessary feature of the reform process. Recent developments in the fields of communications and information technology are indeed revolutionary in nature. Information and knowledge are expanding in quantity and in accessibility. In many fields future decision-makers will be presented with unprecedented new tools for development. In such fields as agriculture, health, education, human resources and environmental management, or transport and business development, the consequences really could be revolutionary. Communications and information technology has enormous potential, especially for developing countries, and in furthering sustainable development. Put differently, lack of access to information will soon cease to be an obstacle to development. The quantity and quality of available information will change dramatically. Citizens will have access to better information, too. Because more and more sectors of society will become involved

in receiving information and in processing it, their own decisions—including their voting behaviour and participation in political and civic affairs— will be sounder. The information revolution will affect governance by improving the responsiveness and accountability of decision-makers and by giving more transparency to decision-making. A priority, therefore, must be access: that is, making available the capacity to receive, download and share information through electronic networks. But, so far, the benefits of the communications and information technology revolution are not yet evenly spread. Two weeks ago, in Geneva, members of the ACC—the Administrative Committee on Coordination, which brings together the heads of all United Nations system agencies—met, under my chairmanship, to discuss this question. In a landmark “Statement on Universal Access to Basic Communications and Information Services,” the ACC describes the communications and information technology revolution, and the role and responsibilities of the United Nations system in making sure that all countries and all regions have fair access to the benefits of the communications and information revolution. The Statement says that the United Nations system should help to ensure that the gains of the information revolution are placed at the service of developing countries. It outlines immediate possible pilot projects in such fields as interactive longdistance learning, telemedicine, telebanking and micro-credit schemes, environmental protection and management, and participatory processes and good governance. Merely to mention these fields is to provide a glimpse into the exciting new possibilities of the communications and information capability. But, on a more sombre note, ACC says that, since resource flows to developing countries are not expected to rise appreciably in the coming years, innovative approaches will be needed, involving new alliances between the United Nations, Member States, and, for example, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, civil society and academic institutions. I will be sending the ACC Statement to the General Assembly shortly. I commend it to Member States for their serious consideration. My second point concerns the potential of the information revolution within the United Nations system. The ACC points out that there is a huge poten-

24 April 1997 • 87 tial for harnessing the gains and advantages of the information revolution for the operations of the United Nations system itself. The ACC embraces “the objective of establishing universal access to basic communication and information services for all”. The statement makes clear the will and determination of all the organizations of the United Nations system to harmonize and coordinate strategies for modernizing and enhancing information technology capacities and effectiveness. Ensuring the compatibility, accessibility and convergence of communications and computer-based systems among organizations of the system is, therefore, crucial. That, too, is part and parcel of reform: ensuring, through inter-agency cooperation, that overlaps and duplications are eliminated, and that there is maximum efficiency in the pursuit of agreed objectives. Finally—also as part of the reform process—I am determined to push forward the use of information technology in the Secretariat. If the United Nations used to lag behind the private sector in the use of information technology, that is no longer the case. We have begun to make inroads into old, wasteful, paper-bound administrative practices. We are on target to reduce paper documentation by 25 per cent by the end of next year. We are improving our systems and procedures. We are providing a better service for the Member States. These objectives fall within the framework of the reform process which I announced on 17 March. We have vastly expanded the range and content of the information available electronically to Member States. By June this year, all New York Missions will be connected to the Internet—and therefore to the United Nations Home Page. Through the Internet and the Optical Disk System, all Member States will have electronic access to United Nations parliamentary documents in all six official languages. Already, access to the key “Monthly Bulletin of Statistics” is available electronically. Access to international treaties will be available soon. The service will be extended to Geneva and Vienna by the end of the year. Connectivity is, therefore, making progress. Great headway is also being made in training, by the United Nations, both of Secretariat staff and of Mission staff, in the use of the Internet. As one example, 25 Missions, supported by UNDP, have created their own Home Pages. Now, to help other Missions take full advantage of the new technolo-

gy, the United Nations is providing a training course on Website Management. Your Working Group has played an important role in spearheading these developments. As you know, I am one of the many who believe that we are drowning in paper in the United Nations—according to one calculation, the United Nations produces 1,570 million pages every year. By limiting the length of documents, and at the same time steadily enhancing electronic access to United Nations papers and documents, we are producing efficiency savings, both in the Secretariat and for Member States. Already the number of hard copies of documents is being reduced. I am grateful to the cooperation of Member States in this effort. In other ways, too, the electronic revolution is facilitating the parliamentary process within the United Nations. More technology will soon be made available in conference rooms. Video-conferencing equipment has been available since January for use in conference rooms, and will become part of the standard package as soon as it becomes affordable. We plan to introduce remote interpretation in several duty stations. New technology will also be introduced shortly into the consultation room of the Security Council, giving Members video-conferencing capacity and enhancing access to cartographic information. I am asking the Secretariat to brief you on these and other initiatives that will enhance the information technology available in our conference rooms. Through the Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) the United Nations is bringing new technology to internal management and administration. The strategic importance of IMIS cannot be over-emphasized. Systems development is one of the most risky forms of technological innovation, with high rates of failure. The IMIS has had its share of teething troubles, but it has attracted favourable professional attention around the world. It is considered by experts to be a model of its type. Information technology is not only revolutionizing United Nations internal administration, and the services made available to Member States; it is also allowing the United Nations, through the Internet, to present itself to a vast new public. People in all parts of the world now have access, through the Internet, to information about the United Nations. Through the expanded United Nations Home Page, we are reaching out to a far greater world

88 • 24 April 1997

public than ever before. There is a Page giving details of the reform process. More people now read United Nations press releases electronically than read them in hard copies. In June last year, the United Nations Home Page was consulted 210,000 times. In February this year, it received five million “hits.” In the week ending 28 March, people from 100 countries on every continent actually obtained information from the UN Home Page. The numbers are growing every day. All of the technological advances I have described require investment—investment in both the human and the physical infrastructure that supports them. As part of our efforts to enhance effectiveness and efficiency, and to shift resources to programmes, we are committed to propose reallocations of budget that will make possible an ambitious programme of technological innovation. In your own statement, Mr. Chairman, you defined our common objective as that of harnessing the informatics revolution for the benefit of mankind. I agree with that definition. I believe that what I have described shows that, together, we have made progress towards the realization of our common objective. I am proud of our joint endeavours. Much has been achieved; together we can, and will, do even more in future.

25 April 1997 Letter (UN archives); chemical weapons convention

expect large numbers of other Governments to follow suit. I am convinced that yesterday’s Senate vote on the Convention will thus prove to be an historical and decisive step towards the ultimate goal of a global ban on all weapons of mass destruction. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

25 April 1997 Letter (UN archives); chemical weapons convention Letter to Vice-Premier Qian Qichen of China congratulating China for its ratification of the convention. The letter is a follow-up to the encouragement the Secretary-General gave to several key countries to become states parties to the agreement. Excellency, I was very happy to receive, this afternoon, the instrument signifying China’s ratification of the Convention of the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and of Their Destruction. I should like to express through Your Excellency my sincere thanks and appreciation to the Government of China. It is my earnest hope that this Convention will attract universal adherence and thus mark a significant step towards the ultimate goal of a global ban on all weapons of mass destruction. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Letter to US president Bill Clinton demonstrating the Secretary-General’s personal attention to this matter.

25 April 1997

Dear Mr. President, I am writing to express my most sincere appreciation to you for having so admirably helped secure the necessary majority in the Senate for the Convention of the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and of Their Destruction. There is no doubt in my mind that without your personal engagement, for which I am deeply grateful, this result could not have been achieved. The significance of the outcome in the Senate transcends the immediate military ramifications of the United States’ adherence to this Convention. Now that the most powerful country in the world has decided to ratify the Convention, and to put its enormous moral authority behind it, there is every reason to

Letter to Samuel Berger, assistant to US president Bill Clinton for national security affairs, expressing the Secretary General’s personal gratitude to “Sandy” for his efforts.

Letter (UN archives); chemical weapons convention

Dear Sandy, [handwritten] As you will understand, I am extremely happy at the outcome of yesterday’s vote in the Senate on the Chemical Weapons Convention. I know that a great deal of credit is due to you personally for this important achievement and I would like to express my profound gratitude to you for your crucial role in this regard. As I have already said in letters to the President and the Secretary of State, I am convinced that the United States adherence to this important Convention will mark an historic and

29 April 1997 • 89 decisive step towards the ultimate goal of a global ban on all weapons of mass destruction. Yours Sincerely, Great work; many, many Thanks. —Kofi

29 April 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/343); Eastern Slavonia Letter to the president of the Security Council, António Monteiro. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to the elections held on 13 and 14 April 1997 in the region of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium placed under the transitional administration of the United Nations and to bring to your attention the following information which was forwarded to me by the Transitional Administrator. Local elections for twenty-five Municipal Councils and three City Councils within the UNTAES region were conducted simultaneously with elections throughout Croatia on 13 April. In addition to these local elections; regional elections were held for two County Assemblies and national elections were held for the Upper House of the Croatian Parliament. Owing to technical difficulties, particularly the late delivery of electoral materials, voting inside the region was extended to 14 April and to 15 April in one polling location. Nearly 500 international observers were deployed throughout Croatia to observe the elections. Within the UNTAES region, over 150 UNTAES observers were deployed to all polling stations as static monitors. In addition, 30 observer teams from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as well as observers from the Council of Europe and representatives of the diplomatic community visited numerous polling stations during the elections. The Transitional Administrator has informed me that no intimidation, violence or electoral improprieties were observed or reported before, during or after the elections. The framework for the elections in the region was defined by the Joint Implementation Committee (JIC) on Elections which met on a regular basis from early October 1996. In accordance with the Basic Agreement and under the agreed framework, voter eligibility was defined to include the following four categories of persons for whom separate lists were prepared: (a) Residents of the region who were listed in

the 1991 census and who stayed in the region and collected their pre-printed Croatian documents (domovnica and identity card). A total of 69,158 persons in the region were registered under this category; (b) Former residents of the region, mainly Croats, who left after the 1991 census and registered as displaced persons with the Office for Displaced Persons and Refugees (ODPR). A total of 61,326 persons outside the region were registered under this category; (c) Residents of the region who entered the region after the 1991 census, who applied for documents, filled out registration forms and chose to vote for candidates to be elected to Municipal or City Councils within the region. A total of 10,086 persons in the region were registered under this category; (d) Residents of the region who entered the region after the 1991 census, applied for documents, filled out registration forms, but chose to vote in absentia for candidates to be elected to national, regional and local bodies in other parts of Croatia. A total of 1,692 persons in the region were registered under this category. Persons currently living in the region voted at 193 polling stations in the region, including 30 locations for absentee voting for authorities outside the region. The displaced persons elsewhere in Croatia cast absentee ballots at 645 polling stations in 75 polling locations. The final number of voters inside the region was over 71,000, of whom fewer than 1,000 (out of the registered 1,692 persons) voted in absentia for the authorities to be elected in their former places of residence. This number included a significant number of residents of the region whose names did not appear on the voters list but who were able to cast their votes due to the special measures adopted by the Transitional Administrator on election day. These special measures, which enabled all residents of the region with Croatian identity cards to cast a vote, were assessed positively by all international observers. UNTAES and the Croatian Government will identify the total number of voters who fall under this category by verifying the number of voters recorded on the supplementary voters list constructed on the two election days. Over 56,000 persons cast their votes in absentia elsewhere in Croatia for the local authorities of the region. The twenty-eight Local Electoral Commissions (LECs), which were appointed by the JIC on Elections on a multi-ethnic basis, were the compe-

90 • 29 April 1997

tent bodies that conducted the elections in the region. Their main functions included receiving candidate nominations, selecting polling sites, appointing Polling Station Committees, amalgamating polling results and announcing final results for their respective municipalities or cities. The LECs were assisted in their work by UNTAES Electoral Officers who had been appointed as electoral advisers. As the formal and final appointment of the LEC members was considerably delayed, most of the preparatory work was carried out by the Electoral Officers. An electoral Code of Conduct was developed by the JIC on Elections, which laid out fundamental principles and rules to be followed by all participants in the electoral process. On the recommendation of the JIC on Elections, the Transitional Administrator promulgated the Code of Conduct on the occasion of the formal announcement of the elections in the region on 11 March 1997. The JIC on Elections also appointed the Electoral Appeals Commission (EAC), composed of Serb and Croat jurists and chaired by an UNTAES-appointed international judge. The Media Experts Commission (MEC) was appointed with a similar composition to monitor, inter alia, equitable access for all registered political parties and candidates. As required by the Code of Conduct, both Commissions have presented their final reports on the conduct of the elections. The EAC reported that most complaints received were either corrected by the special measures adopted by the Transitional Administrator on election day or dismissed after due consideration. The MEC reported that several infractions of the Code of Conduct were corrected by informal intervention. Both Commissions concluded that the free and fair character of the elections was not affected by these issues. Their final reports will be considered by the JIC on Elections on 30 April. Preliminary results of the elections prepared by the LECs were announced by UNTAES on 19 April (see annex). The elections held in the region were subsequently certified by the Transitional Administrator on 22 April 1997. Official and final results will be formally reported by the LECs to the JIC on Elections on Wednesday, 30 April. A fortyeight hour period for political parties to appeal the results will come into effect immediately after the final announcement. Following these procedures, and provided that the results of the elections are finalized, the Transitional Administrator will be in a position to certify the final results, in accordance with the UNTAES mandate.

The Transitional Administrator has indicated to me that the successful holding of elections in the UNTAES-administered region has been an essential step for further progress in the peaceful reintegration of the region. It marks an important milestone for the legitimate representation of the local population in the Croatian constitutional and legal system. It also opens the way for the two-way return of all displaced persons in Croatia. In this regard, rapid progress has been made in this area with the adoption by the Croatian Government, on 24 April 1997, of the Agreed Procedures on Return. I should be grateful if you would bring the above to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. * * *

Preliminary Election Results from the Party List in the UNTAES Administered Region House of Counties, Croatian Parliamenta HDZ HSS HSLS SDP IDS

41 9 7 4 2

Note: a. Five seats to be named by the President of Croatia, of which two must be Serbs. Osijek-Baranja County County Assembly HDZ HSLS HSLS/SDP/HSP SDSS HSS Bell Manistir City Council SDSS HDZ

25 9 3 6 2 15 11

Vukovar-Sirmium County County Assembly HDZ SDSS HSS/HSLS IND. LIST Vukovar City Council HDZ SDSS IND. LIST Ilok City Council HDZ SDSS Municipal Councils Osijek-Baranja County Antunovac

24 10 4 2 12 12 2 20 6

29 April 1997 • 91 HDZ HSP IND Draz HDZ SDSS HSS Knezevi Vinogradi HDZ SDSS IND Bilje HDZ SDSS IND Erdut HDZ SDSS Petlovac HDZ SDSS HSS Ceminac HDZ SDSS HSS Ernestinovo HDZ SDSS HSS/HSLS Popovac HDZ SDSS Darda HDZ SDSS HSS Jagodnjak HDZ SDSS Sodolovci SDSS Tenja HDZ SDSS HSS Vukovar-Sirmium County Bogdanovci HDZ IND Negoslavci SDSS Tordinci HSZ HSS SDSS HSP IND Borovo SDSS Nijemci HDZ SDSS HNS/HSS/HSLS Tovarnik HDZ

12 2 2 12 2 2 7 4 5 10 3 3 5 11 12 3 1 11 4 1 12 2 2 9 7 5 10 1 0 16 16 3 12 1

10 6 16 13 3 2 1 1 16 12 3 1 11

SDSS Lovas HDZ SDSS Stari Jankovci HDZ SDSS Trpinja SDSS Markusica SDSS Mirkovci HD SDSS Tompojevci HDZ SDSS

5 11 5 10 6 16 16 2 14 11 5

Note: The above figures represent seventy-five percent of the total seats which will be allocated as per party lists (seats allocated by proportional representation). The remaining twenty-five percent of the seats will be allocated to elected candidates from individual constituencies (seats to be allocated by majority vote). Political Party abbreviations: HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union); HSLS (Croatian Social Liberal Party); HSS (Croatian Peasants Party); IDS (Istrian Democratic Forum); SDSS (Independent Democratic Serb Party).

29 April 1997 Letter (UN archives); UN reform An interoffice memorandum from Maurice Strong, the Secretary General’s point person on UN reform, followed by a report from Hans Corell, under-secretary general for legal affairs. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

To: The Secretary-General From: Maurice F. Strong Subject: Administrative issuances I am attaching for your consideration the texts of three Secretary-General’s bulletins prepared by the Office of Legal Affairs with the purpose of establishing a more efficient system of administrative issuances. It is estimated that implementation of the proposed changes will considerably reduce and simplify the existing system. The texts have been discussed at the last meeting of the Steering Committee on UN Reform, which recommends their approval. The first text establishes the use of bulletins and administrative instructions for the promulgation of rules that apply generally within the Organization. The second contains provisions regarding the issuance of information circulars. Since it has been proposed that both bulletins enter into force on 1 May 1997, you may wish to approve them at your earliest convenience. The purpose of the third draft is to include the

92 • 29 April 1997

rules governing the organization of the Secretariat in a single bulletin. The draft should be amended in due time to reflect the measures announced in your letter of 17 March 1997 to the President of the General Assembly, and submitted for your approval before promulgation. * * * To: The Secretary-General Through: Mr. Joseph Connor Under-Secretary-General for Administration and Management From: Hans Corell Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs The Legal Counsel Reform of the Procedures for the Promulgation of Administrative Issuances

With reference to our previous contacts in this matter, I am able to inform you that the reform has now been endorsed by the Steering Committee for Reform. Mr. Connor and I are therefore now in a position to present for your signature the two first Secretary-General’s bulletins, that contain the start up of the reform. They are: ST/SGB/1997/1, “Procedures for the promulgation of administrative issuances” ST/SGB/1997/2, “Information circulars”. The first issuance is the platform on which all following Secretary-General’s bulletins and administrative instructions will be issued. We will shortly be able to present to you for your decision and signature Secretary-General’s bulletins on the organization of the Secretariat and on the organization of the major administrative units of the Secretariat. In particular, the new bulletins will address such units that according to your decision are subject to the reform that will enter into force on 1 June 1997. One of these bulletins will deal with the organization of your own Executive Office. Work is already under way on this bulletin. Main Features of the Reform

The main features of the reform are the following: • Reduction of the number of administrative issuances. Those necessary will be made more easily accessible within the Organization. • A clear separation of rules (i.e. imperatives which must be followed within the Organization) and material such as information circulars and other documents that are for information purposes only and which must not contain imperatives (i.e. be a source of law).

• Revision of an unwieldy mass of rules that apply today. In many cases it will be discovered that they are obsolete and hence they will be abolished. • All financial and personnel directives will be abolished. A sunset clause will terminate them by 31 December 1999 (if the Secretary-General is in agreement with that date), unless they have been abolished earlier through a new bulletin or instruction. • Only Secretary-General’s bulletins and administrative instructions will henceforth be used for promulgation of rules that apply generally within the Organization. These documents will be edited in a modern legal style with clear titles so as to guide the reader immediately to the particular area he or she is looking for. • In order to facilitate for those that are in particular need of current versions of issuances, consolidated versions of bulletins and instructions will be available on line on the optical disk. • A new index will be made that combines the present numerical and subject indexes. • With respect to information circulars these can be used and issued as in the past. However, they have to be cleared to ascertain that they do not establish rules. They will also contain a date of expiry.

30 April 1997 Secretary-General Grateful President Mobutu and Laurent Kabila Will Meet

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6227); Zaire The Secretary-General is gratified to learn that President Mobutu and Laurent Kabila have agreed to meet aboard a South African naval vessel. The Secretary-General hopes that these talks will set Zaire on a path towards national reconciliation, democracy and prosperity. The Secretary-General is determined to work with the international community to ensure that this change is managed in a concerted and focused manner to avoid further loss of innocent lives.

1 May 1997 Secretary-General Appoints Richard Butler Executive Chairman of UN Special Commission

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6228); UN Special Commission on Iraq

92 • 29 April 1997

rules governing the organization of the Secretariat in a single bulletin. The draft should be amended in due time to reflect the measures announced in your letter of 17 March 1997 to the President of the General Assembly, and submitted for your approval before promulgation. * * * To: The Secretary-General Through: Mr. Joseph Connor Under-Secretary-General for Administration and Management From: Hans Corell Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs The Legal Counsel Reform of the Procedures for the Promulgation of Administrative Issuances

With reference to our previous contacts in this matter, I am able to inform you that the reform has now been endorsed by the Steering Committee for Reform. Mr. Connor and I are therefore now in a position to present for your signature the two first Secretary-General’s bulletins, that contain the start up of the reform. They are: ST/SGB/1997/1, “Procedures for the promulgation of administrative issuances” ST/SGB/1997/2, “Information circulars”. The first issuance is the platform on which all following Secretary-General’s bulletins and administrative instructions will be issued. We will shortly be able to present to you for your decision and signature Secretary-General’s bulletins on the organization of the Secretariat and on the organization of the major administrative units of the Secretariat. In particular, the new bulletins will address such units that according to your decision are subject to the reform that will enter into force on 1 June 1997. One of these bulletins will deal with the organization of your own Executive Office. Work is already under way on this bulletin. Main Features of the Reform

The main features of the reform are the following: • Reduction of the number of administrative issuances. Those necessary will be made more easily accessible within the Organization. • A clear separation of rules (i.e. imperatives which must be followed within the Organization) and material such as information circulars and other documents that are for information purposes only and which must not contain imperatives (i.e. be a source of law).

• Revision of an unwieldy mass of rules that apply today. In many cases it will be discovered that they are obsolete and hence they will be abolished. • All financial and personnel directives will be abolished. A sunset clause will terminate them by 31 December 1999 (if the Secretary-General is in agreement with that date), unless they have been abolished earlier through a new bulletin or instruction. • Only Secretary-General’s bulletins and administrative instructions will henceforth be used for promulgation of rules that apply generally within the Organization. These documents will be edited in a modern legal style with clear titles so as to guide the reader immediately to the particular area he or she is looking for. • In order to facilitate for those that are in particular need of current versions of issuances, consolidated versions of bulletins and instructions will be available on line on the optical disk. • A new index will be made that combines the present numerical and subject indexes. • With respect to information circulars these can be used and issued as in the past. However, they have to be cleared to ascertain that they do not establish rules. They will also contain a date of expiry.

30 April 1997 Secretary-General Grateful President Mobutu and Laurent Kabila Will Meet

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6227); Zaire The Secretary-General is gratified to learn that President Mobutu and Laurent Kabila have agreed to meet aboard a South African naval vessel. The Secretary-General hopes that these talks will set Zaire on a path towards national reconciliation, democracy and prosperity. The Secretary-General is determined to work with the international community to ensure that this change is managed in a concerted and focused manner to avoid further loss of innocent lives.

1 May 1997 Secretary-General Appoints Richard Butler Executive Chairman of UN Special Commission

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6228); UN Special Commission on Iraq

1 May 1997 • 93 The Secretary-General has accepted with regret the resignation of Rolf Ekeus from the post of Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission. Ambassador Ekeus, who has held the post since the Commission was set up by the Security Council in 1991, is to return to the service of his Government. The Secretary-General wishes to pay high tribute to the work of Ambassador Ekeus. He has handled a very delicate mission with skill and has made substantial progress in implementing an especially difficult mandate with determination and objectivity. The Secretary-General has appointed Richard Butler to succeed Ambassador Ekeus with effect from 1 July. The intervening two-month period will leave time for a smooth transition. Ambassador Butler will bring to the post personal dynamism and wide experience in diplomacy, and in particular in the complex field of disarmament. Ambassador Butler is currently Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations.

“Ambassador Butler will bring to the post both personal dynamism and wise experience in diplomacy and, in particular, in the complex field of disarmament. “Ambassador Butler is currently Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations.” ... “The whole world”, Mr. Eckhard noted, “is aware of the excellent work that the UNHCR, the other agencies and non-governmental organizations have been doing in assisting the refugees of eastern Zaire, in an almost impossible situation, with inadequate security and repeated obstructions by those who control the territory.” “We have been encouraged by the strong international support that they have received and the attention that has been given to their efforts”, he continued. “We are also relieved that Mr. Kabila’s Alliance and the Government of Rwanda are now providing full, unimpeded cooperation. If this is maintained, the work of the UNHCR and other agencies will be greatly facilitated.” . . .

1 May 1997 1 May 1997

Letter (EOSG, S/1997/347); Afghanistan

Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Park Soo Gil, and to the president of the General Assembly, Ismail Razali.

Noon briefing (OSSG); UN Special Commission on Iraq Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, introduced the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), Rolf Ekeus, and the Permanent Representative of Australia, Richard Butler, who were with him at today’s noon briefing. Mr. Eckhard then read the following statement: “The Secretary-General has accepted, with regret, the resignation of Rolf Ekeus from the post of Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). Ambassador Ekeus, who has held the post since the Commission was set up by the Security Council in 1991, is to return to the service of his Government. “The Secretary-General wishes to pay high tribute to the work of Ambassador Ekeus. He has handled a very delicate mission with skill and has made substantial progress in implementing an especially difficult mandate with determination and objectivity. “The Secretary-General has appointed Richard Butler to succeed Ambassador Ekeus, with effect from 1 July 1997. The intervening two-month period will leave time for a smooth transition.

Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to resolution 1076 on the Situation in Afghanistan which was adopted by the Security Council on 22 October 1996 and to my report, S/1997/240 of 16 March 1997, issued pursuant to that resolution. In paragraph 24 of that report, I expressed my belief that the United Nations and its Member States had to increase efforts to address the Afghan question before the situation deteriorated even further. I underlined that it was necessary for us all to coordinate our efforts so as to increase international pressure on the Afghan parties to solve the conflict in a peaceful way. To this end, I suggested that I might convene another meeting of concerned countries, using the formula that had been adopted for the meeting held in New York on 18 November 1996. At my request, the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Kieran Prendergast, presided over such an informal consultative meeting in New York on 16 April 1997. Representatives of China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Netherlands, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, the United

94 • 1 May 1997

Kingdom, the United States, Uzbekistan and the Organization of Islamic Conference participated. The purpose of the meeting was to reassess the situation following recent political and military developments and to discuss how best to promote a negotiated settlement of the conflict and reinforce the United Nations’ peacemaking efforts. The meeting demonstrated that consensus continues to exist on the grave dangers of continued armed conflict for the region and on the central role of the United Nations in coordinating efforts to achieve a peaceful solution. The participants uniformly appreciated the efforts of Mr. Holl and of the United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan to promote agreement on a cease-fire and negotiations between the factions. While recognizing the need for all concerned countries to be involved in the search for peace, they also stressed that such initiatives should be coordinated with the United Nations. All participants agreed that the territorial integrity and unity of Afghanistan must be preserved. They supported the view that the only solution to the conflict remains a national accord based on recognition of the legitimate interests and rights of the entire Afghan people. There was consensus that all forms of foreign interference must cease although, as usual, there were differences on how to achieve this. The flow of arms into Afghanistan remained a preoccupation and a number of countries supported an arms embargo, referring to the action taken in that connection by the European Union; some called for the Security Council to take similar action. Others, however, expressed doubts about the practical effectiveness of such a measure and whether it could be applied in an even-handed manner. There continued to be widespread support for an international conference in due course to support the results of negotiations. A number of concrete proposals were put forward for an intra-Afghan dialogue under the auspices of the United Nations to be held outside Afghanistan, possibly with Member States as observers. Several participants repeated their offer to host negotiations and/or a conference. Many favoured the expansion of United Nations consultations beyond the leadership of the factions to include broadly-representative Afghan communities and personalities. Some particularly supported the intensification of the contacts of Mr. Holl and the Special Mission with concerned states. A number of delegations favoured the increased involvement of the Security Council in

the issue. In the meantime, many expressed the view that the meeting mechanism which I had initiated in November 1996, of which this was the second instance, was a useful international framework which could meet more frequently, even every two months. I should note the expressions of several of the participants on the desirability of a more spontaneous exchange of views at these meetings, as well as the interest of some in giving the deliberations a sharper focus. I am reflecting on how we might together address these concerns. All participants voiced their distress at the continued plight of the Afghan people, with special attention drawn to women and girls. Several emphasized the connection between a political settlement, rehabilitation, reconstruction and peacebuilding. I look forward to exploring further how we can best harmonize and coordinate policies in the future for the maximum benefit of the Afghan people. I should be grateful, Mr. President, if you would convey this information to the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

4 May 1997 Secretary-General Calls on Players in Zaire to Assure Successful Completion of Process to Peace and Democracy

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6231); Zaire The Secretary-General is gratified that President Mobutu Sese Seko and Laurent Kabila have begun a dialogue on a peaceful transition of power in Zaire. He is grateful to President Nelson Mandela, United States Ambassador Bill Richardson and the other heads of State for helping launch this dialogue. He also wishes to thank Mohamed Sahnoun, the joint United Nations/Organization of African Unity (OAU) Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region, who worked tirelessly over the past three months to lay the groundwork for the talks. But the work of managing this process of change has just begun. The Secretary-General calls on all the principal players in Zaire, as well as on all interested States, to continue to work together to assure a successful completion of the process, leading to peace, democracy and prosperity in Zaire.

7 May 1997 • 95 5 May 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/351); Mostar Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Park Soo Gil. See the documents included with the 24 February entry. Dear Mr. President, In its Presidential Statement of 11 March 1997 (3/PRST/1997/12), the Security Council asked me to keep it informed about the follow-up to the incident on 10 February 1997 in Mostar, in which one person died and others were wounded in a violent assault against a group of civilians. Pursuant to this request, and supplementing the information provided to the Council by the High Representative for the Implementation of the Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina (see S/1997/310 of 14 April 1997), I have the honour to attach the executive summary and the conclusions of a report, issued on 26 March 1997, entitled “Mostar—Human Rights and Security Situation 1 January–15 February 1997.” The report was prepared by the United Nations International Police Task Force (UN-IPTF) and the Human Rights Coordination Centre at the request of the Principals of the Major International Implementing Organizations. Its full text is available in the files of the Secretariat to members of the Security Council upon their request. In relation to the Council’s request to be kept informed about the follow-up to the 10 February incident, I regret to report that, since the letter by the Principal Deputy High Representative of 23 March 1997 (S/1997/256), there has been no further action by the responsible authorities to implement the demands contained in the Presidential Statement of 11 March 1997. However, the general situation in Mostar has improved in the past six weeks. Evictions from West Mostar have stopped and 100 police officers (50 Bosniacs and 50 Croats) are jointly patrolling the central district of the town. UN-IPTF has also made progress in its negotiations for the establishment of the joint Federation police force in the Neretva (Mostar) Canton. Members of the Security Council will recall that, in its resolution 1103 (1997) of 31 March, the Council acknowledged “the importance of ensuring that the UN-IPTF is able to carry out all the tasks with which it has been entrusted, in particular those tasks set out in the conclusions of the London Conference”—of which the UN-IPTF investigation into the Mostar incident is a prime example. In the same resolution, the Security

Council decided to “consider expeditiously” the recommendations concerning those tasks contained in my report of 14 March 1997 (S/1997/224), which include an increase in UNIPTF strength by 120 personnel. I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate my recommendation and to express the hope that the Security Council will find it possible to respond positively to it. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

7 May 1997 Letter (UN archives); chemical weapons convention Letter from Russian president Boris Yeltsin. The letter was translated from Russian. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, Thank you for your letter of 4 April 1997, in which you draw attention to the need for Russia to ratify the Convention on prohibition of chemical weapons as soon as possible. I fully share your qualification of this Convention as an unprecedented international treaty that makes possible the elimination of a whole category of weapons of mass destruction under effective control. I would like once again to reaffirm the adherence of Russia to this goal. I am also in agreement with you on the necessity of Russia’s participation in the Convention as a prerequisite of its effectiveness and universality. The Convention has been submitted for ratification to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. The active parliamentary process of consideration of the Convention has already begun. The State Duma has expressed its intention to finish the ratification process if possible by this autumn. In this regard it emphasized the importance of taking into account the issues vital to Russia in the decisions of the Conference of States Parties to the Convention. It is clear that the Convention and its consequences for our country should be carefully and comprehensively considered by the State Duma. I agree with you, Mr. Secretary-General, that one of the fundamental problems for Russia with regard to the Convention is the need for significant expenditures for the destruction of chemical weapons. I appreciate your readiness to undertake efforts to contribute to its resolution. Effective international assistance could accelerate the process of destruction of chemical weapons in Russia. I am hopeful that objective difficulties, as

96 • 7 May 1997

regards our need for additional time for the ratification of the Convention, will be only of a temporary nature. I would like to stress that since signing the Convention, Russia has been fulfilling and will fulfil its obligations not to develop and produce chemical weapons; not to transfer them directly or indirectly to anyone; not to use chemical weapons; not to engage in any military preparations for its use; not to assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited under this Convention; not to use riot control agents as means of warfare. Measures have been taken to ensure that toxic chemicals and their precursors are developed, produced and acquired, stockpiled, transferred or used only for the purposes not prohibited under the Convention. The Federal Target Programme on the destruction of chemical weapons adopted in 1996 is being implemented at a pace permitted by the economic situation in Russia. Unfortunately, the Preparatory Commission for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has not yet resolved many important issues which to a large extent will determine the effectiveness and the universality of the Convention as a whole and which at the same time affect the interests of Russia. Under these circumstances the goodwill of all countries is essential in order to find mutually acceptable solutions to the outstanding issues. Once again I would like to reiterate that the speedy accession of Russia to the Convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons is our priority goal. Respectfully Yours, B. Yeltsin

13 May 1997 Secretary-General Praises Japan’s Strong Devotion to UN and Specialized Agencies

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6236); Japan, and UN reform Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at a luncheon hosted by the UN Association of Japan, in Tokyo. It gives me great pleasure to be making my first visit to Japan as Secretary-General and to be here with you, the United Nations Association of Japan. You are among the world Organization’s most dedicated friends and allies. I am grateful for your support, and I look forward to working closely with you to highlight the work of the United Nations to the people of Japan.

Later today, I will have the honour of meeting with your distinguished Prime Minister upon his return from Peru. Allow me to express my great relief over the safe rescue of the hostages in Lima. The Japanese diplomats and officials, along with others, endured months of captivity and showed extraordinary courage and stamina in the face of terrorism. They are serving their country with honour. I understand as well that among us today are some of the leading members of Japan’s television and media communities. We have seen in recent years the power of the media to influence the international agenda, and so I welcome your coverage of our work. I also look forward to the discussions we will have at the World Television Forum to be held in November at United Nations Headquarters in New York. I would also like to praise Japan’s strong devotion to the United Nations and its family of specialized agencies. Japan’s record of engagement on a range of pressing global issues, from the reconstruction of Cambodia to the Conference on Climate Change that you will host later this year, serves as a shining example—a fact I am sure we owe to the hard work of many of you gathered here today. Throughout its more than 40 years as a United Nations Member State, Japan has amply demonstrated its commitment to peace in all its many dimensions. Japan remains the world’s largest provider of official development assistance, with a special focus on Africa, the continent that has suffered the most from political and economic marginalization. Japan is a major provider of humanitarian aid and disaster relief, an area in which I must single out for special praise the service of such distinguished humanitarians as Sadako Ogata and Yasushi Akashi. Japan played a valuable role in helping conclude the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and supports the negotiation of a total ban on antipersonnel landmines. You join me, I am sure, in rejoicing over the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Your profile in United Nations peace-keeping is growing, and you have contributed to conflict resolution efforts within the region and beyond. Education about the United Nations is crucial to our mission everywhere and to the support we need and want from the peoples of the world. I often think that if only people really knew our achievements, our objectives and the way we

13 May 1997 • 97 work, the United Nations would be viewed rather differently. In this respect, too, Japan contributes greatly by virtue of its generous endowment of the United Nations University in Tokyo. But we, too, have been educated, over the past 50 years and especially in the past decade, about what our Organization does well and what it does with difficulty, what it can do and what it cannot do, and what means and methods are crucial to the success of its mission. Today, I would like to share with you some thoughts about two major preoccupations of the United Nations: peace-building and reform. In speaking of peace-building, I refer not only to the “three Rs” of post-conflict situations—reconciliation, rehabilitation and reconstruction—but to peace-building in the broadest sense: the work of constructing stable, thriving, democratic societies, particularly in places that have suffered the traumas of violence and upheaval and might do so again. It is necessary not just to stop the guns, but to create conditions that will remove the reasons for their being used in the first place. This is hard work, requiring foresight, patience, persistence and much more, but it is the essential work of the United Nations. That is why one of the primary goals of the process of reform and revitalization now under way is to strengthen the Organization’s capacity for peace-building. In the new global era, the United Nations must be equipped—managerially, structurally, politically—to meet both short- and long-term demands. While we will always be needed to respond to emergencies through humanitarian assistance and peace-keeping operations, increasingly it is understood that we must focus more intently on the longer-term pursuit of building lasting, fullfledged pledge. Humanitarian assistance is essential, but there is growing recognition of the fact that emergency relief is only a palliative. It offers crucial but only temporary succour from often terrible circumstances. It is no substitute for action aimed at tackling the roots of a crisis. Yet there is an unfortunate tendency to act as if the dispatch of food and medicine is a sufficient response to a crisis, or at least enough to remove a problem situation from public view. Yes, we will have dealt with an emergency and perhaps its most appalling aspects, but we will not have addressed the underlying causes. Some of the same lessons hold true for peacekeeping, its indisputable value notwithstanding. Sometimes a peace-keeping operation is part of a

comprehensive agreement which brings an overall conflict to an end. More often than not, however, peace-keeping is another kind of holding action, an attempt to quell hostilities and carve out breathing room in which antagonists can settle their differences peacefully, through mediation and negotiation. Whichever the case, it is essential to understand that peace-keeping is not an end in itself. Sometimes the very success of peace-keeping has removed the incentive for the conflicting parties to deal with their underlying sources of conflict, and peace-keeping has become part of an entrenched status quo, postponing indefinitely the search for an acceptable and durable peace. The multi-dimensional peace-keeping efforts of recent years have attempted to address root causes. In Cambodia, for example—an operation in which Japan provided military observers, troops and civilian police—the United Nations mandate included human rights, conduct of elections and post-war rehabilitation, in addition to military tasks and repatriation. The mission in El Salvador monitored not only human rights and military aspects of the peace agreement, but also the Government’s efforts to enact land reform in a country where inequities in land ownership were a leading cause of societal tensions that led to civil war. And the peace-keeping mission in Haiti is more often described as a peace-building mission, in that one of its central aims is building up the Haitian judicial system—a classic peace-building endeavour. These are all steps towards peace-building originating within the context of peace-keeping. But we have to go beyond this. Peace-building needs to be seen in its own right as an essential partner of humanitarian relief and peace-keeping. These three elements are mutually reinforcing. They must work in concert to prevent conflict, to forestall the recurrence of conflict and, most important, to help set countries on the road to sustainable development. A sine qua non here is, of course, adequate funding. At the moment, budgets for peace-keeping and humanitarian assistance make little or no provision for peace-building activities. Yet peacebuilding requires funding, in the same way that peace-keeping and humanitarian activities do. This requires the support of the donor community. For it is so much better to pay for the building of institutions than for the provision of band-aids. Peace-building derives from, and helps to pro-

98 • 13 May 1997

mote, a broad-based understanding of human security. Even during the cold war, the purely military view of security found fault in many quarters. Today—in no small part thanks to the recent cycle of United Nations conferences—a more comprehensive view of human security prevails, one that encompasses such fundamentals as economic growth, social justice, respect for human rights, environmental protection, democratization, equal rights for women and the full participation of people in the decisions affecting their lives. The United Nations Charter endows the Organization with a major role in helping the world’s peoples to realize these aspirations. That sacred compact is why the reform effort I have set in motion is so greatly focused on enhancing the Organization’s capacity to provide better support to countries struggling to improve the living conditions of their people. Allow me to mention just a few of the measures I have taken. First, as an overriding principle, I have urged that any savings recouped through administrative and managerial improvements be made available for development activities, and I am pleased to say that Member States generally support this approach. Second, I have strengthened policy coordination at the leadership level at Headquarters through the creation of a policy coordination group—consisting of heads of departments, programmes and funds—which will assist me in managing the Organization as an integrated entity. Third, I have merged the three Headquarters departments dealing with economic and social affairs into a single department, so as to eliminate overlap and achieve greater efficiency and focus. Fourth, I have announced a series of steps aimed at strengthening the Resident Coordinator system in order to improve the Organization’s performance in the field, where I would like the United Nations to be a “country team,” with a single leader and common objectives. And I have brought together some 30 United Nations departments, offices, funds, programmes and other entities into four executive committees, corresponding to the principal substantive areas of our work: peace and security, economic and social affairs, development operations, and humanitarian affairs. A fifth area, human rights, features in all four committees. Since a growing number of the challenges we face cut across traditional sectors and organizational boundaries, the committees are already helping to improve coordination, avoid duplication

and best utilize each entity’s comparative advantages. These and other reforms constitute a most serious undertaking. I wish to emphasize that it is not just the Secretariat but the entire system that is reforming. The heads of all specialized agencies— with whom I met last month in Geneva in the Administrative Committee on Coordination— reaffirmed their commitment to energizing and streamlining their operations in concert with the United Nations proper. Agencies from the World Bank to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have undertaken reform or are in the process of reforming themselves. The staff, too, want reform and are in many respects in a very good position to tell us what needs fixing. Reform, like peace-keeping, is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end: the creation of a United Nations that is more efficient, more relevant and more effective in responding to the problems of today and of the twenty-first century. To succeed, both reform and peace-building need firm and consistent support from the Member States. Japan, for its part, has long understood the centrality of development in building enduring peace and human security. In fact, it has been in the vanguard of such efforts—for example, as a proponent of developing-country ownership of the development process, and in South-South cooperation through so-called “triangle” arrangements, in which Japan acts as facilitator. I urge Japan to continue playing a leadership role in this area as the natural complement to its activities in humanitarian assistance and United Nations peace-keeping. I am also counting on Japan to play a supportive role as the reform process moves forward. I will be announcing further initiatives and decisions on matters that fall within my authority and offering proposals on some of the more fundamental issues, which only Member States can decide. Japan’s voice will be crucial throughout. We are all aware that Japan is keenly interested, in particular, in the fate of the Security Council. Although this is a matter for the Member States, I think it fair to say there is widespread consensus that the Council’s current composition reflects the world of 1945 and not the economic and political realities of today. Any reform must take that fact, and the interests of developing countries, into account. The experience of the past decade tells us that

19 May 1997 • 99 the times in which we live demand new thinking, new ideas, new approaches, that are capable of coping with the unpredictable and dealing with the ambiguous. I have spoken about peace-building and reform today because I believe that these areas offer great promise to set us on the proper course for the future, and because that future will be greatly influenced by the engagement and leadership of Japan. We are on the same path, Japan and the United Nations: the path to peace and progress. As its role and relevance grow in the new global era, the United Nations is being transformed. But in the midst of momentous change, an essential truth remains: now, as ever, the Organization cannot do its job without the trust, authority, guidance and means of its Member States and without the backing of countries like Japan. Japan plays a leading role in the international community and the world admires your accomplishments, your prowess, your culture. Your role and record in the United Nations are growing. So let us engage together in the great and noble project of international cooperation for the common good. I am confident that, working together with the membership of the United Nations, we can begin to create a world that is democratic, respects human rights and promotes sustainable development for all its peoples. The citizens of Japan and the peoples of the world demand no less. And so: let’s get to work.

13 May 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/366); Afghanistan Letter from the president of the Security Council, Park Soo Gil. The members of the Security Council express their appreciation for your letter dated 1 May 1997 (A/51/886-S/1997/347) concerning the informal consultative meeting on Afghanistan, held in New York on 16 April 1997. They welcome your initiative to convene the meeting of the concerned countries to reassess the situation in Afghanistan following recent political and military developments, to discuss how best to promote a negotiated settlement of the conflict and reinforce the United Nations peacemaking efforts. The members of the Security Council remain gravely concerned about the danger of the continued armed conflict for the region and the plight of the Afghan people. They stress the need for the

Afghan parties to cease immediately all armed hostilities, renounce the use of force, put aside their differences and engage in a political dialogue aimed at achieving peace and national reconciliation. The members of the Security Council reaffirm their support for the continuing efforts of the United Nations, in particular those of the United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan, to facilitate national reconciliation in Afghanistan on the basis of General Assembly resolution 51/195 of 17 December 1996 and Security Council resolution 1076 (1996) of 22 October 1996. While recognizing the need for all concerned countries to be involved in the search for peace, they stress that such initiatives should be coordinated with the United Nations which plays the central role in promoting agreement on a ceasefire and negotiations between the Afghan parties. The members of the Security Council take note of the concrete proposals by the participants at the above-mentioned consultative meeting aimed at assisting the peaceful resolution of the conflict. They believe that it represented a useful international framework which could meet more frequently. The members of the Security Council will continue to follow closely the developments in Afghanistan. (Signed) Park Soo Gil President of the Security Council

19 May 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman of the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s noon briefing by announcing that the Secretary-General had expressed his satisfaction that a transfer of power had taken place in Kinshasa “without a major loss of life” and had called for continued restraint from all parties. The Secretary-General, who was in Vienna, said he trusted that the government, which was expected to be formed early this week, would be broad-based, including other political groups, and that the new authorities would work for political reconciliation, democracy and prosperity for the peoples of the country. The joint United Nations/Organization of African Unity (OAU) Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region, Mohamed Sahnoun, had

100 • 19 May 1997

met with the leader of the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo/Zaire (ADFL), Laurent Kabila, yesterday in Lubumbashi, Mr. Eckhard continued. The Secretary-General welcomed the assurances the Special Representative had received on cooperation with international organizations. The Secretary-General expected the new authorities to work closely with the United Nations and the international community in assuring that the human rights of all were fully respected and that the victims of the conflict, in particular refugees, received all necessary assistance. The people of the Great Lakes region of Africa needed the support of the international community to rebuild their institutions and reconstruct their societies. The Secretary-General called on all Member States to extend generous assistance to the governments and peoples of the Great Lakes region to enable them to recover from the ravages of war and to fulfil their great economic potential. On the humanitarian side in eastern Zaire, Mr. Eckhard said that the humanitarian mission to Mdbandaka, which was located near the Congo border, had arrived over the weekend. The mission had not yet returned, but a preliminary report indicated that 2,000 disarmed refugees had been found at the airport and had asked to be repatriated. A total of 20,000 refugees were believed to be in the area, with a majority still in hiding. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had still not been granted access to the road south of Biaro camp, and, as of last night, 32,000 refugees from Rwanda had been airlifted home from eastern Zaire, an average of 2,000 per day. . . . The Security Council would also tomorrow hold consultations on Guatemala, he continued. The United Nations peace-keeping tasks there were complete, and the withdrawal of the mission had begun. About one-third of the 146 military observers of the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) had left Guatemala, and the Secretary-General’s report was expected at the end of May. The Secretary-General had been emphasizing the importance of a seamless bridge between peace-keeping and peace building, and, in that connection, the United Nations was now entering a second phase in support of the peace process and rehabilitation in Guatemala. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) would help reintegrate the former combatants into civilian life and improve living conditions in war-torn areas, including health services and housing. The UNDP would

also provide training for income generating activities. Details were in a “UNDP Flash” made available today. There were only sketchy details available about an incident which occurred in Angola this morning, Mr. Eckhard said. At 9 a.m. local time, a United Nations vehicle was ambushed. The vehicle was providing escort to a civilian convoy from Villanova to Boas-Akeas, in the central region of Angola. During the attack, two Brazilian peacekeepers were injured. One of the soldiers died from his injuries after being evacuated to Huambo. The United Nations Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM III) was investigating the preliminary reports of this incident, and it was not yet known whether or not the civilian convoy was humanitarian. Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General was pleased to announce the appointment of John Ruggie, former Dean of the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, as Adviser in his Executive Office. . . . The Secretary-General had been travelling a fair amount, Mr. Eckhard said, and a few correspondents had noted his absence from Headquarters and had hinted that he could be doing something better with his time. It was important for a Secretary-General to meet with the national leaders, particularly the Governments of the five permanent members of the Security Council, during the first year of his term. With this visit, the Secretary-General would have met with the governments of all five permanent members of the Council. At every stop along his travels, the Secretary-General was briefing governments on his United Nations reform package, which would be announced in July, because without the support of Member States reform would go nowhere. Coincidentally, but perhaps not entirely so, the Secretary-General’s visit to the Russian Federation “shook loose” $37 million of its outstanding contributions for the year and $125 million from Japan, so the trips were even paying off financially. . . . Asked what the United Nations procedure was for the recognition of the new government of Zaire and its change of name, Mr. Eckhard said the United Nations did not recognize governments; governments recognized governments. Therefore, the United Nations would wait until a “critical mass” of governments recognized the regime of Laurent Kabila, and then that duly recognized government could call the nation whatever it chose. . . .

20 May 1997 • 101 Considering that the Taliban was also waiting for official United Nations recognition, a correspondent asked if there was a formal procedure that determined who held a country’s seat in the General Assembly. Mr. Eckhard said he would check and inform correspondents after the briefing. How could the Secretary-General welcome the relatively peaceful transition of power when there were reports that over 200 people had died in Zaire over the weekend? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said that many parties, including the Secretary-General, had anticipated a bloody battle for Kinshasa or extensive looting by troops. But both those things had been avoided. The outcome, which was better than the worst case scenario, was partly due to the extensive amount of international involvement which had helped to cushion the rebels arrival and President Mobutu Sese Seko’s departure. Asked if the United Nations still recognized Mr. Mobutu’s government, Mr. Eckhard said that Zaire was a Member State, and it was now a question of which representative of Zaire would be recognized as legitimate. Mr. Eckhard asked if Samsiah Abdul-Majid, spokeswoman for the President of the General Assembly, had anything to say about the credentials procedure. She replied that the Head of Government or State or the Foreign Minister must submit the credentials of the representatives to the General Assembly. Then, the Credentials Committee would examine the credentials and make its recommendations to the Assembly. Until the General Assembly gave its decision, the existing representatives continued their participation. In the case of Afghanistan, the Credentials Committee had not technically considered the credentials of the representatives of a new authority. ... Since the contents of the Secretary-General’s reform package would not be announced until July, what exactly was he selling on his current trip? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General was selling a broad concept and asking, in a general way, for political support for his efforts. He thought that the United Nations, like any organization or any corporation, needed to reassess its way of doing things and adapt to changing times. Geopolitically, the times had changed dramatically as a result of the end of the cold war. The SecretaryGeneral’s pitch was to say to Member States: “As the next century approaches, let’s define, in a context of shrinking resources, what the priorities of the Untied Nations are. It is you, the Member

States, that need to do that. I’m going to help you by giving you a few ideas in July, but you are going to have to do it. Are you with me?” The SecretaryGeneral was getting reassuring responses, but he was also the first one to say that the devil was in the details. He has told Member States that he hoped they would not back away when they saw the July package, but he has not given them any previews of what the contents would be. . . .

20 May 1997 Letter (UN archives); access to UN archives This interoffice memo and following document address the issue of access to UN archive documents that may have otherwise been considered classified. This policy document was used to authorize the declassification of the SecretaryGeneral’s papers for release to the public. To: Mr. Iqbal Riza, Chief of Staff Executive Office of the Secretary-General From: Paul Szasz, Acting Director and Deputy to the Under-Secretary-General Office of the Legal Council Subject: Access to the UN Archives This is with reference to a meeting held on 19 March 1997 between you, Mr. Kersten of the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation, and Ms. van Dalen, First Secretary at the Permanent Mission of the Netherlands. The note of the meeting was copied to Mr. Corell. During the meeting, Mr. Kersten inquired about the possibility for the Institute to gain access to the archives of UNPROFOR and the UNHCR in connection with events that had occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Access to the archives of the United Nations, which includes archival material of United Nations peace-keeping operations, is governed by Administrative Instruction ST/AI/326 of 28 December 1984, a copy of which is attached for your reference. The main provision regulating access is paragraph 4, supplemented by the Annex which contains guidelines for the classification and declassification of records and archives of the Secretary-General. A request from the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation would have to be examined, in particular, pursuant to paragraph 4 (b) (iii) of that Instruction. It appears from the above-mentioned document and from previous practice, that, upon receipt of a request by a “member of the public” for access

102 • 20 May 1997

to documents which are less than 20 years old and not subject to restrictions imposed by the Secretary-General, the Secretariat unit substantively responsible (in this case DPKO) has to give its written consent. Before such consent is given, the responsible unit has to seek the clearance of the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, which normally seeks the advice of the Office of Legal Affairs before taking a decision. ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION

To: Members of the staff From: The Under-Secretary-General for Administration and Management Subject: The United Nations Archives 1. Pursuant to paragraph 5 of ST/SGB/158 of 28 July 1977, this instruction details the rules and procedures to be followed in respect of transfer, maintenance, custody and disposition of the archives and non-current records of the United Nations and also explains the guidelines concerning internal and public access to the United Nations archives. Administrative instruction ST/AI/252 of 28 October 1977 is hereby superseded. I. Responsibilities of the Archives Section Management and Preservation

2. The Archives Section shall maintain, preserve and repair the archives and non-current records of the United Nations and shall arrange and describe the archive groups and prepare finding aids to make them available for use. Transfer of Non-current Records

3. The Archives Section shall undertake the mandatory transfer from Secretariat units to its premises of archives and non-current records which are more than three years old. In exceptional cases, where shorter or longer retention periods are deemed desirable, a schedule mutually agreed upon between the Archives Section and the Secretariat units concerned may be established. Conditions of Access

4. Archives and non-current records are available as follows: (a) Members of the Secretariat may have access to archives and records necessary to the conduct of their official business, except to those subject to restrictions imposed by the SecretaryGeneral. (b) Members of the public may have access to (i) archives and records that were accessible at the

time of their creation, (ii) those which are more than 20 years old and not subject to restrictions imposed by the Secretary-General, and (iii) those which are less than 20 years old and not subject to restrictions imposed by the Secretary-General, on condition that the originating office has given written consent for access. (c) Records as to which the Secretary-General or his authorized representatives have imposed restrictions may be declassified at any time by the same authority. Records that remain restricted when transferred to the Archives will be declassified automatically or be subjected to a declassification review when 20 years old. Those remaining restricted after 20 years shall undergo further declassification review at 5-year intervals. The guidelines concerning the classification and declassification of the records and archives of the Secretary-General are contained in annex I below. Disposal

5. With the agreement of the Secretariat unit concerned, the Archives Section shall dispose of noncurrent records that have no further administrative, legal, historical or other informational value. II. Responsibilities of Secretariat Units at Headquarters Transfer of Non-current Records

6. Prior to transferring their records to the Archives Section, Secretariat units shall prepare them for transfer in accordance with the format established by the Chief of the Archives Section. Conditions for Temporary Retention

7. Secretariat units authorized to retain archives and non-current records beyond the normal threeyear period for the conduct of their official business shall establish suitable conditions for the preservation of these archives and records as approved by the Archives Section. Disposal

8. Secretariat units shall not dispose of records in their possession without the written authorization of the Chief of the Archives Section. The latter may require that samples of the records proposed for disposal be sent to him for review prior to authorizing disposal. III. Responsibility of Members of the Secretariat Legal Title to Records

9. All records, regardless of physical form, created or received by a member of the Secretariat in con-

20 May 1997 • 103 nection with or as a result of the official work of the United Nations are the property of the United Nations. Inviolability of Records

10. Prior to separation from the United Nations, members of the Secretariat shall make arrangements for transferring to the Archives Section those records in their possession not retained for their successor and shall not remove any records from the United Nations premises. The Chief of the Archives Section may inspect all records of a member of the Secretariat prior to separation from service. Members of the Secretariat to be separated are entitled to have a reasonable number of unrestricted documents in their possession copied at their own expense and to retain their private papers. In respect of the Secretary-General’s papers, see annex I below. IV. Archival Guidance to Other United Nations Organs and Secretariat Units Away from Headquarters

forms or disposal; disposal is the act of the destruction of records by appropriate methods; private papers of members of the Secretariat are those that have no connection with official work of the United Nations but which have been kept in their office. * * *

Guidelines Concerning the Classification and Declassification of the Records and Archives of the Secretary-General

1. The purpose of this annex is to provide guidelines for the classification and declassification of records originating with the Secretary-General and kept in his custody or in the United Nations Archives. Classification

2. Records may, in exceptional cases, be classified. Authority to apply classification shall be limited to the Secretary-General and such officials as the Secretary-General so authorizes:

11. The Archives Section shall provide guidance and set standards for the maintenance, preservation, repair, arrangement, description and disposal of, and public access to, the archives and noncurrent records or other United Nations organs and of Secretariat units away from Headquarters. In the event of the closure of such an office, its archives and records shall be transferred to the United Nations Archives Section, in accordance with procedures to be laid down after mutual consultation between the office and the Archives Section.

(a) “SG-Strictly Confidential” shall be applied restrictively to records originating with the Secretary-General, the unauthorized disclosure of which could be expected to cause grave damage to confidence in the Secretary-General’s Office(s) or to the United Nations. (b) “SG-Confidential” shall be applied to records originating with the Secretary-General, the unauthorized disclosure of which could be expected to cause damage to the proper functioning of the United Nations Secretariat.

V. Explanation of Terms

3. Prior to the time-limits established in paragraph 5 below, all categories of classified records may be declassified by the Secretary-General or by such officials as the Secretary-General so authorizes. 4. Review for possible declassification should take place before records are transferred to the custody of the United Nations Archives. 5. Classified records that have been transferred to the Archives still maintaining their original classification should be declassified as follows:

12. For the purpose of this instruction, records are all documentary materials, regardless of physical type, received or originated by the United Nations or by members of its staff, excluding “United Nations documents”; non-current records are those which are no longer needed for daily use in the transaction of official business but should be preserved on a temporary basis because of administrative or legal considerations; the term archives applies to those records to be permanently preserved for their administrative, legal, historical or informational value; an archive group is a body of organizationally related records established on the basis of their origin; disposition is the action taken with regard to non-current records following their appraisal, including transfer of a temporary storage area, transfer to the Archives, reproduction on micro-

Declassification

(a) Records classified as SG-Strictly Confidential a/ shall be reviewed by the Archives for possible declassification when 20 years old. At the expiration of this time-limit, records so classified shall be declassified only upon explicit ad hoc, item-by-item, approval by the SecretaryGeneral or by such officials as the SecretaryGeneral so authorizes. SG-Strictly Confidential a/ records, not approved for declassification when 20

104 • 20 May 1997

years old, shall be reviewed by the Archives for possible declassification every 5 years thereafter, following the above procedures. (b) Records classified as SG-Confidential b/ shall be declassified automatically by the Archives upon the expiration of 20 years. Safeguarding Classified Records

6. Classified records shall, as far as feasible, be filed separately from non-classified or declassified records, under proper security arrangements. Notes a/ Formerly “Top Secret”. b/ Formerly “Secret”.

22 May 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing, (OSSG); Kurds Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s press briefing by announcing that approximately 200 Kurds had forced their way into the Palais de Nations, the site of the United Nations Office at Geneva, this morning. The group was demonstrating against Turkey’s military offensive into northern Iraq. The incident, which lasted about five hours, ended at 4 p.m., local time, when the demonstrators were pacified and left the scene voluntarily. While there were a large number of Swiss Police outside the Palais, they were not invited inside, and the United Nations dealt with the demonstrators peacefully. The demonstrators disbanded and left the scene after hearing a statement made by the Secretary-General at a press conference earlier this week in Vienna, Mr. Eckhard continued. At his press conferences in Vienna and Moscow, the Secretary-General had addressed the situation in northern Iraq. In Vienna the Secretary-General said: “On the question of the situation in northern Iraq, I have made it quite clear that we cannot condone the Turkish incursion into Iraq. The Iraqi territorial integrity has to be respected, and I have urged that the Turkish troops withdraw as soon as possible. I hope other Governments are exercising the right pressure on them to pull back.” Mr. Eckhard said the Charge d’affaires of the Permanent Mission of Zaire had addressed a letter to the Secretary-General, dated 20 May, relaying instructions from his government. The letter stated that as of 17 May, Laurent Desire Kabila was the

President of the country and that Mr. Kabila had decided to change the name of the country to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There was also a new national anthem, and the national flag would revert to the version raised in June 1960, on the day of independence of what was then the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The letter was reviewed by the Office of Legal Affairs yesterday, which affirmed the validity of the credentials of the Deputy Permanent Representative who signed it, he continued. Therefore, the Secretary-General would comply with the letter’s contents, including that it be circulated as an official document. To date, there had been no challenges from other Member States to the credentials of the delegation, which continued to represent the country. . . . The General Assembly would meet this afternoon to consider a draft resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Mr. Eckhard said. By the resolution, which was introduced by the Netherlands in the Assembly yesterday, the Assembly would invite the SecretaryGeneral to take steps to conclude an agreement to regulate the relationship between the two organizations. It would also authorize the SecretaryGeneral, pending the conclusion of the agreement, to enter into temporary arrangement concerning the issuance of laissez-passer to the organization’s inspectors to be used as a valid travel document. . . . The same correspondent then asked how long it would take for Zaire’s name change to take effect? Mr. Eckhard said the name would change after the official notification by the SecretaryGeneral. Then, the signmakers would draw up new signs and the seating arrangement would be juggled in the General Assembly. Those changes would be done relatively quickly, but acquiring a new flag would take longer. . . . Asked why the change of name and flag for Afghanistan had been delayed, Mr. Eckhard said there did not seem to be a critical mass of support for the Taliban as the new government of Afghanistan. A correspondent asked what the latest developments in Afghanistan were. Mr. Eckhard said there was a lot of international concern that if the Taliban completed its military conquest, it might also create longer-term problems by driving opposition forces into Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. At the same time, there was also some hope that a negotiated solution might still be achieved. . . .

27 May 1997 • 105 23 May 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

tributions was available in the Spokesman’s Office. . . .

Noon briefing (OSSG); Zaire

27 May 1997

Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s press briefing by reminding correspondents that the Secretary-General had briefed the Security Council yesterday on the situation in Zaire. He then met with an inter-agency task force that he had called to discuss reconstruction in Zaire, and in the Great Lakes region of Africa as a whole. The Secretary-General told the Security Council, Mr. Eckhard said, that the real threat to stability in Zaire was poverty, violence and the lack of human rights, and that he believed the United Nations should concentrate its efforts in those areas. He intended to retain the joint United Nations/Organization of African Unity (OAU) Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region, Mohamed Sahnoun, to pursue reconciliation in the region and to help coordinate reconstruction plans. Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General had also spoken by telephone yesterday with World Bank President James Wolfensohn to enlist his assistance on the reconstruction effort, and Mr. Wolfensohn had agreed to cooperate. The others involved in the discussion yesterday were the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Departments of Humanitarian Affairs, Peace-Keeping Operations and Political Affairs. . . . Turning to the question of Cyprus, Mr. Eckhard said Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Kieran Prendergast, who had recently returned from his visit to Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, had submitted his personal report to the Secretary-General last evening. The SecretaryGeneral was studying the report and would decide what steps to take next concerning his good offices mission on Cyprus. Mr. Eckhard announced that Norway and the Netherlands had become the first Member States to contribute to the newly created trust fund for Preventive Action against Conflict. The SecretaryGeneral had met this morning with the State Secretary of Norway, Jan Egeland, whose Government was contributing $2 million to the fund and expected to contribute another $2 million towards the end of the year. The Netherlands’ contribution was $500,000. A press release on the con-

Secretary-General Expresses Concern over Increased Tensions in Cyprus

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6141); Cyprus The Secretary-General is concerned by the increase in tensions in Cyprus. The Security Council, most recently in its resolution 1092 of 23 December 1996, has expressed grave concern about the excessive levels of military forces and armaments in the Republic of Cyprus and the rate at which they are being expanded, upgraded and modernized, including the introduction of sophisticated weaponry. The Secretary-General believes that the events of the past week once again underline the inherent instability of the status quo and add urgency to the concerted efforts to achieve an overall political settlement through negotiations. He underscores the importance of carefully prepared, face-to-face talks between the leaders. He calls upon the parties to respond positively to the various ideas the United Nations has put forward to reduce tension and avoid risk of confrontation on the island and urges all parties to exercise maximum restraint. The Secretary-General reminds all sides that the United Nations Charter forbids the threat or use of force in situations such as this.

27 May 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Sierra Leone Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s press briefing by reminding correspondents that the Secretary-General had issued a statement over the weekend regarding the coup d’etat against the duly elected Government of Sierra Leone. Following Sunday’s coup, United Nations facilities in Freetown were looted and United Nations vehicles, along with their drivers, were taken. Currently, there was no further information concerning the condition of the national staff that had been taken, but the international staff was believed to be secure. The World Food Programme (WFP) had issued a press release stating that looters had stolen at least 1,650 tons of food aid, 15 motor vehicles and other equipment from warehouses in

106 • 27 May 1997

Freetown, Mr. Eckhard said. That press release was available in the Spokesman’s Office. Regarding Tajikistan, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative Gerd Merrem had reported from Tehran that on Sunday, 25 May, the Tajik parties initialled the Protocol on guarantees of implementation of the General Agreement on Establishment of Peace and National Accord in Tajikistan, Mr. Eckhard announced. The official signing ceremony of the Protocol was scheduled for 28 May in Tehran. The conclusion of the Protocol completed the nearly two-year process of inter-Tajik negotiations. The parties were scheduled to agree on a date for the signing of the General Agreement on Peace and National Accord between President Emomali Rakhmonov and the main Tajik opposition leader, Said Abdullo Nuri, in Moscow. . . . Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General had met this morning with Edwin Carrington, Secretary-General of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and he would be hosting a luncheon for Mr. Carrington later in the afternoon. Earlier in the day, the Secretary-General had signed an agreement for cooperation between the United Nations and CARICOM. . . .

27 May 1997 Letter (UN archives); UN reform Draft letter to the president of the General Assembly, Ismail Razali, as suggested by Maurice Strong in the attached letter to the SecretaryGeneral’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza. To: Mr. Ismail Razali, President of the General Assembly From: The Secretary-General Dear Mr. President, As you know, I intend to submit my report on the reform of the United Nations to Member States in July and, with your agreement, I would like to present it directly to the General Assembly. The report will cover the further measures I intend to take for restructuring the Secretariat and improving its capacities and effectiveness in serving Member States, as well as my proposals for consideration by Member States in areas within their purview. The issues to be addressed in the report will be wide-ranging and interrelated. Consequently, I believe that it is important that they be addressed collectively. Therefore, I propose that, in the first instance, a new item on United Nations reform be

inscribed on the agenda of the fifty-first session of the General Assembly. I would like to present my report personally to the General Assembly under the proposed new item. Based on the discussions we have had, I expect to be in a position to do so on 16 July. I trust that this timing will make it possible for ministerial statements in the general debate at the fifty-second session of the General Assembly to respond to the proposals in my report. I also hope that procedures for the subsequent consideration of the report by the General Assembly will ensure that the proposals in my report will continue to be addressed in an integrated manner. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. * * * NOTE TO MR. S. IQBAL RIZA

22 May 1997 Track II

Further to our conversation regarding the timing and mode of the launch of the Secretary-General’s report, I thought the Secretary-General might wish to communicate his thinking to the President of the General Assembly. He may wish to suggest the inclusion of a new agenda item for the purpose. Enclosed please find a draft letter for the Secretary-General’s consideration. Maurice F. Strong

2 June 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Zimbabwe Fred Eckhard, the Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, announced at today’s noon briefing that the Secretary-General arrived yesterday afternoon in Harare, Zimbabwe, where he met with local United Nations staff, or “the country team” as he was encouraging them to call themselves. Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General had a rather full programme today and had already met with the President of Algeria, Liamine Zeroual; his Special Representative for Angola, Alioune Blondin Beye (Mali); the President of Angola, Eduardo dos Santos; President Nelson Mandela of South Africa; the President of Congo-Brazzaville, Pascal Lissouba, and the President of Sudan, Omer Hassan Ahmed Al Bashir. Later today, the Secretary-General would meet with several other Heads of State or Government,

106 • 27 May 1997

Freetown, Mr. Eckhard said. That press release was available in the Spokesman’s Office. Regarding Tajikistan, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative Gerd Merrem had reported from Tehran that on Sunday, 25 May, the Tajik parties initialled the Protocol on guarantees of implementation of the General Agreement on Establishment of Peace and National Accord in Tajikistan, Mr. Eckhard announced. The official signing ceremony of the Protocol was scheduled for 28 May in Tehran. The conclusion of the Protocol completed the nearly two-year process of inter-Tajik negotiations. The parties were scheduled to agree on a date for the signing of the General Agreement on Peace and National Accord between President Emomali Rakhmonov and the main Tajik opposition leader, Said Abdullo Nuri, in Moscow. . . . Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General had met this morning with Edwin Carrington, Secretary-General of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and he would be hosting a luncheon for Mr. Carrington later in the afternoon. Earlier in the day, the Secretary-General had signed an agreement for cooperation between the United Nations and CARICOM. . . .

27 May 1997 Letter (UN archives); UN reform Draft letter to the president of the General Assembly, Ismail Razali, as suggested by Maurice Strong in the attached letter to the SecretaryGeneral’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza. To: Mr. Ismail Razali, President of the General Assembly From: The Secretary-General Dear Mr. President, As you know, I intend to submit my report on the reform of the United Nations to Member States in July and, with your agreement, I would like to present it directly to the General Assembly. The report will cover the further measures I intend to take for restructuring the Secretariat and improving its capacities and effectiveness in serving Member States, as well as my proposals for consideration by Member States in areas within their purview. The issues to be addressed in the report will be wide-ranging and interrelated. Consequently, I believe that it is important that they be addressed collectively. Therefore, I propose that, in the first instance, a new item on United Nations reform be

inscribed on the agenda of the fifty-first session of the General Assembly. I would like to present my report personally to the General Assembly under the proposed new item. Based on the discussions we have had, I expect to be in a position to do so on 16 July. I trust that this timing will make it possible for ministerial statements in the general debate at the fifty-second session of the General Assembly to respond to the proposals in my report. I also hope that procedures for the subsequent consideration of the report by the General Assembly will ensure that the proposals in my report will continue to be addressed in an integrated manner. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. * * * NOTE TO MR. S. IQBAL RIZA

22 May 1997 Track II

Further to our conversation regarding the timing and mode of the launch of the Secretary-General’s report, I thought the Secretary-General might wish to communicate his thinking to the President of the General Assembly. He may wish to suggest the inclusion of a new agenda item for the purpose. Enclosed please find a draft letter for the Secretary-General’s consideration. Maurice F. Strong

2 June 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Zimbabwe Fred Eckhard, the Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, announced at today’s noon briefing that the Secretary-General arrived yesterday afternoon in Harare, Zimbabwe, where he met with local United Nations staff, or “the country team” as he was encouraging them to call themselves. Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General had a rather full programme today and had already met with the President of Algeria, Liamine Zeroual; his Special Representative for Angola, Alioune Blondin Beye (Mali); the President of Angola, Eduardo dos Santos; President Nelson Mandela of South Africa; the President of Congo-Brazzaville, Pascal Lissouba, and the President of Sudan, Omer Hassan Ahmed Al Bashir. Later today, the Secretary-General would meet with several other Heads of State or Government,

2 June 1997 • 107 Mr. Eckhard said. Around midday, he had addressed the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit, which was the main purpose of his visit. In his speech, the Secretary-General said “Africa can no longer tolerate, and accept as a faits accomplis, coups against elected governments and the illegal seizure of power by military cliques, who sometimes act for sectional interests, sometimes simply for their own”, Mr. Eckhard said. The full text of the speech was available in the Spokesman’s office. . . . Asked whether there had been any feedback from Washington on the United Nations budget, Mr. Eckhard said that was now an internal matter. The Secretary-General was counting on the assurances given to him in January by United States President Bill Clinton, that he and his Administration would make the best case to the United States Congress. There were “a lot of benchmarks hanging out there”, but the Secretary-General continued to expect that the United States President, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and the Permanent Representative Bill Richardson, and whoever else was involved, would weigh in at the appropriate time, Mr. Eckhard said. The United States budget process would continue until the end of September and would become effective on 1 October with the beginning of the American fiscal year. It was a multiple step process. So the Secretary-General was counting on the United States Administration to do what it could on the Congress to appreciate the value of the United Nations, and not least of all, on the New York delegation, which had a stake it should be protecting.

2 June 1997 Secretary-General Calls for Efforts to Unleash African “Third Wave” of Democracy

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6245/Rev.1); Africa Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Annual Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), in Harare. It is an honour and a privilege for me to be here in Harare today, addressing the leaders of Africa at this Annual Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). On behalf of us all, I pay tribute to President Robert Mugabe. We thank him, and the Government and people of Zimbabwe, for the

warmth of their welcome and the graciousness of their hospitality. As a son of Africa, I am proud of the close cooperation between the OAU and the United Nations that is now almost commonplace throughout the continent. That we are working so well together is in no small part a tribute to the strong personal commitment of African leaders and to the dedication of the OAU’s dynamic SecretaryGeneral, Dr. Salim Ahmed Salim. We must intensify and improve still further our joint efforts for peace and development. The challenges facing Africa are neither new nor simple. Yet today, we have a duty to face them together. We owe this to our peoples, in the name of our ideal of peace, prosperity and democracy. Peace could bring a world of boundless promise, a world of democracy, justice, equality and sustainable development. So I wish here to restate the unswerving commitment of the United Nations to establish peace, eliminate poverty and initiate sustainable economic growth in Africa. Yet peace-building will require the construction—difficult and often thankless—of a more just society and a more sound economy. This is a long and arduous enterprise, to be constructed step by step, stone by stone, school by school, understanding by undertaking. At times, the way will seem difficult. But I am convinced that a reward lies at the end of the road—a reward which tomorrow will form part of the daily reality of our children and all of Africa. Africa has, in the past five decades, been through a series of momentous changes. First came decolonization and the struggle against apartheid. Them came a second wave, too often marked by civil wars, the tyranny of military rule, and economic stagnation. I believe that a new era is now in prospect, Africa’s third wave. Let us make this third wave one of lasting peace, based on democracy, human rights, and sustainable development. Portents of this third wave are all around us. We salute the democratic transitions in Namibia, in Mozambique, and, most recently, in South Africa. In Angola, two and a half years after the signing of the Lusaka Protocol, the peace process is at last taking root. In Liberia, the United Nations mission, working hand in hand with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the OAU, is helping to establish a durable and democratic peace.

108 • 2 June 1997

In Western Sahara, the United Nations is redoubling its efforts to find a solution to that long stalemate. In the Congo, we have seen a sudden shift in power. A long period of despotic rule has been brought to an end. A truly historic opportunity beckons. The entire world was relieved to see the transition take place in relative peace, and all welcome President Kabila’s commitment to constitutional rule and to the holding of democratic elections. It is necessary even now that the protection of human life and full respect for human rights are given the highest priority, and that the rule of law should quickly return to that vast and vibrant country. The United Nations asks that we may tend to the weak and the displaced, so that this new beginning may be an affirmation of the sanctity of life. How do we build on these positive elements throughout our continent, to unleash Africa’s third wave in full force? My friends, I speak to you as a fellow African, and I speak to you from the heart: we will succeed to the extent that we embrace the primacy of democratic rule, the inviolability of human rights, and the imperatives of sustainable development. The success of the third wave begins with a single and simple proposition—the will of the people. The will of the people must be the basis of governmental authority in Africa, and governments, duly elected, should not be overthrown by force. Last week, military elements in Sierra Leone toppled a democratically elected government. The Secretary-General of the OAU, the Government of Zimbabwe, and other African leaders spoke for all of us when they expressed their revulsion. Africa can no longer tolerate, and accept as faits accomplis, coups against elected governments, and the illegal seizure of power by military cliques, who sometimes act for sectional interests, sometimes simply for their own. Armies exist to protect national sovereignty, not to train their guns on their own people. Some may argue that military regimes bring stability and predictability, that they are helpful to economic development. That is a delusion. Look at the example of South America, where the militaries are back in their garrisons, democracy thrives, and economies soar. Accordingly, let us dedicate ourselves to a new doctrine for African politics: where democracy has been usurped, let us do whatever is in our power to restore it to its rightful owners, the people.

Verbal condemnation, though necessary and desirable, is not sufficient. We must also ostracize and isolate putschists. Neighbouring States, regional groupings, and the international community all must play their part. The success of Africa’s third wave depends equally on respect for fundamental human rights. The conflicts which have disfigured our continent have, all too often, been accompanied by massive human rights violations. I am aware of the fact that some view this concern as a luxury of the rich countries for which Africa is not ready. I know that others treat it as an imposition, if not a plot, by the industrialized West. I find these thoughts truly demeaning, demeaning of the yearning for human dignity that resides in every African heart. Do not African mothers weep when their sons or daughters are killed or maimed by agents of repressive rule? Are not African fathers saddened when their children are unjustly jailed or tortured? Is not Africa as a whole impoverished when even one of its brilliant voices is silenced? We cannot afford to lose one life, spare one idea, relinquish one hope, if we are to succeed on our chosen course. So I say this to you, my brothers and sisters, that human rights are African rights, and I call upon you to ensure that all Africans are able fully to enjoy them. Let us work together and with the United Nations to develop good governance and respect for the rule of law. When we succeed, Africa will have taken a great step forward. Finally, the success of the third wave hinges on instituting sustainable development throughout Africa. The United Nations is committed to playing its full part in the struggle for sustainable development. Our continent is blessed with immense human and natural resources. Imagine a day when assistance from the United Nations is no longer needed for humanitarian emergencies or post-conflict reconstruction, but can be redirected at long-term development needs. Imagine a day when the outflow of capital from Africa to service debt is dwarfed by an inflow of capital-seeking job-creating investments. No— you do not need to imagine. For experience elsewhere in the world has shown that it can happen, and that it can happen quickly. I pledge the full support of the United Nations, its agencies and the Bretton Woods institutions.

2 June 1997 • 109 We will continue our long-standing efforts to help create an enabling environment for economic growth and prosperity. We will continue to assist your efforts to devise new investment strategies and trade practices. In addition, the institutional reforms that I will present to governments in July will be designed to make the United Nations a more effective instrument, reducing costs at the centre while enhancing assistance in the field. Africa should be a major beneficiary of these reforms. To take root, sustainable development also requires major policy initiatives at the national level. Democratization and the rule of law, including respect for human rights, are indispensable. Getting economic fundamentals rights [sic] is axiomatic, but sustainable development requires more. It needs to provide access by all members of society to development opportunities. It must ensure that the property of the farmer, the shopowner and the manufacturer is secure. It requires that education be prized, health care provided. It implies that renewable resources be managed, not depleted. Civil society can and must play its part. Once every citizen has a real and lasting stake in the future—politically, economically, and culturally— there will be no limits to what our peoples, the peoples of Africa, can achieve. My friends, the promise of Africa’s third wave beckons. Out turn has come. We can eradicate poverty, settle our scattered people, restore hope, and achieve dynamism. Africa needs external assistance, and Africa deserves it; but in the final analysis, what stands between us and the future is ourselves. Democratic rule, respect for human rights, and sustainable development are the means that will get us there. Let us embrace them—for Africa, and for Africa’s children.

2 June 1997 Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 11 of Resolution 986 (1995)

Report to Security Council (SC, S/1997/419); oilfor-food program Excerpts taken from a much longer report by the Secretary-General on the oil-for-food program established by Resolution 986. The excerpts show his engagement and concern with the success of the program.

I. Introduction

1. The present report is submitted to the Security Council pursuant to paragraph 11 of resolution 986 (1995), of 14 April 1995, in which the Council requested the Secretary-General to report to it prior to the end of the 180-day period starting from the date of entry into force of paragraph 1 of the resolution. It provides information on the distribution of humanitarian supplies throughout Iraq pursuant to resolution 986 (1995), including the implementation of the United Nations InterAgency Humanitarian Programme in the three northern governorates of Dahuk, Arbil and Sulaymaniyah. Furthermore, the report notes the work of the Secretariat in processing applications to the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, the activities of the oil overseers and the United Nations independent inspection agents (Saybolt and Lloyd’s Register) and the current status of the United Nations Iraq Account. In addition, it includes my observations on the adequacy of oil revenues received under the resolution in meeting Iraq’s humanitarian needs and on Iraq’s capacity to export sufficient quantities of petroleum and petroleum products to generate $1 billion every 90 days. 2. Since my last report to the Council, of 10 March 1997 (S/1997/206), there has been notable progress in the implementation of resolution 986 (1995). As at 30 May, total oil sales had reached 119.5 million barrels. Receipts in the United Nations Iraq Account at the Banque nationale de Paris had reached $1.7 billion. As at 30 May, 630 applications for exports of humanitarian supplies to Iraq had been received by the secretariat of the Security Council Committee. Of the 574 circulated to the Committee, 331 were approved, 191 placed on hold and 14 blocked, and 38 are pending under the “no-objection” procedure or awaiting clarification. Food commodities began arriving in Iraq on 20 March and related United Nations observation commenced immediately thereafter. By the end of May, 691,648 tons of food had reached Iraq. Pharmaceuticals began arriving on 9 May. . . . IX. Observations

52. The programme authorized by the Security Council in its resolution 986 (1995) is unique among all humanitarian assistance operations undertaken by the United Nations in that it seeks to mitigate some of the negative effects of sanctions being imposed on the recipient country. While the

110 • 2 June 1997

operation is financed from income accruing as a result of a limited exception to the sanctions regime, the resolution prescribes numerous safeguards to be implemented in order to ensure that the humanitarian assistance is not used for purposes other than those specifically authorized and that it benefits, in equal measure, the needy civilian population as a whole. Also, as a result of the unsettled political and military situation in the northern governorates of Iraq, the resolution lays down special arrangements for the provision of assistance to the population in that area, adding considerably to the complexity of the operation. 53. While every effort was made to anticipate potential problems in the process leading up to the conclusion of the Memorandum of Understanding on the basis of which the programme is being executed, the complicated nature of the programme, including its managerial, administrative and financial aspects, has led to a number of difficulties and delays in the initial stages of its implementation. I am pleased that the Secretariat and the various participating agencies have now been able to overcome most, if not all, of these problems, as reflected in the body of the present report. At the same time, I am troubled by the persistent lags and other difficulties encountered in the processing of applications, which have resulted in major delays in the provision of several items, in particular medicine and pharmaceutical supplies, of which there is demonstrably a critical and sometimes desperate shortage. It is my sincere hope that this situation can soon be remedied with the cooperation of all concerned so as to ensure, should the Council decide to extend the programme, that steps are taken to include in the distribution plan the necessary provisions to satisfy also the unmet needs of an urgent nature mentioned earlier in the report. 54. In the light of the experience gained in the implementation of the programme in the past six months and bearing in mind the continuing humanitarian crisis in Iraq, I recommend the renewal of the programme for a further period of six months.

4 June 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Africa ... The Secretary-General had a fairly crushing schedule in Harare yesterday, Mr. Eckhard said. He saw the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Melas

Zenawi; the Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran, Hossein Sheykholislam; the Ambassadors of the United States and Ghana; President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda; the Permanent Representative of Japan, Hisashi Owada; and President Sam Nujoma of Namibia. He also gave a television interview, met with the Executive Director of the Economic Commission for Africa, Kingsley Amoako, and held a press conference. All of that was after 3 p.m. The Secretary-General then spent the night on a plane, arriving in London this morning in time to catch the rush hour traffic into the city, Mr. Eckhard said. He met with Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Robin Cook and Secretary of State for Overseas Development Clare Short, and attended a luncheon hosted by Tony Lloyd, a junior minister covering foreign and international relations, under Mr. Cook. The Secretary-General had been too exhausted to attend an evening reception for World Environ-ment Day. Following his meeting with Mr. Cook, the Secretary-General answered questions from the press, including one on whether he supported military intervention to overthrow the coup in Sierra Leone, Mr. Eckhard said. In his reply, the Secretary-General stated: “Ideally, I would prefer negotiations. I think it is quite clear, it must be clear to the coup-makers, that they don’t have the support of the people, they don’t have the support of their neighbours, they don’t have the support of the region, and they don’t have the support of the international community. How they expect to survive, I don’t know. I wish they will be sensible and cut their losses and walk away, if not run. And I am realistic and hopeful that negotiations, and the pressure that has been put on them—and the OAU was very strong on this—will let them see the senselessness of their enterprise.” To a question on whether he would be prepared to back military intervention as a last resort, the Secretary-General had replied: “I think what is important is that the entire African continent has spoken with one voice against the military coup d’état in Sierra Leone. It shows the kind of changes we are seeing in Africa these days, and I think it needs to be applauded. I would also like to say that I would maintain what I have said earlier: that if use of force becomes a last resort and it is inevitable, it may have to come to that.” . . . The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had reported catastrophic mortality rates among refugees in

6 June 1997 • 111 the 24 hours after their reception at the transit centres in Kisangani and Mbandaka, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mr. Eckhard said. In Kisangani—where the refugees were, on the whole, in better condition than those in the Mbandaka region—the 24-hour mortality rate hovered in the range of 45 dead per 10,000. In recent days, the rate had varied from a high of 74 deaths per 10,000 per day, down to 23 per 10,000 per day. Most deaths in Kisangani were due to malnutrition, severe dehydration, diarrhoea, severe anaemia and complicated malaria, Mr. Eckhard said. In Mbandaka, the death rate hovered in the range of 100 per 10,000 per day at the airport transit centre. According to the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, some 600 refugees were today transported by train from Obilo to Kisangani, where they were under medical care and still too weak to be repatriated to Rwanda. In Burundi, fighting was getting closer to the capital Bujumbura, Mr. Eckhard said. According to humanitarian staff in the area, mortar and gunfire could be heard throughout the city, and people from its southernmost areas had fled their communes. Mr. Eckhard then announced that Mohamed ElBaradei of Egypt had been selected this morning by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as its new Director-General, to succeed Hans Blix. The formalities of the appointment would be carried out at an open meeting tomorrow and approved by the IAEA General Conference in September. Details of Mr. ElBaradei’s selection and his biography were available in the Spokesman’s Office. The Security Council was holding consultations on the Secretary-General’s report on implementation of its resolution 986 (1995), known as the oil-for-food formula, as well as on the related report of the Iraq Sanctions Committee, Mr. Eckhard said. The Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Yasushi Akashi, would introduce the Secretary-General’s report, after which he would speak to correspondents outside the Council Chamber. Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General’s report on Tajikistan, which was released today, recommends that the mandate of the United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan (UNMOT) be extended for three months, until 15 September. The Secretary-General points out that, under the protocol and agreement signed by the two sides, the UNMOT mandate did not fully

cover all that would have to be done. He would get back to the Council at a later date on a possible expansion of the Mission. . . .

6 June 1997 Secretary-General Delivers Commencement Address at MIT

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6247); international organizations Commencement address delivered by the Secretary-General at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Thank you, Dr. Gray, for your most gracious and kind words of introduction. I am honoured and pleased to have been asked to speak on this grand occasion and in these familiar surroundings. The Boston area boasts of several excellent institutions of higher learning. But there is only one MIT. Mr. President, Trustees, Ladies and Gentlemen: Let us congratulate the best, the brightest, the most dedicated, the most thoughtful, and the most likely to succeed MIT graduating class ever—the class of 1997! But, graduates, you know better than anyone that you did not do it alone. Accordingly, please join me in a big round of applause for those who have stood by you throughout the years and who are with you today, in person or in spirit, your loving family and dear friends. Now you are free. Free of the pressure of exams. Free to begin the next stage of your life. And free to pay back your student loans. I wish you well. I once sat where you now sit. Sharing these joyous moments with you today in Killian Court takes me back more than a quarter century to my own studies at MIT. As a Sloan Fellow, I learned management skills that I draw on still today in refashioning the United Nations for the new century that is upon us. But I learned an even more important lesson. At the outset, there was intense competition among my cohort. Each was equally determined to shine and to demonstrate his leadership abilities. I say his, because there were no women among us; I am certainly glad that has changed. Walking along the Charles River one day, in the middle of my first term, I reflected on my predicament. How could I possibly survive let alone thrive in this group of over-achievers? And the answer came to me most emphatically: not by playing according to their rules. Follow your own

112 • 6 June 1997

inner compass, I said to myself, listen to your own drummer. To live is to choose. But to choose well, you must know who you are and what you stand for, where you want to go and why you want to get there. My anxieties slowly dissolved. What I took away from MIT, as a result, was not only the analytical tools but also the intellectual confidence to help me locate my bearings in new situations, to view any challenge as a potential opportunity for renewal and growth, to be comfortable in seeking the help of colleagues, but not fearing, in the end, to do things my way. When the world thinks of MIT alumni and alumnae who have gone on to assume positions of visibility in their respective fields, as so many have, it correctly imagines Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry and economics, or business tycoons, or engineers improving our daily lives in countless ways. But a Secretary-General of the United Nations? That is hardly the first answer anyone would blurt out on a TV quiz show! And yet, it is not as much of a stretch as it may at first appear. For the ethos of science and engineering shares deep and profound similarities with the twentieth century project of international organization. Science and international organization alike are constructs of reason, engaged in a permanent struggle against the forces of unreason. Science and international organization alike are experimental; both learn by trial and error and strive to be self-correcting. Lastly, science and international organization alike speak a universal language and seek universal truths. Allow me to expand briefly on each of these features of the project of international organization. I begin with the struggle between reason and unreason. When the history of the twentieth century is written, this struggle will figure prominently in it. On the plane of international affairs, the outbursts of unreason in this century surpass in horror and human tragedy any the world has seen in the entire modern era. From Flanders’ fields to the Holocaust and the aggressions that produced the Second World War; from the killing fields of Cambodia and Rwanda to ethnic cleansing in Bosnia; from the 25 million refugees who roam the world today to untold millions, many of them children, who die the slow death of starvation or are maimed for life by land-mines—our century, even this generation, has much to answer for. But we have also managed to build up the international edifice of reason. By deliberate institutional means, we have better positioned humankind to cope with pressing global problems.

Measures to enhance peace and security rank among these accomplishments. As the century draws to a close, we can take pride in numerous advances in, for example, the area of arms control and disarmament. Perhaps the bedrock is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), in force for nearly three decades now. Negotiated through the United Nations and monitored by one of its agencies, the NPT has more adherents than any arms control treaty in history. In September 1996, the United Nations General Assembly approved the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which has since been signed by more than 140 countries, including all five nuclear-weapon States. In April of this year, we witnessed the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It helps to ensure that these vile weapons never again will be the scourge of any battlefield, the silent but certain doom of any civilian population. Finally, States that are party to the Biological Weapons Convention are seeking ways to reinforce its authority through negotiating a verification regime. Much remains to be done, especially in reducing the vast and rapidly growing flow of conventional weapons; ridding the world of the viciousness of land-mines, whose primary targets are the innocents of any conflict; strengthening the methods of preventive diplomacy; and inventing the next generation of peace-keeping operations. But only a decade ago the achievements I have just enumerated seemed unimaginable. Now they are real. Similar accomplishments are transforming other aspects of international life. Few are more noble than safeguarding and enhancing human rights. Few yield more practical benefits than deepening and expanding multilateral rules for international economic relations. Few are more rewarding than helping the world’s children to achieve healthy and productive lives. Few are more critical than preserving the human environment even as we achieve greater economic opportunity for all. And so, as this century draws to a close, we are justified in concluding that international organization has helped tilt the balance, towards the domain within which the power of human reason prevails. A second attribute that the project of international organization shares with science is the experimental method. Indeed, international organ-

6 June 1997 • 113 ization is an experiment. It is an experiment in human cooperation on a planetary scale. Those of us who serve in international organizations must never forget the fact that they are not ends in themselves. They are a means to empower both governments and people to realize goals through collaboration that would otherwise elude them. International organizations, therefore, must be closely attuned to their environment, quickly correct their mistakes, build cumulatively on their achievements, and constantly generate new modalities as previous ways of doing things become outdated. I am very pleased, therefore, to report to you today that we at the United Nations are amidst the most thoroughgoing institutional reforms ever attempted there. I would go a step further and express my conviction that when our reform plans are announced next month they will compare favourably with any such reforms yet undertaken by any public sector organization, anywhere. We seek a United Nations that will view change as a friend, not change for its own sake but change that permits us to do more good by doing it better. We seek a United Nations that is leaner, more focused, more flexible, and more responsive to changing global needs. We seek a United Nations that is organized around its core competencies vis-à-vis other international organizations and an ever-more robust global civil society. We seek a United Nations that serves more effectively not only its Member States but also the people of the world whose hopes we embody. In short, we at the United Nations are working hard to firm up the grounds on which the project of international organization rests. And we are doing so by recognizing its experimental nature and embracing the imperative of inventiveness that this implies. A third similarity between the ethos of science and the project of international organization is this: we do what we do in the realm of international organization because we strive, in our own fashion, to give expression to universal truths. What might these be in so contested an arena as international affairs? I believe that they include the truths of human dignity and fundamental equality, whereby a child born in the smallest village of the poorest land is valued as much as one born on Beacon Hill. I believe they include a yearning for peace, the awareness that we are but stewards of this extraordinary only one earth, the understanding that even though the world is divided by many particularisms we are united as a human community.

The United Nations has no peer in this regard. It is the unparalleled nerve centre of the global village, exploring and negotiating emerging issues, setting priorities, and creating norms of conduct. Since the 1970s, the United Nations has been at the forefront of instituting concern with the human environment, world population, world hunger, the extension of fundamental human rights to encompass the status of women and of children, as well as sustainable development in its many facets. We have done so through a series of global conferences that have brought together governments and non-governmental organizations from every corner of the world. By means of this novel form of multilateral diplomacy, the universal truths of which I spoke slowly but steadily are making themselves heard. Slowly but steadily they are stretching the “we” in “we the peoples of the United Nations”, as the opening words of our Charter put it—not at the expense of you or me, of this country or that, but in fulfilment of that which we share in common. This noble cause requires your help. All of you in the Class of 1997, wherever you go from here and whatever you do in the future, will participate in a world that is becoming increasingly globalized. You will interact, directly or indirectly, with others just like you across the far reaches of the world. They will represent colleagues, competitors, customers. As you enter this new world, I call upon you to remember this: as powerful and as progressive a bond that market rationality constitutes, it is not a sufficient basis for human solidarity. It must be coupled with an ethic of caring for those whom the market disadvantages, an ethic of responsibility for the collective goods that the market underproduces, an ethic of tolerance for those whom the market pits as your adversary. Moreover, most of you here today are citizens of this great and bountiful United States of America. For you I have a special plea. Your country, the world’s most powerful, even now is debating its future role in the world community, and the place of the United Nations within that overall foreign policy vision. I call upon you to work indefatigably to anchor the United States firmly to the course of internationalism, to its historic mission as an agent of progressive change, to a world order that reflects your own country’s commitment to the rule of law, equal opportunity, and the irreducible rights of all individuals. The need is pressing; the moment is now. Let us continue the productive partnership between the United States and the United Nations

114 • 6 June 1997

and go forward together with a positive, can-do attitude to win the new peace and prosperity that beckons. Thank you, Mr. President, honoured guests— and most of all, my fellow alumni and alumnae. Yes, I can now call you that. Good luck!

6 June 1997 Letter (EOSG); G-7 summit Letter to the prime minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien. Excellency, The world looks to the Denver Summit with great hopes and high expectations. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations it is my duty, and my pleasure, to submit a number of points for the consideration of the Heads of State and Government participating in the Summit. Of the many challenges that the community of nations must face as we enter the closing years of this century, three issues related to the United Nations’ agenda stand out as particularly important: • Globalization, Development Cooperation and the Special Needs in Africa; • Meeting environmental challenges; and • Strengthening the United Nations. The attached aide-memoire briefly elaborates and offers suggestions for each of these issues. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

6 June 1997 Secretary-General Addresses the National Convention of the UNA/USA

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6250); UN-US relations Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the National Convention of the UN Association of the United States (UNA/USA) titled “The United Nations and the United States: An Enduring Partnership,” in Washington, D.C. I am delighted to be with you on the occasion of the UNA/USA National Convention. I accepted your invitation so I could thank you personally for your sustained understanding and support of the United Nations, and to encourage you to redouble your efforts at this crucial time. It is good to be among friends in Washington. In fact, we have many. But you are special. I am particularly grateful to John Whitehead, not only for his warm and kind introduction, but also for his

long-standing and superlative leadership. You are the ideal public servant, John, and I salute you. My friends, we stand on the threshold of a new era—an era that holds enormous potential: for peace, economic growth, and advances in human welfare and dignity. But, as at any historic turningpoint, the opportunities it offers must be grasped. Otherwise, they will slip away and history, as a result, will fail to turn. The United Nations is poised to seize the moment. We are questioning old assumptions, reassessing priorities, and devising new means by which to realize our enduring goals. Tonight, I want to share with you some thoughts about the relationship between the United Nations and the United States in this process. Specifically, I want to reflect on the close affinity of the principles that guide both the United States and the United Nations; on the promise of partnership that has always existed between us; and how we can proceed jointly to ensure that future potential is harnessed and becomes reality for generations to come. The task of planning for the organization of the post–Second World War international order was monumental. American leaders approached it with several vital principles in mind. The United Nations became their institutional expression. The first aim was to create a security system based on the principle of concerted action by all countries on behalf of peace. President Roosevelt explained in 1943 that “the only appeal which is likely to carry weight with the United States public is one based upon a world-wide conception”. The United Nations, of course, is the embodiment of that conception. But the cold war severely constrained the United Nations peace and security role. Nevertheless, the invention of United Nations peace-keeping enjoyed strong United States support. And from the time of President Eisenhower’s 1953 Atoms for Peace proposal down to the recent Chemical Weapons Convention, the United Nations has worked closely and successfully with the United States, as well as other countries, in the area of arms control and disarmament. Post-war America was also committed to the termination of colonial rule. The United Nations, for its part, was a steadfast force in facilitating decolonization, in welcoming the newly independent States into the family of nations, and in ending the evil practice of apartheid. Fifty years ago, the United States was the leading proponent of the Universal Declaration of

6 June 1997 • 115 Human Rights. Throughout the last half century, the United Nations has been the central global instrument for the implementation of human rights accords. And it has continually devised new mechanisms whereby their objectives can be better achieved. Finally, in the economic realm, America sought to establish a system of open, non-exclusionary trade and monetary relations, together with minimum barriers to mutually beneficial exchanges. For its part, the United Nations has helped to set the technical standards on which the smooth flow of economic transactions rests, to protect intellectual property; and with our colleagues from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization, to implant firmly multilateral rules for the global economic game. In this context, the United Nations has given particular voice to, and acted upon, the fundamental principles of equal opportunity for all, while providing assistance to those whom market forces bypass or disadvantage. What accounts for these complementarities? One obvious explanation is that the United States was a leading architect of the post–Second World War international order, while the United Nations was a core component of that architecture. But, in my judgement, a second, more profound factor is also at play. The United States and the United Nations are both dedicated to the realization of universal principles: the rule of law, a belief in the paramount value of each and every human being, coupled with the idea that through deliberate efforts we can improve our lot on earth, and leave it a better place for those who will succeed us. In short, the United States and the United Nations are both children of reason and enlightenment. The cold war cast a long shadow on this quest. At the United Nations, it made implementation of the Charter conceptions extremely difficult. It affected everything from programme priorities to personnel management. It reduced the ability of the United Nations to adapt effectively to changing global needs. Yet, despite these problems, the United Nations managed to break new ground. It acted as an early-warning system and helped set norms in such novel fields as the human environment, the fate of the least developed countries, and the status of women. Since the end of the cold war, the United Nations has adjusted to the vastly changed world. We were set free to aid democratic transitions, national reconciliation, and market reforms. We

were called upon to provide unprecedented levels of humanitarian assistance. Our peace-keeping mechanism for a time became the international community’s emergency services, fire brigade, gendarmerie, and military deterrent all rolled up into one, even in instances where there was no peace to be kept. We made mistakes along the way, to be sure—more often than not because the means given to us did not match the demands made upon us. But we also learned, and continue to learn, from our mistakes. So where do we stand today? Allow me to give you but a glimpse of the vital and diverse contributions the United Nations is making to pressing concerns of the international community: • Our special envoy for the Democratic Republic of the Congo has worked tirelessly to ensure that the political transition there was accomplished without Kinshasa being set afire, and without further loss of life elsewhere in the country; • United Nations peace-keepers and human rights observers serve on four continents, while the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), working hand-in-hand with non-governmental organizations, cares for refugees and displaced persons throughout troubled parts of the world; • On June 19, the Foreign Ministers of Indonesia and Portugal will meet at the United Nations to discuss the peaceful resolution of the situation in East Timor; • On June 23, some 70 heads of State and government will convene at United Nations Headquarters for “Rio +5,” reaffirming and strengthening their commitment to preserving the human environment; • In early July, a new process of peace-talks for the divided island of Cyprus will commence at the United Nations; I am pleased that President Clinton has named Ambassador Holbrooke as his representative for these talks; • Even as these initiatives proceed, the United Nations will release a major new report on drugs, while the United Nations Development Programme will issue its human development report. Perhaps most critically, for the long-term future of the Organization, we at the United Nations are engaged in a thoroughgoing effort of institutional reform, to reshape fundamentally the way we do business. We aim to serve more effectively not only our Member States, but also the people of the world whose hopes we

116 • 6 June 1997

embody. Accordingly, we are seeking to make the United Nations leaner, more focused, and more responsive. I am firm in my conviction that when my reform proposals are announced next month they will compare favourably with any such reforms yet undertaken, by any public sector organization, anywhere. As I look ahead, I see a United Nations that empowers both governments and people to realize through collaboration goals that might otherwise elude them. I see a United Nations that recognizes and joins forces with an ever more robust global civil society, while helping to eliminate “uncivil” elements, like drug trafficking and terrorism, that plague it. Our future United Nations will view change as a friend, not change for its own sake but change that permits us to do more good by doing it better. The new United Nations will articulate the highest moral aspirations of humankind even as it delivers practical and tangible benefits to men, women, and children in countrysides, villages, and cities around the world. We have already taken significant steps in these directions. Before the end of my first month in office, I instituted a new management structure to improve coordination of the activities of all United Nations departments, funds, and programmes. A bare six weeks later, I announced a further reform plan, including the following measures: • A proposed budget for the next biennium that represents a reduction in expenditures of $123 million in 1996–1997 prices; • A proposed reduction of approximately 1,000 posts in the 1998–1999 budget; • The consolidation of three departments in the economic and social sectors into one; • A commitment to cut by one-third the proportion of budget resources used for administrative costs, from 38 per cent to 25 per cent, making those savings available for development activities; • Streamlining technical support for the United Nations intergovernmental bodies; • Preparing a Code of Conduct that requires the highest standards of competence, independence, and integrity of the United Nations staff; • Transforming our delivery of communications and outreach services to governments and civil society; • Consolidating and strengthening the organization of United Nations functions at the country level.

The effects of these proposals were immediate, transforming attitudes of managers and staff alike. Next month, I will submit to the General Assembly a comprehensive package of additional reforms. My March package of measures were common-sense changes. The July proposals will be major strategic initiatives, designed to take us into the next millennium. They will reflect my conviction that no public organization is an end in itself, but a means to enhance the public good. They will propose ways to focus the activities of the United Nations around core competencies, avoiding duplication with other international institutions, and taking into account the expanding capacity of global civil society. I cannot go into further detail tonight but, as you Americans like to say: “stay tuned”. In proceeding with this historic mission of institutional revitalization, what help do we need from the United States, our oldest friend and largest contributor? We need, from the United States, its constructive criticisms of our many proposals. We need the full participation of the United States in the intergovernmental phase of the reform efforts, working hand-in-hand with other governments in effecting those changes that only Member States can make. But we need more. Let us re-invigorate our progressive and productive partnership, and go forward together with a positive, can-do attitude. And, as President Clinton pledged at our White House meeting in January, let us resolve once and for all the issue of United States arrears. I will be discussing this and related subjects with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright when I leave here tonight, and I hope for an early resolution. And what about you at UNA-USA? How can you help at this time of transition? You have been a critical friend—often by being a friendly critic. Please keep it up. You help explain to American leaders in Government and the private sector, who we are, and what we do. Indeed, you have often served as an important bridge among us. Please keep that up as well. You are virtually unique among non-governmental organizations in having chapters across this vast and wonderful land, in localities where citizens even now are debating the future role of the United States in the world community, and the place of the United Nations within that overall foreign policy vision. You reach the grass-roots of this great democracy. Now more than ever you at UNA-USA can

6 June 1997 • 117 make a very special contribution in enhancing your fellow citizens’ understanding of the new United Nations that we are striving to create for the new century. We have extraordinary challenges and opportunities before us. Let us rise to the occasion together. I wish you well in these endeavours. And I thank you most sincerely for your continued commitment to our common and noble cause.

6 June 1997 Letter (EOSG); Adminstrative Committee on Coordination Letter sent to all the members of the Administrative Committee on Coordination. See 6 January 1997 for a list of the members. I should like, first of all, to thank you again for your participation and contribution at the session of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) last April. I believe that the session was productive. I found our discussions on reform at the private meeting particularly useful. Your perceptions on ways of strengthening policy and programme coherence within the system, and your advice on how best the United Nations can play its Charter role within the system, have been most helpful to me, in the first instance in providing guidance in relation to the report on reform I will submit to the General Assembly next July. As we begin to prepare for the next session of the ACC, I hope that ways can be found to streamline further our agenda. I have in mind, in particular, the agenda item on the follow-up to ACC decisions. It is, of course, important that executive heads should be seen by both the secretariats and Members States as monitoring systematically the implementation of the decisions they take collectively in the ACC. We should, at the same time, try to avoid that, as a result, our agendas become excessively lengthy and give rise to repetitive discussions. To the same ends, we should clarify and strengthen the delegation of authority to the Organizational Committee and other relevant ACC subsidiary bodies for the management of different inter-agency activities. This would enable us to shift the main focus of our discussions in the ACC from the work of the inter-agency machinery as such, to the main policy initiatives underway in various organizations of the system, in order to see how we can enhance their coherence and collective impact.

With these various objectives in mind, I am also considering, in the overall context of United Nations reform, ways of further strengthening secretariat support for the ACC and its subsidiary machinery. Let me now turn to arrangements for following-up some of the specific conclusions we reached at our last session. I appreciated the interest that many executive heads expressed in the proposal for the holding of a forum or “retreat,” outside the regular sessions of the ACC, that would enable us to reflect on the future of the system and the policy challenges ahead. In view of conflicting commitments of a number of executive heads, and the need to undertake careful preparations, the early July dates we had originally discussed for holding such a forum do not appear to be feasible at this stage. To the extent that all executive heads have blocked in their calendar Friday 31 October and Saturday 1 November for the Fall session of the ACC in New York, I wonder whether the simplest solution would not be to try and concentrate the ACC session itself on 31 October, and hold the forum on 1 November. We would select for this purpose a convenient location not far from New York, but away from UN Headquarters. Another decision we took in ACC related to the preparation of a comprehensive report on the reform processes underway throughout the system, to be finalized by the time of the October ACC session, and circulated during the Fall session of the General Assembly. This work is being coordinated in Geneva, through the secretariats of the Consultative Committee on Administrative Questions (CCAQ), the Consultative Committee on Programme and Operational Questions (CCPOQ) and the Information Systems Coordination Committee (ISCC), with the support of the United Nations Office in Geneva and concerned offices in New York. I have also requested that, in parallel with this work, arrangements be strengthened to ensure a more continuous and systematic exchange of information and experience among the organizations of the system on the many reform initiatives currently underway. As discussed at the ACC session, I should also like to proceed with the preparation of a public information brochure highlighting the way in which the work of the various organizations of the system affects the daily lives of people. I should like to request each member of the ACC to arrange for the preparation of an input for this brochure, of no more than two pages, addressing the mandate,

118 • 6 June 1997

accomplishment and day-to-day activities of each organization from the point of view of the way in which they contribute directly to improving the quality of life of people everywhere. I have asked the Assistant-Secretary-General for External Relations in my Executive office, Ms. Gillian M. Sorensen, to coordinate the preparation of this brochure. I should be grateful if your office could let her have your input before the end of June. I understand that work is well underway within the inter-agency machinery to prepare for our discussions at the next session of ACC on the strengthening of the system’s links with civil society. As you know, I regard this as a key dimension of the system’s reform agenda, and an important component of our reflections on how to enhance the system’s impact in both the political and the development areas. In the same context, I hope to be able to share with you, before the session, the results of a process of reflection I have initiated within the United Nations Secretariat on the Organization’s links with the private sector. I am aware that many parts of the system are more advanced than the United Nations in this area, not only in conceptualizing these links but also in making them an integral part of their daily operations, and I therefore look forward to a stimulating exchange on this issue in the ACC. I also hope to be in a position to circulate before the session an informal paper outlining possible elements of a system-wide approach to the respective responsibilities of executive heads on the one hand, and legislative and governing bodies of organizations on the other. I am conscious of the major constitutional and other differences that exist in this respect among the organizations of the system. It would appear, at the same time that, most organizations are faced with a similar trend towards “micro-management” on the part of intergovernmental bodies. I hope, therefore, that this paper will help us clarify and address a common problem, as part of the on-going reform processes. Turning to the outcome of our discussions on peace-building. I greatly appreciated the common concern that guided our consideration of this item: ensuring that the full range of capabilities available in the system—both its capabilities for political or humanitarian intervention, and its capacity to address the basic factors that are at the root of conflicts—is effectively drawn upon in preventing crises and, when they occur, promoting durable solutions. I am particularly pleased that we were able to agree on a set of arrangements to strengthen peace-building in situations where the UN oper-

ates specific political programmes mandated by the Security Council or the General Assembly, as well as on the broad elements of a common strategic framework for response to, and recovery from, crisis situations. You will recall that we decided the strategic framework in two countries: Afghanistan and Mozambique. With regard to Afghanistan, a preparatory mission will shortly visit Kabul and Islamabad. It will include staff from the Department of Political Affairs, the Department for Humanitarian Affairs, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Staff College, as well as the World Bank. The purpose of the mission will be to determine the substantive technical and practical assistance required to further articulate and advance the implementation of the strategic framework, including the formulation of proposals for appropriate arrangements for an effective back-stopping of the process from our respective Headquarters. The findings of the mission will then be reviewed, as necessary, by an inter-agency working group, including members of the Consultative Committee on Programme and Operational Questions and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee, and the outcome conveyed to ACC in October. Insofar as Mozambique is concerned, preliminary discussions will shortly be initiated with the national authorities, concerned institutions, the United Nations Resident Coordinator and the United Nations country team, to determine the best way of moving forward with the implementation of the ACC decisions. To assist me in steering this process, I have asked the Under-Secretaries-General for Political Affairs, Peace-Keeping Operations and Humanitarian Affairs and the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme to establish a support group that will benefit from the participation of the World Bank. I should add that since the last session of the ACC, recent developments in the former Zaire and the Great Lakes region make it imperative to provide effective and well coordinated assistance to the Democratic Republic of Congo, and to develop a strategic approach for building future stability in the region. I have taken steps to coordinate the contribution of the United Nations, including its Programmes and Funds, through a task force on reconciliation, reconstruction and regional stability, that will also have the cooperation of the World Bank. I will write to you again on the subject, so that we may consider together the best way of furthering a concerted system-wide approach in this endeavour.

9 June 1997 • 119 9 June 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s press briefing with a reference to the deployment of a human rights investigative team to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He said that, during their tete-a-tete meeting in Africa, the President of that country, Laurent Kabila, had informed Secretary-General Kofi Annan that he would grant access for investigations into allegations of gross violations of human rights. While the Congolese President had already made the commitment to the Secretary-General, the United Nations had not made that information public until Saturday, 7 June, when a note to correspondents was issued. The United States Permanent Representative, Bill Richardson, had since seen Mr. Kabila as a follow-up on the commitments to the SecretaryGeneral and reached agreement on the dates of the arrival of the mission, he said. A press release written in Geneva on the matter and available from the Spokesman’s Office stated that the Centre for Human Rights had begun preparations to send an advance team to the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 20 June. The team would be made up of human rights officers, investigators and forensic experts. . . . Regarding Sierra Leone, the Spokesman said that Freetown was quiet but extremely tense. While there was no shooting in the daytime, sounds of gunfire could be heard at night. Some United Nations local staff had received threats over the weekend. The Organization’s security force and communications staff remained on duty at United Nations House, which continued to be safe. Internationally recruited staff had been evacuated. . . . The Spokesman then said that the SecretaryGeneral’s report on the Military Observer Group attached to the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) had been released this morning. Of the Group’s 155 authorized personnel, 132 observers and 13 medical workers had served in the mission. They had been repatriated by 27 May and about 2,928 personnel of the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG) had been demobilized. In the report, the Secretary-General states that “the exemplary manner in which the Agreement on the Definitive Cease-Fire was implemented is

above all a testimony to the determination of both the Government of Guatemala and URNG to put an end to the bitter armed conflict between them.” . . . He was asked about what had happened at the Friday meeting in Washington, D.C., between the Secretary-General and the United States Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. In response, he said that the meetings with staffs in the evening had discussed the payment of United States dues and the problem of arrears. The subsequent one-on-one dinner between the Secretary-General and Mrs. Albright had been a tour d’horizon on many international issues. Asked whether the Secretary-General had expressed the Secretariat’s concern about the nonpayment of United States dues, the Spokesman said that the Secretary-General had recalled what he was told earlier this year by President William Clinton at the White House. Mr. Clinton had told the Secretary-General that for the United States to lead the Organization it had to pay its dues. The Secretary-General’s position was that the process of paying the United States dues was an internal matter for the branches of that country’s Government to resolve. Asked about the current role of the SecretaryGeneral’s Special Envoy for Sierra Leone, Berhanu Dinka, and of his whereabouts, Mr. Eckhard said that since the Envoy’s evacuation, he had gone to the Harare Summit of the OAU for consultations. He was currently advising the Secretary-General whenever the need arose. . . .

9 June 1997 Secretary-General Expresses Hope that Parties in Middle East Will Intensify Efforts in Peace Process

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6251); Middle East Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the special meeting of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the occupation. Today is the thirtieth anniversary of the ArabIsraeli war of June 1967. This meeting reflects the international community’s continued dedication to finding a permanent and peaceful solution to the Palestinian question. The United Nations has always played a central role in assisting the parties in their efforts to reach a negotiated settlement. The signing of the Declaration of Principles on

120 • 9 June 1997

Interim Self-Government Arrangements by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in September 1993 was a major breakthrough in those efforts. The beginning of the Oslo peace process also opened major new opportunities for supportive action by the United Nations. Following the establishment of an elected Palestinian administration in Gaza and in parts of the West Bank, the United Nations increased its activities in the region in order to advance the economic and social development of the Palestinian territories. A special mechanism for the effective coordination of international assistance was created in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority. A United Nations Special Coordinator in the Occupied Territories was appointed, based in Gaza, to serve as a focal point for all United Nations agencies and programmes operating on the ground. Furthermore, in order to render the United Nations more effective, we decided to move the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) headquarters from Vienna to Gaza last year. Earlier this year, I was very much encouraged by the conclusion of the agreement regarding Hebron and other important issues, reached on 15 January between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I considered this to be an important achievement. I expressed the hope that it would pave the way for further progress towards the full implementation of the process envisaged in the Declaration of Principles agreed in Oslo. Regrettably, there has been a number of setbacks in the peace process since then. There have been acts of violence, which I have condemned in the strongest terms. I have appealed to the parties not to allow the actions of a radical few to derail the peace process designed for good of the many. I also expressed deep concern that, despite appeals from the international community, the Government of Israel decided to proceed with construction at Jabal Abu Ghneim/Har Homa. I called on the parties to do their utmost to find mutually acceptable solutions, and to proceed with the peace process. The great concern of the international community for the future of peace in the area was manifested in two meetings of the Security Council and the General Assembly, including an emergency special session held in late April. I sincerely hope that the parties will intensify

their efforts to overcome existing obstacles to a speedy return to the peace process. I will continue to do my utmost to mobilize the resources of the United Nations system to meet the humanitarian and development needs of the Palestinians, in support of the objective of achieving a just and lasting peace.

11 June 1997 Secretary-General Tells Bar Association ICC Promises Universal Justice

Speech (SG/SM/6257); International Criminal Court Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the International Bar Association, in New York. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address your assembly on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the International Bar Association. And allow me to quote President Robinson of Ireland’s recent address to the graduating class of Yale Law School: “The world needs lawyers more than the world is willing to admit.” As you reflect on the accomplishments of your institution over the last half-century, so too are we reflecting on ours and how we may refine its purpose and its mission. We are reforming our United Nations, conscious of our heritage, committed to its principles and faithful to its foundation. That foundation is the law. It is the idea that the behaviour of States and the relations between them shall be governed by one law, equal and applicable to all. It is the commitment to the peaceful, negotiated settlement of disputes. It is the fervent hope that human rights and fundamental freedoms may be extended to all the peoples of the United Nations. That is our inheritance. That is the legacy that we seek to bring to life every day in every corner of the world. It is our solemn duty and our highest calling. What can we do in our time to answer this calling? How can we improve our service to the globe? Where can we refine, where can we refocus, where can we reinvigorate the United Nations? Those are the questions that lie at the heart of our current reform effort. The answers, I believe, will chart the path of our United Nations for years to come. We are living through a remarkable period in the advancement of international law. Great strides have been made in refining its writ, expanding its reach and enforcing its mandate.

11 June 1997 • 121 The challenges of the future—narcotics, disease, crime and international terrorism—are increasingly recognized as transnational challenges. As that recognition has grown, so too has the realization that international law is a vital tool in the global effort to meet tomorrow’s challenges. The response to our common challenges must not only be global, but also unified. Through the United Nations, Member States have coordinated legal measures and established lasting norms for State behaviour and inter-State relations. The United Nations has ever since its inception been at the forefront of codifying international norms. Indeed, we celebrate this year the fiftieth anniversary of the International Law Commission. The Charter of the United Nations envisioned a profound role in the area of international law, calling upon the General Assembly—and I quote: “to initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of . . . encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification.” Over the last 50 years, the International Law Commission has pursued this mission with great success, setting forth basic rules in most of the key areas of international law. These rules have, in turn, served as the basis for global treaties, governing State activities in fields such as maritime navigation, marine oil extraction and the provision of drinking water. Indeed some of these treaties—such as those regulating diplomatic matters—may be said to form the very foundation of the practice of international relations. Tonight I would like to share with you my ideas on one vital aspect of the United Nations aspirations for international law—an aspect that I personally have great hopes for: the creation of an International Criminal Court. There can be no global justice unless the worst of crimes—crimes against humanity—are subject to the law. In this age more than ever do we recognize that the crime of genocide against one people truly is an assault on us all—a crime against humanity. The establishment of an international criminal court will ensure that humanity’s response will be swift and will be just. For nearly half a century—almost as long as the United Nations has been in existence—the General Assembly has recognized the need to establish such a court to prosecute and punish persons responsible for crimes such as genocide. Many thought, no doubt, that the horrors of the Second World War—the camps, the cruelty, the

exterminations, the Holocaust—could never happen again. And yet they have. In Cambodia, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Rwanda. Our time—this decade even—has shown us that man’s capacity for evil knows no limits. Genocide—the destruction of an entire people on the basis of ethnic or national origins—is now a word of our time, too, a heinous reality that calls for a historic response. In the absence of an international criminal court, the Security Council acted to establish two ad hoc international tribunals, for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. These tribunals have made significant progress and are setting an important precedent. War criminals can and will be brought to justice. They cannot complete their task, however, without the swift and complete arrest of all indicted criminals. I would like to use this occasion, once again, to call on all countries concerned to surrender suspects within their jurisdiction. True justice demands no less. May I also take this occasion to applaud strongly the frank and candid appeals made by my friend United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on the subject of war crimes during her recent visit to the Balkans. Peace and justice are indivisible. They are indivisible in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda— in all post-conflict situations where the dawn of peace must begin with the light of justice. The international criminal court is the symbol of our highest hopes for this unity of peace and justice. It is a vital part of an emerging system of international human rights protection. It will ensure that indicted criminals suspected of genocide in any country can be tried and convicted. Great progress has been made since the 1994 draft statute on an international criminal court prepared by the International Law Commission. The General Assembly has decided to convene a conference of plenipotentiaries in 1998 to adopt a convention on the establishment of an international criminal court. That conference will coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I cannot think of a more solemn, more significant occasion for the world to take the final step towards global justice. The creation of an international criminal court will not only complete the vision of the Genocide Convention: it will bring that vision into reality.

122 • 11 June 1997

In the prospect of an international criminal court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realization. We will do our part to see it through till the end. We ask you, as lawyers and tribunes of justice to do yours in our struggle to ensure that no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity. Only then will the innocents of distant wars and conflicts know that they, too, may sleep under the cover of justice; that they, too, have rights and that those who violate those rights will be punished. Allow me to conclude by congratulating you, the representatives of the International Bar, on the fiftieth anniversary of your association. May the next 50 years be as fruitful and progressive as the last.

12 June 1997 Secretary-General Urges Parties to Support Peace Process in Liberia

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6256); Liberia Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the opening of the Special Conference to Support the Peace Process in Liberia, in Geneva. Welcome to the United Nations. I would like to begin by expressing my deep gratitude to you all for your dedication to the peace process in Liberia. You have already achieved much and the challenge now is to see the peace take genuine root. We have all been reminded in these last few weeks of the fragility of peace and democracy in West Africa. In Sierra Leone, a democratically elected Government was overthrown by a junta of soldiers without any support, either within or without their country. Their illegitimate, misguided grab for power must be reversed—peacefully, if at all possible—for Sierra Leone’s sake, for Liberia’s sake, for the sake of all of Africa. I have just returned from the Organization of African Unity (OAU) summit in Harare and I can report that Africa is speaking with one voice in support of democracy and against the rule of the gun. The promise of a third wave of democracy, human rights and development for Africa is present. It is for Africa and her friends in the international community to make it a reality. Your efforts in Liberia are central to that process. Representing the key partners among the

international community—the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the International Contact Group, the United Nations System—your Conference signals the determination to restore lasting security and the rule of law to Liberia. Free, fair and credible elections are the next, crucial step in this process. An ambitious timetable has been set, culminating in elections on 19 July and making the task even more challenging. The electoral season raises the stakes for us all—demanding more security, greater resources and a determination not to allow delays or disruptions to alter the basic course to representative government. If we succeed—as I am confident we will— Liberia can become a model of post-conflict reconstruction involving national leaders, regional organizations and the United Nations. Its neighbours near and far will know that it can be done, even in the most difficult of circumstances. Let us redouble our efforts in this last stretch of the process to bring peace to Liberia. The hopes of the continent are with you. I wish you all success in your deliberations.

12 June 1997 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6255) SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It has been a while since we met. I thought it would be helpful if we met today, and for me to share with you some of the discussions I had in the Organization of African Unity (OAU) with regard to what is happening in the Great Lakes region and in Sierra Leone. The OAU discussions were particularly interesting this year. In addition to discussing the crises around Africa, there was quite a lot of discussion on human rights, democratization and economic issues. We, in fact, had a brief summit where the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) briefed the Heads of States on economic issues and what he thought the African Governments have to do to move their region forward in the area of economic and social development. There was quite a lot of sympathy for the work that needs to be done in the Republic of Congo to help President Laurent Kabila and his team rebuild the nation, get the infrastructure going, and eventually organize elections at an appropriate time. But I think what was most remarkable was the reaction of the Heads of State to the coup in Sierra Leone.

12 June 1997 • 123 They were at one in condemning the coup and encouraging the Governments in the region that everything should be done to restore the legitimate Government back to power. It is remarkable in the sense that, barely a year ago, there was a coup in Gambia and there was no reaction, but this time the leaders seem determined to discourage coups in Africa. In fact, I did make a statement in Harare which really covered the issues of human rights, democratization and the rule of law. I hope Fred Eckhard will make copies available to you. But I think I came to take your questions, not to speak. So let me pause here and take your questions. QUESTION: On behalf of United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA), as always, it is a pleasure to see you, and we welcome you here. Not to overshadow what you have been doing in Africa, but obviously there is one of the regular crisis points about the budget of the United States coming up. And it seems that, at last, there is a vociferous voice of sanity in the form of Richard Lugar actually stating the international legal position. And I was wondering whether you as Secretary-General, and therefore in some sense custodian of the Charter, would be publicly and vociferously supporting his position, as against the deal that the White House and Congress seem to have cooked up without considering what the United Nations feelings might be. S-G: No. I was very pleased with the statement by Senator Lugar and, as I had shared with you earlier, the President himself is convinced that the United Nations is essential for the United States, just as we need the United States to participate actively in this Organization. He also believes that if the United States is going to lead and play an effective role in this Organization, it has to pay its way. So I am sure he would also be happy with the position Senator Lugar has taken. Of course, last Friday I was in Washington and I did discuss it with the State Department, including Mrs. Madeleine Albright. They briefed us on the very tough and delicate negotiations that have been going on between the Administration and the Congress. Indeed, they felt this was the best deal they could get under the circumstances and considered it a breakthrough and were happy with it. Obviously, as Secretary-General of the United Nations, and like other Member States, we would have been happier if the totality of what we believe is owed were paid and if the deck had been cleared and we did not have to deal with benchmarks. But the Administration that is in the midst of negotiat-

ing this indicates that, under the circumstances, they believe this may be the best. But of course, the process is going on, it is not ended, it is a long process. I do not know how we will come out of it at the end of the day. But as far as positions of principle are concerned, I am 100 per cent with Senator Lugar. QUESTION: Over the past couple of years there has been an open and growing distrust of Mr. Denis Halliday and Mr. Joseph Connor on the part of delegations in the Fifth Committee. Also, internally, the Performance Assessment System which the administration has put in place is not working and there is almost an open rebellion among senior staff. Given these facts, how confident are you that you have the managerial capacity to implement any reforms you decide upon? S-G: Let me say that both Mr. Halliday and Mr. Connor are doing a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances. I wish sometimes that our colleagues in the Fifth Committee would have a bit more sympathetic understanding for the tough and difficult job administrators in this Organization have. I know that there are problems, and I have had complaints about the appraisal system. But one of the issues we are looking at is to review the whole personnel issue and our personnel approach. In fact, it is on the table. I have discussed it with Mr. Connor and Mr. Hans Corell and we are also hoping to revise our own rules and other things. We will, at the end of the day, have a system that will be a bit more simplified, a bit more straightforward, and that will work. Obviously, we cannot do this overnight and it is going to take time. Your question also gives me an opportunity to emphasize the fact that we see reform as an ongoing process. Change and reform also have to be managed, and we have to be careful not to overload the system by pressing on the staff too many issues, too many managerial changes, and everything at one time. It can lead to an overload. So we need to manage the process. But on this question of personnel, we are looking at the whole approach. QUESTION: At the Group of Seven or Group of Eight meeting next week, Africa is one of the agenda items, with a focus on how to facilitate trade and development there. What advice would you give to those countries on either a general approach or specific policies on the things that they can do that will help facilitate trade? S-G: Actually, I was going to say something but I’m not sure we have done it yet. We have planned an input, a letter we are going to send to

124 • 12 June 1997

the G-8 as it is now called, basically indicating areas which I thought they may wish to consider; also, with the economic development of Africa, the question of the debt overhang and whatever assistance they can offer to give them relief and really set them on the path to economic and social development. I will make sure that, if the letter has gone out, you do get a copy. But we did issue a whole host of indications, as well as talk a bit about United Nations reform. QUESTION: You are one of the first SecretariesGeneral to acknowledge, in effect, and accept what Washington is doing: changing, it appears, the relationship between the United Nations and the United States; General Accounting Office auditors running through the halls, looking at the books. There are a lot of deep changes in the way business is done—the standing army, personnel, things like that. You are saying it’s a work in progress, but there is a vote today in Washington. Are you accepting all this? S-G: Nothing has been accepted. First of all, these issues are under discussion between the Administration and the Congress. Nothing has been communicated formally to the United Nations. We know these discussions are going on. Will they become law? And if they become law, what will be the attitude of the United Nations Member States? I think we all live in this building and we have got the reactions of the Member States very loud and clear. I think some of the comments found their way to the New York Times yesterday and today. One can discuss these things in Congress— that does not mean that it is going to become law in the United Nations. It does not necessarily mean that the Member States are going to accept it. My sense is that, on quite a lot of the issues, the United States will have to come and negotiate and discuss with the other Member States. It is going to be a real challenge for United States diplomacy, and I think that the Administration realizes it. I do not think anyone expects that Congress can take decisions and impose them unilaterally on the other 184 Member States. QUESTION: This year, there are two flashpoints where the United Nations has been actively engaged. One is Afghanistan, where only statements have been made about the formation of the government but nothing concrete has been done to disengage the parties and recognize the right party—or, you know, the party that is controlling the capital—while here at the United Nations the ambassadors are sitting representing a

Government which is not even in Afghanistan. So can you shed any light on whether Dr. Norbert Heinrich Holl is being successful in his mission to Afghanistan? The second flashpoint is Kashmir, where the United Nations observers are posted across the line of control but nothing much has been done by the United Nations. S-G: Let me start with Afghanistan and say that Dr. Holl is working very hard and has tried tirelessly over a reasonably long period to bring the parties together. I think you know as well as I do—or you would have to admit—that where the parties do not want to cooperate and are determined to find solutions on the battlefield, there is very little Dr. Holl or anyone can do. We have tried to work with the Governments in the region and we have been in touch with other Afghan parties. We believe that there is no military solution to the situation in Afghanistan. Even if one party were to take the entire country, it does not mean that the quarrel is over. There are other minority elements within the society that will continue to resist from within and without. And this is why we hope and have been trying to get the parties to accept a broad-based government and power-sharing, in order to bring peace to Afghanistan. But alas, the parties have not cooperated with us, and I hope we can find some way of getting them to cooperate. It is not a problem for Holl alone. It’s a problem for the parties. And the inspiration for acceptable and viable peace needs to spring from them too. On the question of Kashmir, I think that, yes, there are United Nations resolutions and we have observers on the ground. But I think what is exciting and important is the talks going on between Pakistan and India. There is a lot happening in that region. I was in India in March for the NonAligned Conference, and I spoke to both Foreign Ministers: then-Minister Gujral and the new Pakistani Foreign Minister. But now Gujral is Prime Minister and is pursuing this effort and policy of good-neighbourliness. And I think there are results: the sharing of waters in the Ganges, the agreement with Nepal, the settlement of the military border issue with China, and his determined efforts to improve relations with Pakistan. There are United Nations resolutions, United Nations positions, but these are not self-fulfilling or self-enforcing. I think it is important that the two parties are talking, and I am very hopeful that if the talks continue they will make progress,

12 June 1997 • 125 improve relations and eventually resolve the issue of Kashmir—I hope. But at least it would calm the subcontinent, and I would hope people could switch resources from military to economic and social development. QUESTION: Given that negotiations between West African leaders and the coup plotters in Sierra Leone do not seem to be going anywhere, would you support the use of force, perhaps as a last resort, to dislodge the coup plotters? And also, are you concerned about the effect this will have on the Liberian peace process? S-G: I think that my position on this has been very clear, and I did appeal to the coup makers very early in the game to reconsider their position—particularly given the fact that the people do not accept them, the neighbours do not want them, the region doesn’t welcome them and neither does the international community. So for them to really persist with this enterprise is going to be extremely difficult for them, and for the people. I would hope, therefore, that the combined effort of negotiations and the military presence on the ground will bring them around to giving up power and returning it to the legitimate Government. Obviously, if all else fails, given the constellation in the region and the forces on the ground, force as a last resort may not be avoided, given what has happened on the ground. QUESTION: In some of your comments recently you had indicated that you might be willing to consider the use of the more respectable mercenary organizations to help out in various tasks normally associated with peace-keeping. For example, one mercenary group did assist in security around Kinshasa recently. I was wondering if you could clarify your views on when and how and if mercenaries should be employed by the United Nations. S-G: First of all, I don’t know how one makes a distinction between respectable mercenaries and non-respectable mercenaries. Secondly, I am not aware that I have made any recent statements implying that I will accept mercenaries in these situations. What happened was, about two years ago, when we were trying to see what could be done to separate the armed elements from the refugees on the Rwandan-Zairian border and no Governments wanted to offer troops, one of the options that was looked at was the possibility of bringing in other elements—not necessarily troops from Governments—who might be able to provide security, assist the aid workers in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and protect them as they did their work.

That was discarded, and this was two years ago. Recently, I have not had any such discussions. QUESTION: The situation in Haiti is deteriorating, with political crimes and pressure against Rene Préval. It is said that Mr. Jean-Bertrand Aristide is trying to undermine the Government. What is the position of the United Nations? S-G: We don’t think anybody should undermine a legally elected Government. Obviously, we live in a political climate, and you cannot prevent people from actively getting engaged in politics. It is one thing to be engaged in politics and another to undermine. And so, if your implication is that someone is undermining the Government, it is not something that we will support. As you know, the United Nations has been very active in Haiti. We are still on the ground and have been working hard with the Government to try and see what we can do to strengthen the police and help bring peace and stability to that country. And we urge all concerned to cooperate with President Préval and his cabinet to ensure that our common endeavour succeeds. QUESTION: With regard to the Rio +5, the most important question—the question of finances— still remains unsolved five years after the [inaudible]. Levels of development assistance have decreased over the past five years—doesn’t this doom the summit from the outset? S-G: Not necessarily. I think what is important is that so many Heads of State have decided to come to New York to reassess, five years after Rio, what we’ve done and what we have not done. It also indicates the legitimacy of the United Nations as the only forum that can offer this sort of stage, where 80 Heads of State will come and discuss an issue of crucial importance to all of us. I hope that in the stock-taking, we will recognize what we’ve done and what we’ve not done, and what we need to do to meet the commitments we undertook in Rio. And I think you’re going to be hearing a lot about this financial issue and what we have done or have not done, as well as other aspects of the environment. I think you will hear a lot about water, about forests, about climate change. And what is also interesting is, when I was in Japan recently they suddenly spoke to me about Rio +10, which was an encouraging proposal—underscoring the fact that environment is so important that we should get together periodically, every five years, to take stock and to see what we’ve done and what we’ve not done, and to redouble our efforts. So even though we are going to be organizing Rio +5,

126 • 12 June 1997

they want us to think five years ahead and prepare Rio +10, which is an interesting suggestion. QUESTION: Child support and alimony are two critical issues for hundreds of ex-wives of United Nations officials. And a United States Congressman and members of the United Nations [inaudible] are calling on the United Nations to take more action. Do you have any response? S-G: Did you get the question? I think the question was alimony payments, and there was a question of 100 wives who—ex-wives, 100 exwives—who are expecting payments from their husbands and this Congressman who has taken up this issue. I think some of you may know that we do have an ST/AI on this question. It is ST/AI/399, which does allow the United Nations, in situations where there has been a legal judgement, to withhold sums from staff members. And this has been done in certain situations. And in fact, I think the ST/AI and the United Nations personnel rules are quite firm, and in situations where this brings disrepute to the Organization and major hardship to the wives and the children, we can even consider summary dismissal. So we do have provisions for dealing with the issue. QUESTION: Regarding the [inaudible] of the United Nations Mission in Guatemala, the Government maintains that the United Nations covered up the disappearance of a former rebel. And at the same time, the United Nations maintains its position and has said that it is evidence that the Government was involved in the disappearance. Are you ready to come out with this evidence, or are you planning to [inaudible]? S-G: First of all, I am not aware that the United Nations said they had evidence that the Government was involved in this. But what we have done is sent a team down to investigate, a team led by Mr. Horacio Bonio. He has submitted his report, which I am studying. I think mistakes may have been made, but at this stage I have no clear indication that my representative did cover up. But I do not want to go further, since we have just received the report and I am studying it. I cannot comment on the second question about the Government’s involvement until I have studied the report and get a few more facts. . . . QUESTION: To go back to Sierra Leone for a moment, what exactly is the United Nations involvement right now? I understand that early on in the crisis your representative, Ambassador Berhanu Dinka, was involved in negotiating with the coup plotters. What is the situation on the ground, in view of the fact that the United Nations

has evacuated? Is the United Nations system still officially engaged in negotiations, and are there plans for post-resolution of this crisis? S-G: We are not directly involved with the negotiations. I think it is the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) countries that are leading the negotiations, and they are also the ones with the troops on the ground. The United Nations has, in practice, tended to allow regional organizations to lead where they take a situation in hand. We usually do not get involved and compete with them. There have been situations where we have done it together. For example, this morning I instructed Ambassador Mohamed Sahnoun to go to Kinshasa and then to the Central African Republic to join President Omar Bongo in the negotiations between the protagonists in Congo-Brazzaville. But in the case of Sierra Leone, it is entirely in the hands of the West African countries. I know that Ghana sent in a team from Ambassador James Victor Gbeho, who was a Permanent Representative here, to meet with a group of generals to negotiate the situation. We are staying close to it, but we are not directly involved in the negotiations. You may also recall that prior to the conflict, we had prepared a peace-keeping force to go in and help implement the agreement that was signed with the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). Obviously, when all this has settled down we will need to reassess the situation and determine what steps the United Nations should take, whether the agreement still exists, whether the agreement is implementable, whether the RUF—which has now joined the coup makers—will still honour the agreement. So we will have to reassess the situation to determine what we do next. QUESTION: I have a question about the killings of refugees in Congo-Kinshasa. How confident are you that United Nations human rights investigators are going to be able to achieve their mission? S-G: I did speak to President Kabila personally in Harare, and I also brought in—as I mentioned to some of you—the Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees. He did promise me that he will cooperate, and I pressed him to appoint a senior official with authority, with access to him, who can take decisions to work with the UNHCR. There and then he indicated that he would appoint the Minister of Construction, and he has since done that. The UNHCR has also named a focal point, Assistant Secretary-General Sergio de Mello, and they are already in the region and are hoping to sit

12 June 1997 • 127 down with the representatives of President Kabila to discuss a plan and move on with this implementation. I think President Kabila has begun to realize the importance and urgency of resolving, and the need to resolve, these issues—not only the humanitarian issue, but also the question of human rights and the investigation into the alleged mass murders. At the end of my discussions with him, he said: “Mr. Annan, I understand. I also want to get this albatross off my neck.” He did, in effect, also offer this same commitment to Ambassador Richardson when they met subsequently in Congo. I have Ralph Zacklin—the Acting High Commissioner, coming into town today, and we are going to pursue this issue aggressively, and send in an advance team on 20 June and the full investigators on 7 July. S-G: I think that was the last question. The last point I want to make is really an announcement. I had indicated to all of you that I would designate the High Commissioner for Human Rights by the end of July. I think it is one of the most important appointments that I will probably have the opportunity of making during my term, and it is very important for the entire international community. I have identified someone who is an extraordinary leader, who has done lots of work in the human rights field, and will bring dynamism, credibility and leadership to the human rights centre. I have therefore decided to name Mrs. Mary Robinson as the next High Commissioner for Human Rights. I do realize that she is a sitting President—she is actively serving as President of Ireland. But I have indicated to her that I would be happy, and I think it would be preferable, if she could assume her functions before the beginning of the fifty-second General Assembly. I believe Mrs. Robinson understands the urgency and the need to start as soon as she can. She will be visiting New York in the month of July and I will be able to discuss this aspect of her appointment with her. QUESTION: Will she be based here in New York? S-G: She will be based in Geneva, and I will make an appointment of the deputy fairly shortly. The deputy will come from the third world. . . .

12 June 1997 Letter (EOSG); Western Sahara Letter sent to the leaders of Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, and to the Frente Polisario, the political

leadership of the Sahrawi people (an English version does not exist). Le 17 mars 1997, j’ai nommé, en tant que mon Envoyé personnel pour le Sahara occidental, M. James A. Baker III, ancien Secrétaire d’État des Etats Unis d’Amérique, afin qu’il puisse procéder à une nouvelle évaluation de la situation au Sahara occidental. Suite à sa nomination, mon Envoyé personnel a entrepris, entre autres, deux séries de consultations intensives avec les parties. M. Baker vient de m’informer, qu’en 1’absence de contacts directs entre les parties, il ne peut, à son avis, y avoir de solution permanente au Sahara occidental, acceptable tant pour les parties que pour la communauté internationale. Je partage ce jugement, et de ce fait, je souhaiterais vous inviter à déléguer des représentants, au niveau ministériel, pour prendre part à des entretiens directs privés sur la mise en œuvre du plan de règlement, ou sur sous ajustements auxquels les parties pourraient souscrire ultérieurement. Ces entretiens, qui seront organisés sous l’égide de mon Envoyé personnel, commenceront à Lisbonne, Portugal, le 23 juin 1997 et se poursuivront tant que, de 1’avis de mon Envoyé personnel, ils permettront de progresser. Il ne s’agira en aucun cas d’une conférence internationale, et les parties aux entretiens seront le Royaume du Maroc et le Front Polisario. Les Gouvernements de 1’Algérie et de la Mauritanie, en tant qu’observateurs, seront consultés selon que de besoin par mon Envoyé personnel au cours des entretiens et, à sa discrétion, seront invités aux discussions des parties sur des questions les touchant directement. Nul n’arborera ni ne portera de symbole politique. Mon Envoyé personnel aura pour rôle de convoquer les entretiens, d’y assister, de faire des suggestions et d’offrir toute idée susceptible de faciliter la tâche des parties, y compris toutes propositions visant à éliminer les impasses. Ni lui, ni moi-même naurons le pouvoir d’imposer des solutions aux parties, ou de faire opposition aux accords auxquels elles seront parvenues. Nul n’aura 1’autorité de prendre des décisions pour les parties sans leur accord. Plus important, en vue d’arriver à un règlement global de toute les questions en suspens entre les parties, la confidentialité durant ces entretiens directs sera de rigueur, et aucune question ne sera considérée comme entièrement réglée tant que les parties ne se seront accordées sur toutes les questions en suspens. Je vous serais reconnaissant de bien vouloir me communiquer votre acceptation de cette invitation, au plus tard, le 17 juin 1997, afin de nous per-

128 • 12 June 1997

mettre d’organiser et préparer ces négociations, comme il convient. Je vous prie d’agréer, Excellence, les assurances de ma très haute considération.

13 June 1997 Letter (EOSG); Western Sahara Letter sent to the president of Zimbabwe and the chairman of the Organization of African Unity, Robert G. Mugabe. Dear Mr. President, As you know, on 17 March 1997, I appointed former Secretary of State James A. Baker III as my Personal Envoy to make a fresh assessment of the situation in the Western Sahara. Subsequent to his appointment, my Personal Envoy has undertaken, inter alia, two intensive rounds of consultations with the parties. Following his second round of consultations in London on 11 and 12 June, Mr. Baker has advised me that, in his opinion, in the absence of direct talks among the parties, there can be no permanent solution in the Western Sahara acceptable to the parties and the international community. I concurred in that judgement, and, therefore, invited Morocco and the Frente POLISARIO for private, direct talks on implementation of the settlement plan, or such adjustments as they may further agree. These talks will be held under the auspices of my Personal Envoy, and commence at Lisbon, Portugal, on 23 June 1997. They will continue for so long as they hold any promise of progress, in the opinion of my Personal Envoy. These talks will not constitute an international conference. Algeria and Mauritania, as observers, will be consulted by my Personal Envoy from time to time as the talks progress, and, in his discretion, will be invited to attend discussions of the parties on issues directly affecting them. My Personal Envoy will convene the talks, attend, make suggestions, and offer ideas to facilitate the work of the parties, including bridging proposals to eliminate deadlocks. Neither he nor I will have the power to impose solutions on the parties, nor veto agreements reached by them. No one will have authority to make decisions for the parties in the absence of their agreement. Most importantly, in order to try to achieve a comprehensive resolution of all outstanding issues between the parties, in these direct talks confidentiality will be maintained by all concerned, and no issues will be considered as finally agreed until all outstanding issues are agreed.

I shall keep you informed of developments. I know that I can count on your continued cooperation and support, as current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity, to help contribute to a lasting solution of the conflict in Western Sahara. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

13 June 1997 Letter (EOSG); chemical weapons Letter to Director-General José M. Bustani of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, The Hague. Dear Mr. Bustani, In response to your letter dated 1 June, let me first take this opportunity to congratulate you most sincerely upon your election as Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Your outstanding qualifications, leadership and determination are guarantees that the important challenges your Organisation faces will be tackled vigorously and implemented successfully. It was indeed a great honour for me, in my capacity as Depositary of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, to open the First Session of the Conference of the States Parties and to witness the establishment of a new international organization. I remain committed to the objective of achieving universality of the Convention and will continue my efforts to urge all signatories to join the Convention as full parties. I would like to assure you that the United Nations is determined to implement fully resolution 51/230 on cooperation between the United Nations and your Organisation. Such cooperation points to new directions and greater cohesiveness in the efforts of the United Nations and related agencies towards disarmament. It would, therefore, be a pleasure for me to meet with you to discuss the details of the cooperation between our two organizations.

14 June 1997 Secretary-General Concerned About Situation in Congo-Brazzaville

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6259); Congo-Brazzaville The Secretary-General continues to be concerned

20 June 1997 • 129 about the precarious situation in CongoBrazzaville. He is gratified, though, that the parties have agreed to seek a negotiated solution to the conflict, and he urges them to respect the ceasefire. Ambassador Mohamed Sahnoun, the Joint United Nations/Organization of African Unity (OAU) Special Representative for the Great Lakes region, arrived in Brazzaville yesterday and had useful and constructive talks with President Lissouba, former President Nguesso and Mayor Kolelas. Today he will attend the discussion organized by President Bongo of Gabon in Libreville. The Secretary-General wishes to express his gratitude to the Government of France for the excellent way in which it carried out the evacuation of all foreign nationals, including the staff of the United Nations, other international organizations and non-governmental organizations.

16 June 1997 Secretary-General Calls Off Special Envoy’s Mission to Israel and the Occupied Territories

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6260); Israel In connection with the resolution adopted by the Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly, the Secretary-General proposed to dispatch as his Special Envoy, Kieran Prendergast, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs to Israel and the occupied territories. Letters were exchanged between the Secretary-General and the Government of Israel and a number of consultations were held between the Charge d’affaires of Israel and the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs to discuss the scope of the proposed mission. The restrictions imposed on the scope of the mission by the Government of Israel were not acceptable to the United Nations. Regrettably, it now appears that the mission will not be taking place, since the Secretary-General needs to report to the General Assembly by 25 June.

18 June 1997 Secretary-General Welcomes US Senate Action on Payments to UN

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6262); US payments to UN The Secretary-General has been informed of the Senate action approving the authorization bill regarding United States payments to the United Nations.

When the Secretary-General visited President Clinton in January, the President reiterated the importance of the United Nations to United States foreign policy. On that occasion, he mentioned that if the United States was to play a constructive leadership role in the United Nations, he was conscious that it would have to pay its way. The Secretary-General thanks President Clinton and his Administration for their strong and sustained efforts to deliver on that promise. The Secretary-General feels that the Senate action does not give us everything we deserve. The bill comes with some difficult benchmarks; but given where we started, we have to recognize that progress has been made. The Secretary-General notes with appreciation that the Senate has, for the first time in many years, held a full and serious debate on the United Nations and the United States role in it. He welcomes the bipartisan support for the United Nations which was manifested in the debate and hopes it will continue. The United States Administration is aware that it will need to engage the rest of the membership on the issue of benchmarks. The SecretaryGeneral notes that this process has already begun. The Secretary-General looks forward to putting this issue behind us so that we can focus on what the United Nations is here to do.

20 June 1997 Letter (EOSG); Cyprus Letter to the president of the Security Council, Sergey V. Lavrov. Dear Mr. President, I write to inform you of my current intentions concerning my mission of good offices in Cyprus. In a communication dated 17 April 1997 addressed to the President of the Security Council (5/1997/320), I stated my determination to pursue intensified efforts to bring about a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue and that I hoped that it will be possible for me to convene direct talks between the two leaders. To that end, I appointed Mr. Diego Cordovez to prepare and assist me in chairing the next round of the inter-communal talks. I should now like to inform you, and through you the members of the Council, that on 9 June I wrote to the two leaders inviting them to a first session of face-to-face negotiations to take place in the New York area from 9 to 13 July. These face-

130 • 20 June 1997

to-face talks will constitute the beginning of a process which should continue as long as may be needed to achieve agreement on a comprehensive solution. I envisage that this first session will be followed by another one in August and a third further session, if necessary. In order to avoid a prolongation and even a perpetuation of preceding inconclusive dialogues, I firmly believe that there is a need for new approaches and procedures. Inasmuch as the elements needed to work out a settlement are at hand, I believe that it would be most appropriate to embark upon a sustained process of direct negotiations leading to the conclusion of instruments that will constitute a comprehensive settlement. On 27 January 1997, I wrote to the leaders of the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot communities to underline the importance I attached to finding an early settlement of the Cyprus problem. In February and April I had the opportunity to discuss the Cyprus problem with the leaders of the two communities who expressed their readiness to make further efforts to reach a comprehensive solution. The consultations held between the two leaders and my representatives in recent months have been valuable in clarifying aspects of the task of achieving our common objective of a viable and comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem. In resolution 1092 (1996) of 23 December 1996, the Security Council stressed its support for the Secretary-General’s mission of good offices and the importance of the concerted efforts to work with the Secretary-General towards an overall comprehensive settlement. In late April, the Permanent Members of the Security Council also fully supported the early convening, under the aegis of the United Nations, of direct negotiations between the leaders of the two Cypriot communities in order to secure an overall settlement. A number of governments, as well as the Presidency of the European Union, have appointed special envoys and representatives in support of the efforts carried out within the framework of the good offices mission of the Secretary-General. The active, firm and full support of all concerned, and particularly of the Security Council, is indispensable if the current efforts are to bring results. I therefore ask you, and through you the members of the Council, and all concerned, to urge the parties to embark upon a sustained process of negotiations which will lead to the conclusion of the instruments that will constitute a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue. I should be grateful if you could bring this

matter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

20 June 1997 Secretary-General Delivers Commencement Address at UN International School

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6266); human security Commencement address by the Secretary-General to the United Nations International School, in New York. Congratulations to the class of ’97. You have worked hard and you should be proud of what you have accomplished. Your diplomas are here and waiting for you, signed and sealed, your names printed front and centre in big, bold letters. Congratulations, too, to all the parents and family members who have supported this fine group of students. You have been part of their years of hard work, and so belong here as we celebrate their achievement. But from this day forward, your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, grandchildren, nieces and nephews will be increasingly on their own. Thus, this moment of great hope and expectation comes tinged with sadness. It is wonderfully appropriate that the UNIS graduation ceremony is occurring yet again in the General Assembly Hall. For like the delegates who gather here to address the world’s problems, the graduates we are honouring today are from many nations, backgrounds and points of view. In an international era, you have been privileged to start your lives in an international environment. As a former Chairman of your Board of Trustees, I hope I will be forgiven for saying that you have been educated at one of the finest schools in the city, an institution whose core principles— tolerance, understanding and cooperation— emanate from the United Nations Charter, that visionary document of world peace and progress. As I know from first-hand experience—and as I am sure some of you can testify—the world suffers from a great lack of tolerance. Faced with the simple fact of human diversity, people all too often feel threatened. You, on the other hand, have studied together, played together and been exposed to the great pageant of ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic variety. You have learned early on, thanks in great part to UNIS, that there is no need to feel threatened, that everyone has something to contribute

20 June 1997 • 131 and that there is no single “right” way of doing things. As you embark on the next stage of your life, this knowledge—this deep-seated understanding—is a most formidable asset. Six months ago, I myself “graduated” to the job of Secretary-General. Every graduation brings with it the assumption of new and more demanding responsibilities. One of my most critical challenges is to bring the United Nations closer to the world public—closer to the “we, the peoples” in whose name the Organization was created. I know you are well aware of the Organization’s efforts to resolve conflicts and deliver humanitarian assistance. But it is quite possible that you do not realize just how extensively the United Nations and its family of agencies permeate your own daily lives. In an era of accelerating global interdependence, our work provides the very structure of international life. Without the International Civil Aviation Organization, whose rules, for instance, stipulate that all pilots and air traffic controllers must speak the same language—English—international air travel would be chaotic and dangerous. Without the International Telecommunication Union, which allocates frequencies for international communications, the air waves would be an incomprehensible jumble of static and noise. United Nations agreements and experts also make possible such essentials as international mail delivery, customs formalities, the standardization of trade laws and investment codes and the collection and analysis of statistics at a global level. Global society demands global institutions. There are so many problems that recognize no frontiers—such as organized crime, drug trafficking, terrorism. Their solutions also require action across borders. Perhaps more than any other issue, the environment underscores the centrality of the United Nations as a global forum and global actor. Next week, the General Assembly will be holding a special session to assess progress made since the Earth Summit five years ago in Rio de Janeiro. More than 50 Presidents and Prime Ministers will be here, along with dozens of environmental ministers and advisors—an indication of the growing environmental consciousness of the world’s people. The record of achievement since Rio is not bad, but it is not good enough. And I will be stressing to the assembled leaders that they must do more to honour the commitments they made in Rio on global warming, biodiversity, deforestation and a host of other urgent concerns.

Protection of the environment is one of the main pillars of human security. Our understanding of security—perhaps the key concept in world affairs—has broadened in recent years. Where once we talked primarily about state or military security, today we speak about individuals. And we talk not only about the environment, but about such things as economic development, social justice, democracy, disarmament and the observance of human rights. These are the true foundations of peace. I urge you to follow closely next week’s debate, which will likely touch on all of these issues. Listen as Heads of State and grass-roots leaders gather under this very roof to talk about their concerns and decide what action to take. I believe their dialogue—even when they disagree—is a very positive sign. In an age of evermore-complex problems, peaceful, effective international diplomacy is more vital than ever. Just last month I was in Vienna, a city with a long history of hosting important diplomatic conferences and meetings. I met with the Chancellor of Austria in a palace of great architectural distinction, but with one architectural peculiarity: a room with five grand doorways. My hosts informed me that this was the room where, in 1814 and 1815, diplomats from all over Europe had gathered to make peace following the downfall of Napoleon. Among those attending the Congress of Vienna were the Emperor of Austria, the Tsar of Russia, the King of Prussia and other notables, such as the Duke of Wellington, Prince Metternich and Prince Talleyrand. Originally, the room had had only two doors. But the five main powers present could not agree on who should enter the room first, or second, and so on. So three extra doors were created so that the rivals could enter simultaneously. This was admittedly a rather cumbersome way of finding compromise, but it did enable the parties to get on with their work. Today we are still in the business of compromise, but we need not go to such extravagant lengths, at least architecturally. Look around you. The General Assembly Hall has many doors. There is a public gallery for viewers. In an increasingly wide-open world, the United Nations is an open organization—open to ideas, to criticism, to contributions from all people of goodwill. Most of all, it is open to you—the class of ’97—and the classes that will follow you. In addition to the threshold you step across today, another is fast approaching—a new century and a new millennium. You will live most of your

132 • 20 June 1997

lives in the twenty-first century. You will be the leaders and actors who will set the international agenda and shape the world of tomorrow. Let me be the first to wish you the best for success with this enormous responsibility. Let me also urge you to contribute. You are people to whom much has been given. In return, the world needs your tremendous enthusiasm, devotion and ideas. I recalled asking myself earlier in life whether one person could make a difference. My answer now, many years later, is an emphatic yes. Please, become part of the global society, and help build and protect the fragile edifices of peace. As you move forward with your lives, you will always remember your high school classmates and the United Nations International School. You have shared an intense period of growth, challenge and, yes—I hope some fun as well. You richly deserve this day of celebration. So let it begin.

20 June 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/483); Congo-Brazzaville Letter from the Secretary-General to the president of the Security Council, Sergey Lavrov. The following letter is from the president of Gabon, El Hadj Omar Bongo. I have the honour to bring to your attention the attached letter that His Excellency El Hadj Omar Bongo, President of Gabon, has asked me to transmit to you on the current situation in the Republic of Congo. I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to bring this letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. * * *

16 June 1997 The International Mediation Committee, meeting on 16 June 1997 in Libreville to consider the serious situation in the Congo, has arrived at the following conclusion: The ceasefire, which has been in force since 15 June 1997, is particularly fragile. Consequently, in order to avoid a resumption of the fighting, together with the tragic consequences this would have for the people and stability of the country and even of the entire region, it is urgent to invoke forthwith the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations in order to deploy an appropriate force to Brazzaville. The purpose of this force should be to ensure respect for the ceasefire and to contribute, as far as

possible, to the promotion of an environment that is favourable to the efficient preparation and smooth progress of the presidential elections. The Committee, which stresses the extreme urgency of these measures, has obtained the agreement of all the Congolese parties concerned and the assurance that they will cooperate with the inter-African force. (Signed) El Hadj Omar Bongo

20 June 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/484); Congo-Brazzaville Letter to the president of the Security Council, Sergey Lavrov. As you are aware, the security situation in Brazzaville, the capital of the Republic of the Congo, has become extremely precarious, with serious implications for peace and stability, not only for the Congo, but also for the subregion. The violent fighting that erupted on 5 June 1997 between armed elements controlled by President Lissouba and Mr. Sassou-Nguesso, the former President, has already claimed the lives of hundreds of civilians in Brazzaville. The humanitarian situation in the city and in some other areas of the country has worsened significantly. As the violence engulfed most of the city, the expatriate community, including United Nations staff, had to be evacuated with the help of international forces. In view of the gravity of the situation, heads of State and Government of the subregion, under the chairmanship of President Bongo of Gabon, have established an International Mediation Committee aimed at reaching agreement on a ceasefire and settlement of the present crisis in the Congo. The efforts of the Committee, which were actively assisted by the Special Representative of the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in the region, Ambassador Sahnoun, have resulted in a temporary ceasefire. At a meeting convened at Libreville, on 16 June 1997, the International Mediation Committee requested the United Nations Security Council to authorize the rapid deployment to Brazzaville of an interAfrican force. This request was conveyed to me by President Bongo in a letter dated 16 June 1997. President Bongo, who has been mediating the talks between the parties, has also conveyed a similar written request to you (S/1997/483, annex), indicating that the Committee has obtained the agreement to the deployment of an inter-African force of all Congolese parties concerned, as well as their

21 June 1997 • 133 assurances that they would cooperate with such a force. It should be stressed that the agreement of the parties to the deployment and their adherence to an agreed cease-fire are indispensable conditions for the deployment of an international force, as is the condition that the proposed force should control the airport. The proposed force would aim at assuring the implementation of the ceasefire and contribute as much as possible to the establishment of an environment appropriate for the preparation and good conduct of the presidential elections in the country. The Committee has also agreed to refer the request to the Central Organ of OAU so that it can consider assisting the operation. One option for the formation and deployment of such a force is that a group of Member States would decide to establish and contribute to a multinational force and to seek the authorization of the Security Council to do so. The second option would be to deploy a United Nations peacekeeping force, composed mainly of African contingents provided with adequate military capability and with sufficient financial and logistical support to fulfil the challenging tasks entrusted to it. Given the gravity of the crisis and the experience of the international community in dealing with similar situations, it is estimated that the initial size of the force should be not less than battalion group strength, i.e., approximately 1,600 to 1,800 troops, with the necessary support units (400 to 800 men), plus United Nations military observers. A force of that size would have the capacity to secure the airport, it being understood that wider deployment would require greater strength. Experience has shown that a force of that size and configuration could be fully deployed only with adequate preparation, which would require sufficient time. However, delays in deployment could adversely affect the fragile ceasefire arrangements mediated by the International Mediation Committee. While the States of the region and other Member States concerned continue to discuss the modalities, including the composition, structure, command and control and other requirements for such a force, I believe it would be important for the international community to take urgent steps in support of this regional initiative. In the circumstances, and in order to avoid the creation of a vacuum, I intend, subject to the concurrence and authorization of the Security Council, as well as agreement by the Congolese parties, to request countries with proven military capability to

dispatch to Brazzaville an advance military detachment to be entrusted with the establishment of a secure environment for the deployment of the eventual force. Such an advance detachment would operate under command and control arrangements agreed between potential contributors and would also include a limited number of United Nations military observers to provide liaison with the warring parties and to verify the ceasefire. The advance military detachment could consist of troops fielded by regional States as well as by other Member States, especially those who could ensure rapid deployment and adequate logistical support. In view of the positive role played by the French troops in Brazzaville in recent weeks, their support would be highly desirable during this transitional phase. The United Nations would also be ready to provide, on a temporary basis, 40 to 50 military observers who could be drawn from existing United Nations peacekeeping operations to be deployed to Brazzaville on short notice.

21 June 1997 Letter (EOSG); Cambodia On behalf of the Government and people of Cambodia, we write to you to ask for the assistance of the United Nations and the international community in bringing to justice those persons responsible for the genocide and crimes against humanity during the rule of the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1979. In its resolution 1997/49 of April 1997 on Cambodia, the Commission on Human Rights requested: the Secretary-General, through his Special Representative, in collaboration with the Centre for Human Rights, to examine any request by Cambodia for assistance in responding to past serious violations of Cambodian and international law as a means of bringing about national reconciliation, strengthening democracy and addressing the issue of individual accountability.

Cambodia does not have the resources or expertise to conduct this very important procedure. Thus, we believe it is necessary to ask for the assistance of the United Nations. We are aware of similar efforts to respond to the genocide and crimes against humanity in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and ask that similar assistance be given to Cambodia. We believe that crimes of this magnitude are of concern to all persons in the world, as they greatly diminish respect for the most basic human right, the right to life. We hope that the United Nations and the international community can assist the

134 • 21 June 1997

Cambodian people in establishing the truth about this period and bringing those responsible to justice. Only in this way can this tragedy be brought to a full and final conclusion. (Signed) Prince Norodom Ranariddh, First Prime Minister (Signed) Hun Sen

22 June 1997 Information and Knowledge Are Central to Democracy, Secretary-General Tells World Bank Conference

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6268); poverty and development Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the World Bank conference “Global Knowledge ’97,” in Toronto. I am honoured and deeply gratified to join you tonight in Toronto for this important conference hosted by the Canadian Government, and convened by my dear friend and ally First Prime Minister—a true visionary in the work of peace and development—Jim Wolfensohn. We are all here because we share a deep concern about the plight of poverty and deprivation in the world. We are all here because we believe this poverty to be intolerable in a world of plenty. And we are all here because we are convinced—indeed we know—that this poverty can be ended in our lifetime, with our own hands, with our own minds. We know that the global dilemma of squalor amid splendour is a creature of human agency, and that it can be reversed by human agency. The facts are not in dispute. There are gross disparities of income, of access to services and of opportunity in the world. An estimated 1.3 billion people in the world survive on less than a dollar a day; nearly a billion people are illiterate; well over a billion lack access to safe water; some 840 million go hungry or face food insecurity; and nearly a third of the people in the least developed countries are not expected to survive to the age of 40. It is a fact that children and women suffer disproportionately as a result of lack of development; that disease, especially the AIDS pandemic, is devastating families and communities in many developing countries; that armed conflict is engulfing about 30 countries—mainly in Africa. The United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index, published 10 days ago—where, by the way, Canada ranked

first—revealed that a record 30 countries had lower scores this year than in the past: that means that 30 countries are regressing rather than progressing in terms of human development. The extreme inequalities in the world are morally untenable, economically irrational and politically indefensible. But how will we confront, how will we conquer them? How will we best work for development and against poverty in our time, with our resources, in our context? What tools will be needed, how far will they reach and how long must we persist? These are the questions that occupy the minds and, no less, the hearts of all who have gathered for this conference in Toronto. You will over the next few days engage in a vital debate about global knowledge, about the role and power of information and their impact on development. You will begin a global conversation that will discover new ways of making information an agent of change and a tool for prosperity. We must, and will, make knowledge and information our partners for progress. Looking out on this hall and marvelling at the variety of groups and organizations committed to this common goal, it cannot escape anyone that the work of development has been fundamentally transformed. The explosion in the number of non-governmental organizations, civil society groups and private sector companies that have a role to play in development has renewed our cause and expanded our potential. Nowhere is this more apparent or more inspiring than in the information revolution and the new world that is opening for men and women every day. All of us—the United Nations, the World Bank, governments, the private sector, members of civil society—must form a global partnership for information. We must do so wherever and whenever we can, above all, because this new revolution leaves us no choice. Development, peace and democracy are no longer the exclusive responsibility of governments, global organizations or intergovernmental bodies. The great democratizing power of information has given us all the chance to effect change and alleviate poverty in ways we cannot even imagine today. Our task, your task, in the coming days, is to make that change real for those in need, wherever they may be. With information on our side, with knowledge

22 June 1997 • 135 a potential for all, the path to poverty can be reversed. Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family. We at the United Nations are convinced that information has a great democratizing power waiting to be harnessed to our global struggle for peace and development. We believe this because we are convinced that it is ignorance, not knowledge, that makes enemies of men. It is ignorance, not knowledge, that makes fighters of children. It is ignorance, not knowledge, that leads some to advocate tyranny over democracy. It is ignorance, not knowledge, that makes some think that human misery is inevitable. It is ignorance, not knowledge, that make others say that there are many worlds, when we know that there is one. Ours. Information and freedom are indivisible. The information revolution is unthinkable without democracy, and true democracy is unimaginable without freedom of information. This is information’s new frontier, this is where the United Nations pledges its commitment, its resources and its strength. We have learned too often that democratization—like reform, I might add—is a process, not an event. For democracy to take root, it needs institutions, respect for the law, integrity of the armed forces and free and regular elections. In all these areas, the United Nations has been working to implement lasting democracy, and we have been doing so by spreading information and encouraging knowledge. Why? Because an educated electorate is a powerful electorate. Because an informed citizenry is the greatest defender of freedom. Because an enlightened government is a democratizing government. The quantity and quality of available information is changing dramatically every day in every country in the world. Citizens are gaining greater and greater access to information, too. And, perhaps most importantly, the spread of information is making accountability and transparency facts of life for any free government. The consent of the governed—the condition for any free society—must be an informed, enlightened consent. The challenge now, for us, is to make information available to all. Access is crucial. The capacity to receive, download and share information through electronic networks; the ability to publish newspapers

without censorship or restrictions; the freedom to communicate freely across national boundaries— these must become fundamental freedoms for all. For too long, economic inequality and fear of freedom has prevented the large majority of men and women on this planet from taking advantage of this bounty of knowledge. There is no longer an excuse for this state of affairs. And there is no longer a reason. No one disputes the dangers of excessive inequality in any society anymore. And no one claims to govern on any principle other than democracy anymore. For us at the United Nations, this development has had very concrete, and very welcome, consequences over the last few years. In 1992, we had seven requests for electoral assistance. In the last five years alone, we have participated in over 40 elections, responding to government requests for help in preparing, conducting and verifying their votes. That is the face of the new world created by the information revolution. But its consequences are felt in every field of human endeavour. In agriculture, health, education, human resources and environmental management the spread of information is transforming practices and revolutionizing progress. Communications and information technology has enormous potential, especially for developing countries, and in furthering sustainable development. But that also means that the information gap is the new dividing line between the haves and the have nots, those forging new paths to development and those increasingly left behind. What can we do, what can you do—at this conference and in your agencies and organizations—to foster that enabling environment for development and democracy that is the condition for global knowledge: • Promote greater, freer and fairer access to information for developing countries, through infrastructure improvement and technological advances; • Advance liberalization in the field of government control and censorship wherever it may exist; • Foster environments of growth and communication between developed and developing countries so that the transfer of technology becomes faster and more effective; • Initiate innovative approaches to education and learning at all levels, understanding the cultural contexts in order to ensure the greatest achievement of knowledge; • Welcome foreign investment, which, as Jim knows well, now dwarfs official development

136 • 22 June 1997

assistance by a factor of six, and make that investment an agent for knowledge; • Provide the ground for pilot projects in such fields as interactive long-distance learning, telemedicine, telebanking and micro-credit schemes, environmental protection and management; and • Ensure that the young will be the first to gain this knowledge and to make it their partner in the pursuit of a better, richer life for themselves and for their peoples. The role and responsibilities of the United Nations system are as clear as they are crucial: to ensure that the gains of the information revolution are placed at the service of developing countries. Freed from the ideological shackles of the cold war age, we can approach this challenge with new energy and sound pragmatism. Information does not belong to one ideology or another, knowledge is not the privilege of one creed or conviction. If information and knowledge are central to democracy, they are the conditions for development. It is that simple. What is so thrilling about our time is that the privilege of information is now an instant and globally accessible privilege. It is our duty and our responsibility to see that gift bestowed on all the world’s people, so that all may live lives of knowledge and understanding.

23 June 1997 Secretary-General Urges Cooperation Against Pollution at General Assebmly

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6270, ENV/DEV/429); environment Text of a toast offered by the Secretary-General at a luncheon hosted by the Secretary-General for Heads of State and Government attending the 19th special session of the General Assembly. It has been a great honour for me to welcome you to the United Nations and it is a privilege for me to invite you to this luncheon. I am truly delighted to witness this great gathering of leaders joined by a devotion to our planet and a commitment to peace. You have been carried here by the hopes of the peoples of the earth. To you has fallen the great challenge of saving our planet from environmental decay and devastation. The future of our environment allows no divisions, no disputes, no sides in a debate, no surrender to conflict. On the question of the environment, there is only one side. Ours.

Your voices are humanity’s voices, and humanity’s fate is your fate. The Rio Summit was the great beginning of the global push for action on behalf of the environment. But it was only a beginning. Your presence today, at this special session of the General Assembly, testifies to the fact that the cause of the environment is alive, that it is thriving, and that it is gaining support with every passing day. The threat to our environment has taught us that a decaying habitat for one people is a decaying habitat for all. It has also taught us that privilege and prosperity cannot protect any nation, if poverty and pollution are destroying another. We have learned that sustainable development is a calling not for only one people or region, but a calling for all. “The Earth is not ours”, an African proverb teaches. “It’s a treasure we hold in trust for future generations.” By convening here this week, you have shown that you are worthy of that trust. Emboldened and inspired, I urge you to return home recommitted to our earth, and determined to honour the faith of future generations.

23 June 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/288, A/51/930); Cambodia Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Sergey Lavrov. An identical letter was sent to the president of the General Assembly, Ismail Razali. See 21 January 1997 entry for the original letter sent to the Secretary-General from Prince Norodom Ranariddh. I attach a letter dated 21 June 1997 which I have received from the two Prime Ministers of the Royal Government of Cambodia in which they “ask for the assistance of the United Nations and the international community in bringing to justice those persons responsible for the genocide and crimes against humanity during the rule of the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1979.” The facts which gave rise to the request remain unclear. The Office of my Representative in Cambodia is presently seeking to clarify the situation, while the Secretariat is examining the legal and institutional issues involved. The letter is brought to your attention for any action which may be deemed appropriate.

23 June 1997 Letter (EOSG); Congo-Brazzaville I have the honour to inform you that the Central Organ of the Organization of African Unity

23 June 1997 • 137 Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution met this afternoon to consider the prevailing situation in the Republic of the Congo. The session especially focused on the need to maintain and consolidate the ceasefire in Brazzaville and to create conditions for a political solution to the crisis. In this respect, the Central Organ specifically considered the initiative of President Omar Bongo of the Republic of Gabon requesting the Security Council to authorize a speedy deployment of an inter-African force in Brazzaville. I am sending you herewith a copy of the communiqué issued by the Central Organ at the end of its deliberations. As you would note, the Central Organ fully supported the request by President Bongo. In this connection, I wish to highlight especially the following paragraphs of the communiqué: “Reiterated its appeal for the establishment and maintenance of a lasting ceasefire, and called on the parties to exercise maximum restraint; “Fully supported the request by the President of Gabon on behalf of the International Mediation Committee for the Security Council to authorize the rapid deployment of an inter-African force in Brazzaville, and requested the Security Council to facilitate such a deployment without delay; “Appealed to all African States, especially those with the relevant capability, to make available contingents which can serve as part of the proposed inter-African force, or provide logistical support for such a force; “Called on the parties to the conflict to cooperate fully with the International Mediation Committee and with the force by, inter alia, committing themselves to a ceasefire and to a political solution to the dispute; “Requested the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity and the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations to undertake urgent consultations within and outside Africa to ensure maximum support for the implementation of this initiative.” I should be grateful if you would bring the contents of the present letter and the attached communiqué to the attention of the President and members of the Security Council. I would further appreciate it if you would have them circulated as a document of the Security Council. (Signed) Salim Ahmed Salim Enclosure

Communiqué issued by the thirty-fourth ordinary session of the Central Organ of the Organization of

African Unity Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution, at the ambassadorial level, held on 23 June 1997. The Central Organ of the OAU Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution met at ambassadorial level, at Addis Ababa, on 23 June 1997 at 15.00 hours to examine the serious situation prevailing in the Republic of the Congo and the efforts deployed so far to resolve the crisis. The session was held under the chairmanship of Mr. T. A. G. Makombe, the Permanent Representative of Zimbabwe to the OAU and representative of the current Chairman. The Central Organ was extensively briefed by the Secretary-General on the outcome of the recent meeting of the International Mediation Committee and the communication sent by Mr. El Hadj Omar Bongo, President of the Republic of Gabon, to the current Chairman of OAU and the SecretaryGeneral, as well as to the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, on the situation in the Republic of the Congo, and, in particular, the request for the deployment of an inter-African force in Brazzaville. The Permanent Representative of the Republic of the Congo to OAU also apprised the session of the latest situation in his country. At the end of its deliberations, the Central Organ: Reiterated its appeal for the establishment and maintenance of a lasting ceasefire, and called on the parties to exercise maximum restraint; Reaffirmed its full support for the efforts being made by the International Mediation Committee under the leadership of President Omar Bongo of the Republic of Gabon; Fully supported the request by the President of Gabon on behalf of the International Mediation Committee for the Security Council to authorize the rapid deployment of an inter-African force in Brazzaville, and requested the Security Council to facilitate such a deployment without delay; Appealed to all African States, especially those with the relevant capability, to make available contingents which can serve as part of the proposed inter-African force, or provide logistical support for such a force; Called on the parties to the conflict to cooperate fully with the International Mediation Committee and with the force by, inter alia, committing themselves to a ceasefire and to a political solution to the dispute; Requested the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity and the Secretary-

138 • 23 June 1997

General of the United Nations to undertake urgent consultations within and outside Africa to ensure maximum support for the implementation of this initiative; Expressed deep appreciation to the humanitarian agencies for the work they are doing under extremely difficult circumstances, and appealed to the international community to extend upon urgent humanitarian assistance to all those in need; Decided to remain seized of the crisis in the Republic of the Congo, and requested the Secretary-General to continue to monitor very closely developments in that country.

23 June 1997 Secretary-General Outraged by Actions of UN Peacekeepers in Somalia

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6271); peacekeeping I have been advised of alleged atrocities committed while on duty in Somalia by United Nations peace-keeping soldiers. I am appalled and outraged by these actions which are unacceptable and counter to everything peace-keeping stands for. These soldiers are now being held to account by their contributing governments and will be prosecuted in accordance with the law. Let there be do doubt: United Nations peacekeeping soldiers are and should be held to the highest standard of service and conduct. Training of soldiers in their responsibilities to citizens, refugees and other facing hardships has been strengthened since 1993. The duty of commanding officers to immediately report any conduct that is out of order has been stressed. While soldiers are under the command of their own superior officer, I wish to assure that every possible effort will be made on the part of the United Nations to ensure that such incidents do not recur. I deeply regret these incidents and the pain they caused. With this said, I wish to reconfirm my deep faith and pride in the valour, commitment and service of thousands of peace-keeping soldiers from more than 70 countries. I would like, in particular, to pay tribute to the more than 1,500 soldiers who so bravely died in the cause of peace.

24 June 1997 Letter (EOSG); Congo-Brazzaville I should like to recall our conversation and, more particularly, the information which I gave you

about the risks of destabilization facing my country, in the light of which I requested your assistance at Harare. The Congo therefore awaits with interest and impatience any action that might be taken in response to the request by the International Mediation Committee, headed by President Omar Bongo, Head of State of Gabon—a request which I firmly support—for the deployment of an interAfrican peacekeeping force and, in particular, for: the securing of polling stations during the presidential elections; [and] the decommissioning of weapons, particularly the neutralization of heavy weapons. I am counting on the Security Council to respond promptly to this request and wish to convey to you the thanks of the entire Congolese people and the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. (Signed) Pascal Lissouba

26 June 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/495); Congo-Brazzaville Letter to the president of the Security Council, Sergey Lavrov. See 24 June 1997 entry for the letter sent to the Secretary-General from President Pascal Lissouba. I have the honour to bring to your attention the attached letters addressed to me by the President of the Republic of the Congo, Mr. Pascal Lissouba, and the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity, Mr. Salim Ahmed Salim, on the question of the deployment of an inter-African force in Brazzaville. I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to bring these letters to the attention of the members of the Security Council.

1 July 1997 Letter (EOSG); international tribunals Letter to the president of the General Assembly, Ismail Razali, with the attached report. Excellency, I have the honour to refer to your letter of 6 June 1997, regarding the conditions of service of the judges of the International Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR). In December 1993, my predecessor submitted to the General Assembly proposals on the terms and conditions of service of ICTY and ICTR

138 • 23 June 1997

General of the United Nations to undertake urgent consultations within and outside Africa to ensure maximum support for the implementation of this initiative; Expressed deep appreciation to the humanitarian agencies for the work they are doing under extremely difficult circumstances, and appealed to the international community to extend upon urgent humanitarian assistance to all those in need; Decided to remain seized of the crisis in the Republic of the Congo, and requested the Secretary-General to continue to monitor very closely developments in that country.

23 June 1997 Secretary-General Outraged by Actions of UN Peacekeepers in Somalia

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6271); peacekeeping I have been advised of alleged atrocities committed while on duty in Somalia by United Nations peace-keeping soldiers. I am appalled and outraged by these actions which are unacceptable and counter to everything peace-keeping stands for. These soldiers are now being held to account by their contributing governments and will be prosecuted in accordance with the law. Let there be do doubt: United Nations peacekeeping soldiers are and should be held to the highest standard of service and conduct. Training of soldiers in their responsibilities to citizens, refugees and other facing hardships has been strengthened since 1993. The duty of commanding officers to immediately report any conduct that is out of order has been stressed. While soldiers are under the command of their own superior officer, I wish to assure that every possible effort will be made on the part of the United Nations to ensure that such incidents do not recur. I deeply regret these incidents and the pain they caused. With this said, I wish to reconfirm my deep faith and pride in the valour, commitment and service of thousands of peace-keeping soldiers from more than 70 countries. I would like, in particular, to pay tribute to the more than 1,500 soldiers who so bravely died in the cause of peace.

24 June 1997 Letter (EOSG); Congo-Brazzaville I should like to recall our conversation and, more particularly, the information which I gave you

about the risks of destabilization facing my country, in the light of which I requested your assistance at Harare. The Congo therefore awaits with interest and impatience any action that might be taken in response to the request by the International Mediation Committee, headed by President Omar Bongo, Head of State of Gabon—a request which I firmly support—for the deployment of an interAfrican peacekeeping force and, in particular, for: the securing of polling stations during the presidential elections; [and] the decommissioning of weapons, particularly the neutralization of heavy weapons. I am counting on the Security Council to respond promptly to this request and wish to convey to you the thanks of the entire Congolese people and the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. (Signed) Pascal Lissouba

26 June 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/495); Congo-Brazzaville Letter to the president of the Security Council, Sergey Lavrov. See 24 June 1997 entry for the letter sent to the Secretary-General from President Pascal Lissouba. I have the honour to bring to your attention the attached letters addressed to me by the President of the Republic of the Congo, Mr. Pascal Lissouba, and the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity, Mr. Salim Ahmed Salim, on the question of the deployment of an inter-African force in Brazzaville. I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to bring these letters to the attention of the members of the Security Council.

1 July 1997 Letter (EOSG); international tribunals Letter to the president of the General Assembly, Ismail Razali, with the attached report. Excellency, I have the honour to refer to your letter of 6 June 1997, regarding the conditions of service of the judges of the International Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR). In December 1993, my predecessor submitted to the General Assembly proposals on the terms and conditions of service of ICTY and ICTR

3 July 1997 • 139 judges, some of which the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions endorsed and in regard to others requested further clarifications. I am requested to report on the matter no later than 30 November 1997, for consideration by the General Assembly. Please find attached a note in more detail on the background to the matter. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Conditions of Service of ICTY and ICTR Judges: Consideration by the General Assembly

Article 13, paragraph 4, of the Statute of ICTY specifies that the terms and conditions of service of its judges shall be those of the judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), whereas Article 12, paragraph 5, of the ICTR Statute specifies that the terms and conditions of service of its judges shall be those of ICTY. Since it is the General Assembly which under Article 17 of the Charter of the United Nations has the exclusive authority in financial matters (see also article 32 of the Statute of ICJ), the above provisions of the International Tribunals’ Statutes represent a point of reference in determining the terms and conditions of service of their judges by the General Assembly. In view of this, the Secretary-General recommended in his report (A/C.5/48/36) to the General Assembly that conditions of service of the members of the ICTY should replicate those of ICJ with appropriate modifications reflecting the shorter term of appointments of ICTY members. Having considered that report, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions deferred action on the conditions of service of the Tribunal’s judges pending further experience with regard to the precise nature of the requirements of the ICTY and the work of the judges (A/48/915, paras. 4–9 and 12). The General Assembly, in its resolution 48/251 of 14 April 1994, requested the Secretary-General to submit a further report on the conditions of the service of the judges. The Secretary-General submitted his report to the forty-ninth session of the General Assembly (A/C.5/49/11), in regard to which the Advisory Committee made recommendations concerning specific entitlements (A/49/7/Add.12, paragraphs 3–11) and requested the Secretary-General to provide additional information on various related issues for its further scrutiny. By its resolution 49/242 B of 20 July 1995, the General Assembly endorsed the observations and recommendations of the ACABQ.

As the result of its subsequent reviews of the Secretary-General’s reports on the financing of the International Tribunals to the fiftieth and fifty-first sessions of the General Assembly, the Advisory Committee requested the Secretary-General to provide for its scrutiny additional information concerning the travel and subsistence benefits of the judges, pension entitlements and survivors’ benefits, administration of the education grant and other relevant issues. The Advisory Committee recommended, inter alia, that the conditions of service and allowances which would be approved by the General Assembly for the judges of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia be extended to the judges of the International Tribunal for Rwanda. By its resolutions 51/214 B and 51/215 B of 13 June 1997, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to submit reports on the conditions of service of the judges of each Tribunal at its fifty-second session, no later than 30 November 1997, and decided to defer its consideration of the pension entitlements for members of the Tribunals pending receipts of such reports and consider these questions in the context of the 1998 budget proposals of the Tribunals. In line with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and pending a final comprehensive decision of the General Assembly on the matter, the terms and conditions of service of judges of ICJ currently apply to judges of ICTY and ICTR mutatis mutandis and with necessary modifications based on relevant criteria, including the relative length of their respective terms of service.

3 July 1997 Secretary-General Says Reform Should Strengthen UN Ability to Address Root Causes of Poverty and Conflict

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6274, ECOSOC/5706); development Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the high-level segment of the 1997 substantive session of the Economic and Social Council, in Geneva. I am pleased to join you for the annual substantive session of the Economic and Social Council. The theme of this high-level segment—fostering an enabling environment for development— allows us to discuss some of the main issues that need to be addressed if we are to contribute to progress in one of the central undertakings of our day: the quest for the economic and social advancement of the world’s people. The timing of

140 • 3 July 1997

this gathering—just after the General Assembly’s special session on Agenda 21, and just prior to my presentation on United Nations reform—is also opportune. So let us make the most of these important deliberations. The United Nations is immersed in the process of reform. And United Nations peace-keepers and humanitarian relief personnel are deployed in a range of global hot-spots. But as I have stressed since taking office, our primary mission, our most critical long-term task, remains development—a fundamental pursuit in and of itself, but also as a pillar of peace, as a foundation of stability, and as a powerful force for preventive diplomacy and preventive action. The United Nations Charter assigns the Economic and Social Council a key role in promoting international cooperation for development—in promoting higher standards of living, progress and prosperity, stability and well-being for all. The Economic and Social Council has made definite progress in recent years in finding ways of addressing these issues. Still, much remains to be done. This year’s high-level segment occurs as the world is poised on the threshold of an era of global opportunity and hope. For perhaps the first time in recent history, we are in a position to build a free and open world economy in which all countries can participate and from which all countries can benefit. For the first time, long cherished hopes of eradicating poverty seem attainable, provided that concerted political will is brought to the task. We should all be encouraged by several positive economic trends in the developing world. A number of developing countries are attracting foreign capital and investment on an unprecedented scale. Their growing share of world trade and finance has made them increasingly major players in the global economy. Some developing nations have achieved high growth rates for many years, and have reduced poverty levels significantly. New and dynamic centres of trade and investment have arisen in Asia and parts of Latin America, and they are fast becoming the engines of growth in world output and trade. Their experience shows that the path to accelerated development lies in better integration with the mainstream of the world economy. At the same time, it is distressing that many developing countries and large numbers of people in all countries have been excluded from the benefits of globalization. For many African countries and for the least developed countries, the risk of

further marginalization remains all too real. The positive, determined steps they are taking deserve greater international support. African countries are opening up and liberalizing their economies. They are pursuing structural reforms and adjustment programmes, and many have achieved impressive levels of growth. They need increased and sustained official assistance, and a comprehensive solution to their external debt burdens. Above all, to help them outgrow their dependence on commodities and aid, their exports must be accorded free access to world markets. Free market access is one of the hallmarks of the enabling environment that must be put in place if opportunity and hope—and results—are to reach all corners of the globe. Building such an environment requires enhanced international cooperation. The goals of such cooperation are clear: • To build an open, equitable and rule-based system of world trade, finance and technology flows; • To integrate all countries into the world economy; • To promote sustained—and sustainable— economic growth; • To unleash untapped creative and entrepreneurial energies; and • To manage the risks and volatility associated with globalization. Democracy, respect for human rights and good governance—governance that is transparent and accountable—are essential foundations of this endeavour. Democratization of international relations is also vital. This means, among other things, greater participation by developing countries in the mechanisms governing the global economy. Governments in developing countries have a responsibility to pursue and implement sound policies, and to provide a strong base of social services and physical infrastructures. They must also ensure that development is broad-based, equitable and sustainable in environmental, economic and social terms. However, it is people and private initiative that are, increasingly, the primary source for generating wealth. The responsibilities of developed countries are also very far-reaching. They need to enhance coordination of their macroeconomic policies, and to ensure greater coherence in their trade, aid and economic policy-making. This would, in turn, provide greater access for developing countries’ exports and encourage increased flows of capital, investment and technologies to developing coun-

3 July 1997 • 141 tries. The United Nations also has a crucial role to play. United Nations conferences of the 1990s have helped forge a consensus on a comprehensive approach to development which seeks to integrate its economic, social and environmental dimensions in a mutually reinforcing manner. The recently adopted “Agenda for Development” places the outcomes of these conferences within a unified framework. And just last week, the special session of the General Assembly on implementation of Agenda 21 demonstrated again the power of the United Nations to bring world leaders together on issues of global consequence. Although the results were not all that could be expected, it is none the less significant that, acting in a spirit of solidarity, partnership and mutuality of interest, the heads of State and ministers gathered in New York reaffirmed their commitment to sustainable development. It falls now to the Economic and Social Council to help sustain this momentum. In recent years, the Council has addressed the common policy themes emanating from global conferences at its high-level and coordination segments. It has provided practical policy guidance to the organizations of the United Nations system and to its functional commissions. It has streamlined its sessions and refocused its agenda on policy and coordination issues in order to avoid repetitive debates. The Council has also promoted closer interaction with the World Trade Organization and the Bretton Woods institutions, a goal to which I attach special importance and which has great potential. Let us build on this progress. Already, I have taken a number of steps at the Secretariat level. First and foremost, I consolidated the three economic and social departments at Headquarters. Second, I established the Executive Committee for Economic and Social Affairs. Together with the new department, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) participate in the Committee, sharpening our focus in two of the most critical dimensions of development: the environment and the trade/investments/technology nexus. In addition, the participation of the regional commissions ensures that global and regional aspects of development are harmonized and brought to bear, in a complementary way, on the substantive support provided to the Economic and Social Council. The next step, of course, will be the report on reform that I will be presenting to the General

Assembly later this month. The report will be wide-ranging, encompassing the Organization as a whole—not only the Secretariat, but also all the United Nations programmes and funds. It will place the role of the Organization in the context of the work of the system as a whole. It will discuss our vital relationships with the private sector, civil society and other multilateral players. And it will set out a blueprint for the Organization’s long-term future. A major portion of the report will be devoted to development, and to the economic, social, humanitarian, environmental and human rights concerns that define the work of the Economic and Social Council. Indeed, the reform process will be judged to no small extent on how well it strengthens the ability of the United Nations to promote economic and social progress and address, through development, the root causes of poverty and conflict. Strengthening the United Nations in the economic and social sectors should not be measured by the addition or subtraction of committees or institutions. Ultimately, what counts is our impact—the positive difference we can make in the daily lives of people. It is true that, in many areas, there must be consolidation. But in others, there are gaps that need to be filled. The initiative I am pursuing of introducing an “efficiency dividend” that would result in redeploying resources accruing from administrative savings to development-related activities is very relevant in this regard. My report will contain measures affecting the Secretariat, as well as proposals on the functioning of the intergovernmental bodies, chiefly the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. The Economic and Social Council has not been able to play fully the role envisaged for it in the Charter. Although this has led to repeated calls for drastic reform, I do not believe that there is a political consensus in favour of radical reforms that would fundamentally alter its character and authority. Still, we should go as far as we can, building upon the progress that the Economic and Social Council itself has made in recent years. Drawing on such progress, I will suggest ways of increasing the influence of the high-level segments of the Economic and Social Council on policy development and on the future of development cooperation. I will also address ways of enhancing the Council’s role in promoting policy coordination within the United Nations system, and of

142 • 3 July 1997

improving the coherence of the Council’s subsidiary machinery. Links between the decision-making of the Economic and Social Council and that of the General Assembly need to be strengthened. We can be guided in this respect by the extensive experience gained in the recent series of United Nations conferences, which have been so effective in raising public awareness, building consensus and securing policy commitments at the highest level. Implementation at the country level is the most tangible way the world public will experience United Nations reform. Thus, my report will focus not only on policy-making, but also on our operational activities for development—an area the Council and the General Assembly have been addressing with increasing intensity in recent years. The legislation in this area is clear. It has stressed that the distinct mandates of funds and programmes must be respected and enhanced. It has, at the same time, emphasized that the funds and programmes should be guided by common policy frameworks, to which they are all called upon to contribute. The General Assembly has called for better coordination of funding arrangements. And it has said that United Nations country teams should be organized according to the needs of the cooperation programmes themselves, rather than by institutional structures and divisions. My reform proposals on operational activities will be guided by these principles, building on the measures outlined in my first submission on reform last March and on the follow-up work of the Executive Committee on Development Operations. They will also endeavour to further the provisions of the recently adopted “Agenda for Development” concerning resources for development and their availability on a more predictable and assured basis. My report will also focus on humanitarian assistance, another item on the agenda of this session of the Council. At both the intergovernmental and inter-agency levels, there has been an intensive process of reflection in the past few years, which I hope to capture and further in my report. A series of dramatic crises has obliged the humanitarian community to review long-held perspectives and practices. Existing coordination structures have been tested. A range of new needs has been identified. The measures and proposals on humanitarian

assistance I will put forward in my reform report will cover both Headquarters and the field. They will address issues of governance, as well as Secretariat-level arrangements, including increasingly important linkages with both peace and security and development activities. It is time to act on the lessons which have come to us as a result of heart-breaking and often perilous circumstances. I have spoken about the theme of this highlevel segment—fostering an enabling environment for development—and about one of the main themes of my first six months in office, reform. The two are closely linked. While the key characteristics of an enabling environment are mostly matters of trade, investment, financial flows and laws, it is also true that the United Nations system—a well-functioning United Nations system— is another principal ingredient. I believe the time is especially ripe for us to achieve concrete and comprehensive progress. I eagerly await the results of your deliberations and wish you the best for a most successful session.

7 July 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG) ... On the human rights investigation in CongoKinshasa, Mr. Eckhard, referring to the press briefing by the Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ralph Zacklin, this morning in Geneva, said that the Commission was welcoming the Secretary-General’s willingness to take on the issue, now that their own proposal for an investigation team had been blocked by the Kinshasa Government. He noted that there had been, however, an agreement on Friday on other terms and conditions for the investigation that would permit it to take place if the composition of the team were different. He said that he expected the SecretaryGeneral to brief the Security Council tomorrow on his plans for putting together a new team and sending them in under the terms negotiated by the advance team. . . . On the human rights mission, Mr. Eckhard was asked if the Commission was now basically turning the issue over to the Secretary-General? Yes, the Spokesman answered, they faced the option of coming up with a new mandate or turning it over to the Secretary-General. “They took the latter option. The Secretary-General feels that it is not

8 July 1997 • 143 who does this report, but that an investigation be done, and so he is quite prepared to field a new team.” The Spokesman was asked if the SecretaryGeneral would go ahead and do that himself, or seek the approval of the Security Council when he spoke to them. He replied that the SecretaryGeneral would not do it against the wishes of the Council, but he did have—under the United Nations Charter—wide latitude to take an initiative such as that one. “I do not think that it has ever been done—that an investigative human rights mission has been done by the Secretary-General, but there is no question in the mind of the Legal Adviser here that he can do that, and he will be informing the Council tomorrow of his intention, and of course listening to see if they have any reservations.” A correspondent, recalling that the SecretaryGeneral had recently mentioned that it would be good for the peace process in Bosnia and Herzegovina if the International Police Task Force (IPTF) stayed beyond its deadline, drew attention to a report in The Los Angeles Times yesterday that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and American troops would apprehend war criminals. Would the United Nations participate in such an operation? The Spokesman answered that the question was very hypothetical. However, it was not the mandate of United Nations police monitors in Bosnia to arrest anyone. Concluded Mr. Eckhard: “To investigate, yes; arrest, no. Our mandate is clear.” . . . Speaking seriously, he said that the interest in United Nations reform was acute; virtually everyone that the Secretary-General had met with had questions. In Geneva, he had addressed a number of delegations, spoken to the staff and met with non-governmental organizations. He was able to give them the broad outline of his thinking, and get some feedback as well. His impression was that there was broad support for his ideas and for reform generally. Mr. Eckhard said that there had been “a bit of unease” on the part of the staff in terms of the implications for them, but that the Secretary-General was able to comfort them, that although they might have to undergo some reassignments or some retraining, essentially he hoped that it would be a painless transition. For governments, the Spokesman continued, the Secretary-General said that the debates they had on development and humanitarian reorganization where the funds and programmes had weighed in in defence of their particular concerns was a

healthy one, and he felt that at this point they were all now on board with a formula they could endorse. He expected them to work as a team but he said, “not as a rowing team where everyone acts in unison, but as a soccer team, where there is room for individual brilliance”. . . . Further asked to elaborate on the issue of the Secretary-General’s powers under the Charter to change a decision of the Human Rights Commission, the Spokesman explained that the Commission had done its work as far as it wanted to go. It had put together a mandate, and a team and tried to negotiate with the host country, which objected to the composition of the team; at that point, they could either revise that position or say they were stymied. What they had said was that they were unwilling to revise their position but did want to see an investigation carried out. The matter would now go to the Secretary-General to see that the investigation did get done. Challenged that the Secretary-General did not have that authority under the Charter, Mr. Eckhard asked the correspondent why he had said so. The authority available was only to attract the attention of the Security Council to a matter, the correspondent said, and that was the only provision. “You have a different view from his Legal Advisers, who feel that it is clear under the Charter that he can take this action”, Mr. Eckhard answered.

8 July 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, informed correspondents at today’s press briefing that the Secretary-General had this morning announced to the Security Council his intention to send a new human rights investigative team to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The discussion in the Council had been extensive, but, in the end, there had been broad support for the Secretary-General’s intention. The Council had also reaffirmed its support for the Geneva-based investigative team. With that, he added, the Secretary-General’s next step would be to select three of the best qualified people from a list of potential investigators that he and his staff had been studying, and send them into the field as quickly as possible. On Cambodia, Mr. Eckhard read the following statement:

144 • 8 July 1997

“The Secretary-General is gravely concerned about the recent events in Cambodia, where fighting broke out over the weekend. He deeply regrets the loss of life that has ensued, including that of the daughter of the United Nations Security Unit Radio Operator. He was dismayed to learn today of the death in custody of Hor Sok, co-Secretary of State for the Interior Ministry. Security of members of the Legislative Assembly must be guaranteed so that democratic processes can resume. He calls on both First Prime Minister Ranariddh and Second Prime Minister Hun Sen to resolve the current political crisis through negotiations, in accordance with the Paris Agreements and the Cambodian Constitution. These documents, which are in force, state that ‘the Kingdom of Cambodia adopts a policy of liberal democracy and pluralism’. “The Secretary-General was gratified to note the earlier commitment of the coalition Government to hold national elections in May next year. The United Nations stands ready to coordinate international observers for those elections, as the Secretary-General was requested to do by the two Prime Ministers. The Secretary-General wishes to express in the strongest manner the vital importance of making every effort to ensure that these elections, the first to be held by the Cambodians themselves since the departure of the United Nations peace-keeping force in 1993, are free and fair.” (Press Release SG/SM/6281) . . . Mr. Eckhard said that the Cyprus talks would get under way unofficially this evening, at a dinner to be hosted by the Secretary-General for the leaders of the two communities. The Spokesman was seeking to release to correspondents the names of the other invitees. He said he understood that for the bus trip to the Troutbeck conference centre venue of the talks, 37 correspondents had signed up, but only 15 had paid so far. . . . A correspondent wanted to know when Cambodia First Prime Minister Ranariddh would meet with the Secretary-General on Thursday. Mr. Eckhard said that it had been agreed between the Cambodian Permanent Representative and the Secretary-General yesterday that Thursday would be mutually convenient; the Secretary-General expected to be consulting with Member States between now and then, concerning the options available to the United Nations, if any. He added that although he had seen press reports that he hoped to meet with the Security Council, he did not know whether the Council had made any arrangements yet. . . . A correspondent noted that the Secretary-

General had emphasized that his new human rights mission would not replace the Geneva mission, and then added: if it was going in to do the same assignment that the Geneva mission had been charged with, how could it not be seen as a replacement? Mr. Eckhard said that the Geneva mission had an ongoing mandate, and the Commission on Human Rights, when faced with unacceptable conditions by the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, found itself stymied. It had the option of redefining the mandate and the composition, but chose instead to pass the ball to the Secretary-General. “He is out to achieve the same objective, with a different cast of characters, and, as he sees it, they all have the same objective: to establish the truth.” Mr. Eckhard was also asked the exact role of Richard Holbrooke in the Cyprus talks, to which he explained that both the United Kingdom and the United States had expressed an interest last fall in putting fresh energy into the Cyprus talks. When the new Secretary-General was elected, there were some concrete decisions taken regarding how they would support a fresh effort by him. He had then named Diego Cordovez his Special Adviser to lead a new round of talks—which had now been scheduled beginning tomorrow—and those two countries each had named a high-level facilitator for the talks: Ambassador Holbrooke on the part of the United States, and Sir David Hannay, on the part of the United Kingdom. The feeling, he added, was that that would be a United Nations effort with strong support from Member States. Had the Democratic Republic of the Congo imposed conditions on the new mission? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said the Congo had agreed to the modalities of an investigative mission with the advance party from Geneva. The joint communique stated there were only two elements that could not be agreed upon: the composition of the team and the time-frame. Once those were resolved through the creation of a new mission by the Secretary-General, the rest was in place. . . .

9 July 1997 Secretary-General Proposes Leaders of Cypriot Communities Begin Process of Negotiations

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6282); Cyprus Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the opening of the Cyprus talks, at the Troutbeck Conference Centre in New York.

9 July 1997 • 145 Welcome to these important talks. This is a setting of great beauty and serenity. It is a place where, I am sure, cool minds and clear heads will prevail. The generosity of the Government of Norway has made this meeting possible. On behalf of the United Nations, I express our deep gratitude to the Norwegians for this characteristic gesture in support of international peace and stability. I invited the leaders of the Cypriot communities to meet here for face-to-face talks because I believe that a lasting peace in Cyprus is now within our grasp. Great responsibilities, therefore, rest on the shoulders of the distinguished leaders of the two Cypriot communities. I am very glad they have come. I bid them a warm welcome here today. In preparing for this meeting, I was reminded that the very first intercommunal talks were held 29 years ago, at the home of the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Cyprus. On the Greek Cypriot side, the talks were led by the President of the Cypriot House of Representatives. On the Turkish Cypriot side, the talks were led by the President of the Turkish Cypriot Communal Chamber. Those are the same leaders who have joined us today. That is a remarkable record. It is, in both cases, a record of a lifetime’s work of service and leadership. Today, their knowledge of the situation is unrivalled. Their authority with their respective communities is undimmed. I believe that strong leaders make the best peacemakers. That thought strengthens my conviction that there are grounds for hope in the process that lies ahead. The search for a peaceful solution to the Cyprus problem has dragged on for too long. For 33 years and four months, the United Nations has toiled, so far in vain, to bring about an agreed settlement. There have been dozens of Security Council resolutions. Four Secretaries-General have worked hard to implement the Council’s mandate. One wrote that this issue took up more of his time and attention than any other during his 10 years in office. He called Cyprus the “orphan child of the United Nations”. A total of 13 Special Representatives has striven to help the parties resolve their differences. But while the search for peace in Cyprus has not, so far, been successful, neither has it been fruitless.

The United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), originally set up for a period of three months, is still in existence. The UNFICYP has held the line, worked to reduce tension and has promoted intercommunal activities. The work of UNFICYP has been invaluable in reducing tension and containing the conflict. It has not been cost-free. The UNFICYP currently costs $50 million a year. One hundred sixty-eight United Nations peace-keepers have paid the supreme price for peace on Cyprus. In the seemingly endless talks, some fruitful elements emerged. There were important advances that clarified the issues and that provided a starting-point for our work today. A further factor is that, today, international backing for a solution to the Cyprus issue is firmer than ever. The support of the Security Council has been unequivocal. This meeting itself—and the presence of special envoys from so many countries—is proof of the high priority the international community attaches to the search for a viable and comprehensive solution. Let us, therefore, press forward, in a positive spirit, in search of our common goal, a viable and comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem. This afternoon Diego Cordovez will share with you on my behalf a number of suggestions. They are intended to facilitate your work during these direct talks. I hope they will assist you in organizing your future endeavours. If you agree with these suggestions, you will be sending a strong and unmistakable signal to the international community. You will be signalling your commitment and determination to reach a comprehensive settlement—for which the people of Cyprus have been waiting for too long. For many years, you have engaged in discussions about the issues that you have identified as the most crucial. Those discussions were based on concepts and approaches that successive Secretaries-General put forward in accordance with Security Council resolutions. Past efforts remain valuable and significant. That is because—as I said on assuming my present functions—the elements needed to work out a settlement are, as a result, at hand. I strongly believe that what is needed now is to explore, without further delay, specific and concrete solutions to each of those issues, and to do so in their proper context. This can be achieved only if you begin consideration of the actual documents and legal instruments that will constitute the comprehensive settlement.

146 • 9 July 1997

I therefore propose that you enter upon a process—let me repeat, a process—of negotiations, leading to the incremental construction of the juridical framework within which the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot communities will forge a new partnership. I am convinced that if you do so you will be able to promote an increasingly fruitful convergence of views and positions, in a process which will acquire its own momentum—and thus produce the kind of consensual trade-offs that a negotiation necessarily involves. I am equally convinced that, as soon as the negotiation process is under way, you will find that it is the most practical way of formulating texts that are mutually acceptable, and for that reason effective and durable. The fact that the process will be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations will add another dimension. It will ensure that the principles of the Charter will inspire all the good offices efforts of the Secretary-General; will guide your deliberations; and underlie all the understandings that you will reach. My aim is not to have to report, yet again, to the Security Council about another opportunity missed. No one underestimates the immensity of the tasks before you. But the international community has repeatedly expressed its confidence in your ability to craft new constitutional and institutional structures—structures to allow the people of both Cypriot communities to live together in peace. I share that hope, and that trust. The considerations for a new approach to negotiations that will be placed before you have been formulated in that spirit. There is a further point. For the negotiations to proceed in an atmosphere of mutual confidence, I believe that both sides should refrain from making any public statements. I trust, therefore, that our friends in the media will understand when I say that there will be no press statements or interviews until this round of negotiations is over. It would be untrue to say that the world is watching the events in Troutbeck this week. But there are many who recognize that the present situation in Cyprus offers no recipe for peace, security and healthy economic development in the future. On the contrary, young people on the island are growing up under an ever-present cloud of uncertainty and potential instability. For their sake, this cannot continue. There is a sense of greater urgency, more of a consensus

than ever that this dispute must be brought to an end. The consequences of failure are likely to be more dire than at any time in recent decades. By reaching agreement, the Cypriot communities will not only earn the respect and gratitude of the international community. They will also earn its profound relief at the removal of a potential flashpoint from international relations in the eastern Mediterranean and, most important, provide a prosperous and peaceful future for all Cypriots.

10 July 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Cambodia ... Turning to the Secretary-General’s appointments for today, Mr. Eckhard noted that the SecretaryGeneral would meet with Prince Norodom Ranariddh, the First Prime Minister of Cambodia at 4:45 p.m.; correspondents would have a chance to talk to him at 2:30 p.m. at a press conference in room 226. Prince Ranariddh had met with the President of the Security Council at 9:45 a.m. and the President of the General Assembly at 11:30 a.m. The Secretary-General would also meet with Karaha Bizima, the Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mr. Eckhard said. They would discuss the situation in CongoKinshasa, and presumably also international relief efforts. The Secretary-General would also be raising with him the question of the human rights investigative mission. In a telephone conversation he had had with the Foreign Minister from Washington, D.C., yesterday, the SecretaryGeneral received reassurances that the Congolese Government was prepared to cooperate with the human rights investigative mission. Mr. Eckhard said that four Foreign Ministers of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) were at Headquarters today and would meet with the Secretary-General at 12:30 p.m. on the subject of Sierra Leone. The Foreign Ministers were also expected to meet with members of the Security Council under the Arria formula at 3:30 p.m. When the location of the meeting was certain, the Spokesman would let correspondents know. [The Arria formula is a very informal consultation process initiated by Diego Arria of Venezuela, which affords members of the Security Council the opportunity to hear persons in a confidential, informal setting. These meetings

14 July 1997 • 147 are presided over by a member of the Council as service facilitator for the discussion and not by the President of the Council.] In addition, the Members of the Historical Clarification Commission in Guatemala would meet with the Secretary-General at 3:30 p.m. The Commission was established under the Guatemala Peace Accords with the aim of investigating and clarifying human rights abuses committed throughout the 35-year conflict; it had a mandate of six months, renewable for another six. The Spokesman also told correspondents that the Secretary-General would be consulting with delegations on Cambodia throughout today, leading up to his meeting with Prince Ranariddh later in the day. The Secretary-General continued to follow the situation in that country with considerable concern, Mr. Eckhard said. He had continued to receive information from Phnom Penh. The representative of the Secretary-General remained blocked in Bangkok, but there was a United Nations international staff at the office in Phnom Penh. That office had continued to function, he added. Mr. Eckhard said that members of the Security Council had been briefed by the Secretariat earlier this week, the third time since March that the Secretariat had briefed the Security Council on Cambodia. Under the Paris Agreements of 1991, the non-Cambodian signatories undertook to consult with a view to adopting all appropriate steps in case of violation of the accord. The Secretary-General had been consulting a number of interested States over the last few days; in that connection, he was pleased to note that there were initiatives afoot by Member States or groups of States. In particular, he had been informed of decisions taken earlier today by the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), including deferring the consideration of Cambodia as a member of ASEAN. The organization had also decided to send two Foreign Ministers, from Indonesia and the Philippines, to Beijing to meet with King Norodom Sihanouk. Discussions were taking place among some members of the Security Council as well concerning a possible presidential statement. . . .

11 July 1997

A letter to Ambassador Kamal, permanent representative of Pakistan to the UN, follows. To: Mr. Bernard Ho From: Shashi Tharoor (Executive Assistant to the Secretary-General) Dear Mr. Ho, I am writing in reply to your letter of 23 June 1997 to the Secretary-General concerning the global computer year 2000 problem. The Secretary-General, I regret to say, is not himself on e-mail and has not received your earlier messages. The Secretary-General appreciates your concern and fully shares your view that this is a global matter, which cannot be ignored by any Government, organization or enterprise. The United Nations, in fact, has begun to take action as regards its own computer systems. In addition, the matter has been put on the agenda of the ECOSOC Working Group on Informatics, which in turn is considering whether it should be dealt with by the General Assembly. There are many who feel, like you, that all Governments should be addressing this problem now and therefore have turned to the United Nations, as a global forum, in an effort to galvanize timely action. I have copied the article you attached to the Chairman of the Working Group on Informatics, Ambassador Ahmad Kamal, who is coordinating a possible international response to the problem. * * * 11 July 1997 Dear Mr. Ambassador [Mr. Ahmad Kamal, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations], I am writing to express my appreciation for your prompt action on the year 2000 problem. I look forward to following the deliberations of the Working Group on Informatics and will be sure to let you know of any further developments from our side. You may be interested in the attached article, which was forwarded to the Secretary-General by a Mr. Bernard Ho. Please accept, Mr. Ambassador, the assurances of my highest consideration. Shashi Tharoor

Letter (UN archives); computers/Y2K This letter is in response to a letter from Mr. Bernard Ho of Toronto, Canada, alerting the UN to the global computer issue of dating files and documents by using only two digits for the year, possibly resulting in computer failures when the year 2000 is reached.

14 July 1997 Report by the Secretary-General on UN Reform

Report to the General Assembly (GA, A/51/950); UN reform

148 • 14 July 1997

The following are excerpts from a report by the Secretary-General that constitute a major plan for UN reform. Included here are highlights of the report, the introduction, and annexes on specific points of the reform plan. Fifty-first session Agenda item 168 United Nations reform: measures and proposals RENEWING THE UNITED NATIONS: A PROGRAMME FOR REFORM

Highlights

The measures and proposals set out in the present report encompass the reform programme undertaken by the Secretary-General during his first six months in office. It constitutes an extensive and far-reaching set of changes that will move the Organization firmly along the road to major and fundamental reform designed to achieve greater unity of purpose, coherence of effort and flexibility in response. Some measures have already been implemented; others will take more time; and many require decisions by Member States. Reform is, after all, a continuing process not a single event. The actions and recommendations focus primarily on the following priority areas: • Establishment of a new leadership and management structure that will strengthen the capacity of the Secretary-General to provide the leadership and ensure the accountability that the Organization requires. Through: • The establishment of the position of Deputy Secretary-General; • The establishment of a Senior Management Group; • Further development and strengthening of the Executive Committees of the sectoral groups established by the Secretary-General in January 1997 which include all the departments, funds and programmes of the United Nations; • Decentralization of decision-making at the country level and consolidation of the United Nations presence under “one flag”; • Establishment of a Strategic Planning Unit. • Assuring financial solvency through the establishment of a Revolving Credit Fund of up to $1 billion, financed from voluntary contributions or other means Member States may wish to suggest, pending a lasting solution of the Organization’s financial situation.

• Integration of twelve Secretariat entities and units into five, and proposed consolidation of five intergovernmental bodies into two. • A changed management culture accompanied by management and efficiency measures, which will eliminate at least 1,000 staff posts, reduce administrative costs by one third, improve performance and effect additional savings in terms of personnel and costs over time. • Instituting a thorough overhaul of human resources policies and practices to ensure that all staff have the necessary skills and enjoy the requisite conditions for effective service. • Promoting sustained and sustainable development as a central priority of the United Nations through: • The grouping of United Nations funds and programmes with development operations into a United Nations Development Group, which will facilitate consolidation and cooperation amongst them without compromising their distinctiveness or identity; • Proposing a “development dividend” to shift resources from adrninistration to development activities; • The establishment of a new Office of Development Financing with the Deputy Secretary-General taking the lead in initiating innovative means of mobilizing new financial resources for development; • Proposals for burden-sharing and greater predictability through multi-year negotiated and voluntary pledges for the financing of United Nations development operations; • Strengthening the environmental dimension of the United Nations activities, particularly UNEP. • Strengthening and focusing the normative, policy and knowledge-related functions of the Secretariat and its capacity to serve the United Nations intergovernmental bodies through the establishment of a consolidated Economic and Social Affairs sectoral group. • Improving the Organization’s ability to deploy peacekeeping and other field operations more rapidly, including by enhancing the rapid reaction capacity of the United Nations. • Strengthening the United Nations capacity for post-conflict peace-building with the designation of the Department of Political Affairs as a focal point for this purpose. • Bolstering international efforts to combat crime, drugs and terrorism by consolidating United Nations programmes and activities in

14 July 1997 • 149 Vienna under an Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention. • Extending human rights activities by reorganizing and restructuring the human rights secretariat and the integration of human rights into all principal United Nations activities and programmes. • Advancing the disarmament agenda by establishing a Department for Disarmament and Arms Regulation to address reduction of armaments and weapons of mass destruction and regulation of armaments. • Enhancing response to humanitarian needs by setting up a new Emergency Relief Coordination Office to replace the Department of Humanitarian Affairs and focusing its capacities to deal more effectively with complex emergencies. • Effecting a major shift in the public information and communications strategy and functions of the United Nations to meet the changing needs of the Organization. • Addressing the need for more fundamental change through recommendations by the Secretary-General to Member States that they consider: • Refocusing the work of the General Assembly on issues of highest priority and reducing the length of the Assembly sessions; • The establishment of a ministerial-level commission to examine the need for fundamental change through review of the Charter of the United Nations and the legal instruments from which the specialized agencies of the United Nations derive their constitutions; • Designation of the session of the General Assembly to be held in the year 2000 as “a Millennium Assembly” to focus on preparing the United Nations to meet the major challenges and needs of the world community in the twenty-first century, accompanied by a companion “People’s Assembly.” Part One: Overview I. Introduction

1. The United Nations is a noble experiment in human cooperation. In a world that remains divided by many and diverse interests and attributes, the United Nations strives to articulate an inclusive vision: community among nations, common humanity among peoples, the singularity of our only one Earth. Indeed, the historic mission of the United Nations is not merely to act upon, but also to expand the elements of common ground that

exist among nations—across space to touch and improve more lives and over time to convey to future generations the material and cultural heritage that we hold in trust for them. The Charter of the United Nations, drafted with the searing experience of history’s two most destructive wars fresh in mind, embraced each of these aspirations and provided institutional instruments for their pursuit. 2. Fifty-two years after the signing of the Charter, the world can celebrate numerous progressive changes in which the United Nations has played a significant part. The United Nations role in decolonization began almost instantly and remains one of its grandest achievements. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights soon celebrates its own fiftieth anniversary. United Nations peacekeepers have helped to stabilize regional disputes and its humanitarian missions have alleviated suffering throughout the world. The challenges faced by developing countries have been at the forefront of United Nations economic activities. 3. The smooth flow of international transactions is made possible by rules of the road devised by the United Nations and its agencies. The world’s people are healthier and lead longer and more productive lives thanks to the eradication of diseases, the improvement of nutritional standards, the promotion of agricultural development, the campaigns for literacy and the advocacy of the rights of women and children in which United Nations organizations have featured prominently. And the United Nations has no peer among international organizations in identifying novel issues on the policy horizon and devising plans of action for dealing with them, including the environment, social development questions and such uncivil elements in global civil society as drug-trafficking, transnational criminal networks and terrorism. 4. At the same time, there remains a sizeable gap between aspiration and accomplishment. Despite the unprecedented prosperity that technological advances and the globalization of production and finance have brought to many countries, neither Governments, nor the United Nations, nor the private sector have found the key to eradicating the persistent poverty that grips the majority of humankind. Indeed, imbalances in the world economy today pose serious challenges to future international stability: imbalances in the distribution of wealth, between the forces driving economic integration and political fragmentation, between humanity's impact on, and the capacities of, planetary life-support systems.

150 • 14 July 1997

5. Moreover, disintegrative forces, abetted by inequities and intolerance, continue to tear nations and peoples apart, while virulent conflicts, fuelled by prejudice, deprivation and sometimes outright anarchy, defy both national borders and international norms. Such instabilities have spurred an enormous proliferation of ever-more lethal weapons and growing humanitarian crisis. Massive violations of human rights continue to be committed and large numbers of people continue to be killed for no reason other than their identity or beliefs. The ranks of refugees and displaced people—largely innocent victims caught up in political upheavals of historic proportions—have swelled to over 25 million. 6. The fundamental objective of this reform effort is to narrow the gap between aspiration and accomplishment. It seeks to do so by establishing a new leadership culture and management structure at the United Nations that will lead to greater unity of purpose, coherence of efforts and agility in responding to the pressing needs of the international community. Reforming the machinery of the United Nations is no substitute for the willingness of Governments to use the Organization, nor can it, by itself, bridge the very real differences in interests and power that exist among Member States. What it can achieve is to maximize the institutional effectiveness of the United Nations, thereby enabling it to do better what it is asked to do and, consequently, to advocate and undertake with credibility its larger mission as an agency of progressive change for the world's nations and peoples alike. 7. This effort requires a frank assessment of the United Nations major institutional strengths and weaknesses, coupled with a clear understanding of the institutional context in which the United Nations will operate in the years ahead. Institutional strengths and weaknesses

8. The greatest source of strength enjoyed by the United Nations stems from its universality of membership and the comprehensive scope of its mandate. And the most encompassing manifestation of this strength is in the normative realm. Norms that approach universality form a principled basis on which to assess and guide practice within the community of nations. Such norms have not only a moral import; they also provide the institutional underpinnings of daily life within the international community: expectations as to rights and obligations, the mutual predictability of behaviour offered by the rule of law, the specification of best practices, a nearly endless array

of standards, without which the conduct of routine international transactions would be inconceivable. 9. Its universal character and comprehensive mandate make the United Nations a unique and indispensable forum for Governments to identify emerging global issues, to negotiate and validate common approaches to them, and to mobilize energies and resources for implementing agreed actions. The convening power of the United Nations has produced impressive results in a great variety of fields, including trade and development, environment, human rights, the progressive development and codification of international law, gender equality and population, as well as in peace and security and disarmament. 10. Moreover, in some key areas, such as development cooperation, the United Nations normative capacity is linked directly to assisting national policy and is further supported by its own operational activities. Only the United Nations has expertise across virtually the entire range of development concerns, including their social, economic and political dimensions. And only the United Nations has the potential to provide support across the spectrum from humanitarian relief or peacekeeping to development activities. 11. At the same time, the United Nations operational capacities and programme ambitions cannot possibly fully match the enormous breadth of its deliberative agenda. In some areas, operational mandates have outstripped the Organization’s resources provided by its Member States, leaving an unbridgeable gap between needs and expectations, on the one hand, and delivery, on the other. And in other instances the United Nations is simply not well suited to carry out operations. 12. The major source of institutional weakness in the United Nations is the fact that over the course of the past half century certain of its organizational features have tended to become fragmented, duplicative and rigid, in some areas ineffective, in others superfluous. The cold war and its concomitant system of bloc politics made it extremely difficult and in some cases impossible for the Organization to implement the Charter conceptions of its many roles, especially in the area of peace and security. Indeed, they affected the functioning of the entirety of the United Nations, from programme priorities to organizational modalities and personnel management. 13. Although the United Nations was able, despite this inhospitable setting, to launch numerous new initiatives throughout the cold war years,

14 July 1997 • 151 all too often they were simply layered onto previous activities rather than being effectively integrated in them, or replacing outright tasks that had become outdated. Even previous efforts to reform the functioning of the United Nations were constrained by these same forces. More often than not, they produced parallel mechanisms or created additional bodies that were intended to coordinate, rather than instituting effective management structures. 14. Once the cold war ended, the United Nations rushed, and was pushed, to respond to a vast increase in demand for its services. The Organization began to aid transitions to democracy, national reconciliation and market reforms. It was called upon to provide unprecedented levels of humanitarian assistance. The United Nations peacekeeping mechanism for a time became the international community’s emergency services, fire brigade, gendarmerie and military deterrent, even in instances where there was no peace to be kept. Mistakes were made along the way—in many cases because the means given to the Organization did not match the demands made upon it. 15. Now that the frenzy of the immediate postcold war years has passed, the United Nations can, and must, step back to reassess which are the most effective means to realize its enduring goals. The fundamental challenge is to fashion a leadership and management structure that will result in a better focused, more coherent, more responsive and more cost-effective United Nations. The institutional context

16. The geopolitical landscape within which the United Nations functions continues to undergo major shifts. Over the course of the next generation, a majority of the world’s most rapidly growing economies will be located in what is now the developing world, accelerating a trajectory that has been building steadily. At the same time, many of the least developed countries, particularly those of sub-Saharan Africa, risk being bypassed by this process of economic expansion and transformation and require increased levels and diverse forms of external assistance. The United Nations must be fully prepared to respond to the diverse needs and challenges arising from these patterns of change. 17. Another long-term change that affects the functioning of the United Nations is the degree to which policy issues have become, or are now better understood to be, intersectoral or trans-sectoral in character. Development was one of the first major areas of policy concern to challenge this traditional pattern systematically, followed by the

environment. For the United Nations, the challenge has become pervasive: sustainable development, post-conflict peace-building, emergency relief operations, the link between humanitarian assistance and development cooperation—these and many other new United Nations policy concerns cut across both sectoral and institutional boundaries. 18. The implications of this change for the United Nations are clear: future success hinges on its ability to achieve a unity of purpose among its diverse departments, funds and programmes, enabling it to act coherently and deploy its resources strategically. In addition, alliances and partnerships with the specialized agencies and other organizations must become part of normal organizational routine. 19. In addition, the pace of change has been accelerating. Scientific advances move from the laboratory into factories and farms, homes and hospitals, more rapidly than ever before. Growing pools of investment capital and increased capital mobility are redrawing the maps of economic geography at historically unprecedented rates. Successive waves of innovations in information technology quickly render state-of-the-art products and techniques obsolete. Round-the-clock news coverage and the Internet are creating realtime global sensibilities. And as a result of the knowledge revolution generally, policy makers and concerned publics know more about the possible ways in which today's actions or inactions might shape the state of things to come, in some measure eroding the distinction between present and future for policy purposes. This radically transformed temporal context of policy-making puts a premium on agility and flexibility of any organization that operates within it. The United Nations is no exception. 20. Finally, the institutional context in which all international organizations now operate is so much more densely populated by other international actors, both public and private, than it was in the past. In the case of the United Nations, when the first General Assembly’s 51 Members convened at Lake Success in 1946, the Bretton Woods institutions were barely functioning. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade did not yet exist. Few regional organizations were in place. Most Governments maintained currency exchange controls and trade restrictions, minimizing the flow of international economic transactions. With such notable exceptions as the International Committee of the Red Cross, international non-governmental

152 • 14 July 1997

organizations typically were umbrella associations of national professional societies. 21. Today, United Nations Members number 185, and intergovernmental organizations at all levels number in the thousands. The resources of several of these organizations far exceed those of the United Nations. Moreover, the expanding transnational network of non-governmental organizations encompasses virtually every sector of public concern, from the environment and human rights to the provision of micro-credit and is active at virtually every level of social organization, from villages all the way to global summits. And the private sector continues to expand transnationally. International financial flows tower over world trade by a ratio of 60:1, while trade itself continues to outpace annual increases in world gross domestic product by approximately 5 per cent. Private foreign investment to developing countries, which has been rapidly increasing, now exceeds steadily declining official transfers to those countries by some $200 billion per annum. 22. The implications of these developments for the United Nations are twofold. First, future success demands that the United Nations focus, within its overall Charter mission, on those activities, or on those aspects of activities, that it does better than others. Second, success requires that the United Nations devise effective means by which to collaborate with other international organizations and institutions of civil society, thereby amplifying the impact of its own moral, institutional and material resources. 23. In sum, the very organizational features that are now most demanded by the United Nations external context in some respects are in shortest supply: strategic deployment of resources, unity of purpose, coherence of effort, agility and flexibility. The current reform effort aims at redressing this imbalance and setting the United Nations on a course of revitalization for the twenty-first century. A programme of reform

24. The institutional reforms outlined in the present report consist of three types of measures. The first are those that the Secretary-General can and will undertake on his own initiative, largely concerning the organization and management of the Secretariat programmes and funds. The second are complementary measures that reside within the jurisdiction of Member States, including the structure and functioning of intergovernmental bodies, which require their approval. Finally, several more fundamental proposals are advanced for serious

consideration and deliberation and possible action in the longer term. 25. Reform is not an event; it is a process. And the process will not end with the present report. The proposals contained herein, therefore, are important not only for the specific ways in which they will produce a stronger, more resilient and more flexible United Nations now, but also for the general direction their implementation will impart to the future evolution of the Organization. The coming century promises to be a time of yet deeper and more rapid global change. The United Nations must be ready. . . . Annex I: Example of Ongoing Managerial Reforms Peace and Security

Improving analytical capacity: In order to respond better to complex political issues on the ground, the Department of Political Affairs is developing a comprehensive training programme in peace negotiations, which will be combined with enhanced field tours for Headquarters-based staff. In order to improve political analysis, new mechanisms are being developed to harness critical information on situations and facilitate linkages. Enhancing management capability in the field: Delegation of management responsibility to the field is reducing duplication, increasing responsiveness and improving staff morale: • Field administration and logistic support for political offices and electoral assistance missions are being streamlined, including a mechanism for the provision of common services. • A comprehensive Field Mission Logistics System, including asset management and movement control, will be installed at Headquarters and 16 field missions. During 1998, transport, engineering and communications logistics modules will be completed. • By 1998, an improved financial management system will eliminate manual processes and improve the quality of data, financial planning and budgetary forecasts for peacekeeping operations. • Delegation for local property survey boards, claims review boards and local committees on contracts has been increased, and further financial delegations are planned in 1997. • Contingent-owned equipment and standard cost manuals and an operational support handbook are now available electronically to support field managers without constant reference to Headquarters. Improving preparedness: The success of

14 July 1997 • 153 peacekeeping operations on the ground can be greatly enhanced if military and civilian participants are thoroughly prepared in advance. The United Nations is undertaking a variety of activities designed to improve preparedness, for example: • The Department of Peacekeeping Operations has conducted seminars in Brazil and Ghana for 26 countries to train Member States’ military, civilian and police instructors, who will in turn train potential participants in peacekeeping operations. • Personnel from 12 nations have trained at the United Nations Staff College in a training exercise designed to enhance the preparedness of individuals and units participating in peacekeeping operations. • A peacekeeping exercise in El Salvador helped to in 475 personnel from 11 countries [sic]. • Two mission start-up kits, able to support 100 people for 90 days, are being stocked. Streamlining support for the field: The provision of the right equipment, in the right place at the right time is critical to the effectiveness and success of the troops on the ground: • Standardization of the vehicle fleet and central procurement of repair parts will reduce costs significantly. • The introduction of charter flights to transport police monitors will save over $1 million in 1997. • Streamlining the medical supplies system will save $1 to 2 million a year. • New air support contracts will maximize fleet use, streamline support requirements and produce savings of around $800,000 a year. Improving communications in the field: Information technology is being used to improve and speed up communication with the field: • Field missions are now linked to United Nations Headquarters and to each other through VSAT, providing more capacity at less cost than commercial telephone lines and allowing low-cost inter-mission dialling. • A strategic peacekeeping database, building on IMIS, provides management information and produces standardized financial and other management reports to field missions. Available to 28 Member States, it will be extended to all field missions and all interested Member States over the next two years. • Managers tracking the oil-for-food programme are using an integrated inspection and

management system to oversee shipments of food and medicine, developed by staff in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. • A procurement management and tracking system, based on Lotus Notes and linked to IMIS, has been developed and introduced in Angola, the former Yugoslavia and 12 other missions, with the remainder to be completed this year. Economic and Social Affairs

Managing for results: Economic and social departments are developing improved ways of managing their work programmes to ensure that they correspond with Member States' requirements. For example: • In intensive consultation with Member States, the Economic Commission for Europe streamlined its work programme, cut programme elements from 268 to 105 and reduced the subsidiary bodies by half. • The Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) has worked with Member States to reduce the number of subprogrammes and achieve more than $600,000 in savings, while focusing on outputs with a greater impact and holding fewer, more goal-oriented meetings. Reducing the Headquarters overhead: Focusing on priorities and results is leading to a concerted effort to maximize resources devoted to programme work and reduce the “Headquarters overhead”. For example: • Rationalizing the three economic and social departments in New York to form the Department of Economic and Social Affairs will enhance capacity and reduce some 25 administrative posts. • ECA is decentralizing activities and redeploying about 25 per cent of its staff to subregional Development Centres, located throughout the African continent. • UNCHS [UN Centre for Human Settlements] will decentralize operations and establish Habitat offices in Latin America and Asia. Outsourcing: The drive to reduce costs is paying dividends, in terms of both money and improved performance. • ECA and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) are planning to outsource some of their professional work in order to achieve more flexibility in implementing work programmes and to draw on expertise that is not required full-time. • Other commissions are outsourcing such

154 • 14 July 1997

activities as computer installation and maintenance, security, cleaning, electrical technicians and messengers and realizing substantial savings. Information technology is speeding up and improving the quality of substantive information and services: • The Department of Economic and Social Affairs’ United Nations-wide web site is linked to national official web sites, and gives delegates easy access to economic and social information and documents. ECLAC is effectively creating an electronic office, linking staff across Latin America and the Caribbean by electronic mail; providing an electronic filing system, and realizing significant savings in staff and money. ECLAC is also cooperating with the United Nations Office at Vienna to do translation on a remote basis, saving staff and travel costs, and making better use of translation services in both locations. • ECA is computerizing its library, has installed a web site and is developing a local area network. ECA has estimated $87,000 in savings on the use of facsimile, telex and telephone and achieved more impact-making economic and social information available. • UNCTAD improved conference servicing using on-line registration, on-line group drafting and retrieval of General Assembly and UNCTAD resolutions, resulting in shorter meetings and better service to participants. • UNCHS has improved the service to Member States, providing documents faster by electronic mail and posting official documents on the UNCHS web site. • Software used by countries to facilitate drug control reporting has been successfully outsourced to an external provider by UNDCP. • UNDCP has shifted to electronic distribution of documents, providing Commission on Narcotic Drugs, technical information papers and other documents entirely via Internet. Increasing delegation and accountability: Basic to management reform is the concept that performance improves when people closest to the work have managerial authority and responsibility, together with accountability. ECLAC, with Member States’ support, is preparing a pilot scheme to put this concept into practice, giving managers greater authority and flexibility with respect to human and financial resources, while making them accountable for achieving specific targets for the content, quality and volume of outputs. Good environmental housekeeping: This con-

cept is being promoted within the United Nations. For example, UNEP has expanded environmentfriendly and cost-saving measures, including recycling half of the water used in the Nairobi compound, using timers on corridor lights, recycling paper and establishing an ozone phase-out programme. The United Nations Development Group

Shifting staff and authority to country level: The focus of development organizations is their country programmes, and a major shift is now taking place to give country offices more authority and responsibility: • UNDP has delegated to its resident representatives full programming authority within approved country cooperation frameworks, has reduced headquarters staff by 31 per cent and is redeploying an additional 25 per cent of headquarters Professionals to country offices. • UNICEF country representatives are now fully responsible for managing and delivering their country programmes, and have authority for preparing and disbursing the annual programme budget within a framework set by the Executive Board; UNICEF headquarters role is shifting from oversight and control to leadership and global strategy, resulting in a streamlining of headquarters divisions from 19 to 15 and a reduction in headquarters staff. • The United Nations Office for Project Services has deployed 25 per cent of its staff away from its New York headquarters in order to place them closer to their clients and has extensively delegated management authority to integrated clientbased teams, each led by a single manager. • UNFPA representatives in 14 countries have full decentralized approval authority, while representatives in all other countries have approval authority of $750,000 for country projects, up from $500,000 in 1993. Streamlining work processes: Delivering programmes more effectively on the ground is the prime aim of the development organizations of the United Nations. This means continually searching for ways to improve productivity and streamline administrative processes: • The re-engineering of UNICEF’s Copenhagen warehouse has reduced supply costs, cut cycle times and reduced inventory costs from $35 million to $22 million, while improving warehouse output and inventory levels. Staff costs have been reduced by $1.4 million.

14 July 1997 • 155 • UNDP is moving to an ex post accountability framework to shift oversight away from control of inputs to assessment of results and impact. UNDP is simplifying manuals and procedures to be more responsive to country needs. • Fully self-financing, the United Nations Office for Project Services services clients who are free to choose other suppliers and has introduced business planning for significant improvements in performance and processes. For example, procurement turnaround time is now five days, a reduction of more than 50 per cent. The Office has placed client needs at the centre of its management culture. Listening to clients and developing approaches that respond to their needs has helped to reinforce a subtle but strong service orientation among staff and contributed to a shift in organizational culture. • UNFPA established, in 1996, the Office of Oversight and Evaluation, an independent organizational unit that monitors the results and products of various oversight functions, including audits, policy application reviews and evaluations, as well as an internal review exercise with a view to optimizing existing human resources and adjusting staff structures to new and emerging priorities. Improving coordination: A coherent, consistent United Nations presence at the country level requires all the players to find better ways of working together to serve their clients better: • UNDP, UNICEF and UNFPA have harmonized their budget presentation; • The programming cycles of the Joint Consultative Group on Programming have been harmonized in 27 countries, with 45 more countries pledged to harmonize by 1999; • Common premises have been established with 3 or more United Nations development agencies in 35 countries and will be extended to 65 countries within 6 years. The ultimate goal is for all 4 development entities—UNDP, WFP, UNICEF and UNFPA—to operate from shared premises. Humanitarian Affairs

Shifting staff and authority to the field: In acute humanitarian crises, the quickest, most effective response is rapid action by highly skilled staff on the ground who make most of the decisions, backed up by a headquarters that understands their needs, can provide support in mobilizing the resources to meet them and interact with other actors (political, peacekeeping, human rights,

development) to ensure a coherent approach to crises. The Emergency Relief Coordinator, with the support of and in full consultation with members of the Inter-Agency Steering Committee, will implement a unitary system for the coordination of humanitarian assistance on the basis of the resident coordinator system. This would allow the rapid establishment of a coordination capacity in situ to provide a timely and coherent system-wide response. Shifting staff to the field: A fundamental shift of United Nations humanitarian staff, resources and decision-making power to the field is now under way. This involves: • Delegating authority and responsibility to managers in the field; • Streamlining and eliminating many processes and procedures to make field operations more flexible and responsive; • An expanded role for field offices in analysis, strategic planning, decision-making and the management of emergency responses; • A new structure and culture for Headquarters, whose central role will now be to support the field and mobilize resources. Human resources and career development: To support field coordination better, United Nations humanitarian organizations are making major changes in how they manage human resources, including: • Requiring staff to serve frequent tours in the field, where they exercise significant responsibility; • Introducing systematic performance appraisals, career management systems and frequent onthe-job training to help field staff to think more strategically, take greater responsibility, manage teams and stand accountable for allocating resources and achieving results; • Field experience is to become an important criterion for senior appointments; • UNHCR has initiated project “Delphi” to reengineer management, including human resource management, fundamentally. Strengthening rapid response mechanisms: The effectiveness of field staff depends on having material, services and information available quickly at the point of crisis. Rapid response mechanisms, such as the regional pre-positioning of foodstocks are already in place and more are being developed, including: • A global supply chain; • Standby service packages;

156 • 14 July 1997

• United Nations disaster assessment and coordination teams; • Access to Member States' civil defence, military and other assets. More innovations in areas such as warehousing emergency stocks, transport, logistics and emergency telecommunications would, almost certainly, pay handsome dividends. There may well be instances in which cost savings and increased efficiency could result through clear assignment of operational responsibility for specific sector or target group-related functions for the entire United Nations humanitarian community. Humanitarian early warning: Humanitarian disasters can be better mitigated, if not prevented, by effective early warning. The United Nations is significantly increasing its capacity to predict potential disasters through: • Sector-specific early warning systems in UNICEF, FAO and WFP; • A United Nations-wide humanitarian early warning system (HEWS) as well as ReliefWeb and interregional information networks. These systems must be strengthened and made mutually compatible and interoperable, so that systematic monitoring of political, economic, social, human rights and environmental indicators can, singly or together, give warning of a potential humanitarian crisis. Support Services

More cost-effective meeting services: • Remote translation is now used broadly by United Nations offices in New York, Santiago, Vienna and others to reduce travel costs and make better use of translation staff. • Off-site verbatim reporting is being tested and planned for expansion during the fifty-second session of the General Assembly with substantial savings in travel and other costs. • Expanded use is being made of local temporary staff to reduce cost of language services. • Videoconferencing as a tool for remote interpretation is being evaluated on a pilot basis in Vienna. • A standard package of information technology equipment is being installed in all conference rooms at headquarters in 1997. Creating an “electronic United Nations”: • All permanent missions in New York have been connected to the Internet and thus to United Nations documents via the web site and the optical

disk system, by 30 June 1997. Work stations have been installed in the Delegates’ Lounge. • The web site has been enhanced to include information on peace and security, international law, environment, the Cyber School Bus and UNI-QUE, a ready-reference file of the Dag Hammarskjöld Library. • 4,200 users and all servers at Headquarters have been supplied with standardized software via a centrally managed system, cutting down on distribution costs and reducing trouble calls. • Transition from cable and telex to electronic mail and facsimile under way at headquarters, to be completed in 1998. • Documentation is being reduced through a variety of steps, including voluntary reductions by Permanent Missions because of its availability in electronic form, shorter documents and cleaning of distribution lists. The projected decline in document production at New York Headquarters is 3,975,000 pounds of paper in 1997, down from 5,862,000 pounds in 1995, a 30 per cent decline. Outsourcing: • The United Nations Office at Vienna is outsourcing purchase and administration of office supplies, mailroom operations and some translation, editorial design and composition, as well as restructuring some contracts, for example saving $300,000 by restructuring the cleaning contract alone. • Maintenance services, computer maintenance, architectural and engineering functions are being outsourced at the United Nations Office at Geneva. Simplification of processes and procedures: • Electronic funds transfer in Geneva has reduced number of cheques issued by at least 33 per cent, and, together with other steps, is reducing processing time and saving more than $350,000. • Streamlined purchase of medical supplies with a blanket purchase order has eliminated delays in the purchase of emergency medical supplies and is now being applied to the purchase of vaccines and other items. • Streamlined submissions to the appointment and promotion bodies have already reduced paper by 25 per cent, with additional improvements anticipated. Achieving greater efficiency and effectiveness: • Consolidation of New York’s mainframe

16 July 1997 • 157 operations at the International Computing Centre in Geneva, saving an estimated $1.2 million per year, completed April 1997. • Business plan prepared for United Nations Postal Administration to expand sales of stamps, reduce costs and expand awareness and support for United Nations programmes and issues. Counter sales in New York up 50 per cent compared to 1996. • Energy-saving measures in New York Headquarters adjusting temperatures, using more energy-efficient equipment and alternate lighting is saving at least $150,000 in 1997. • Automation of security systems in Geneva is saving $1,197,000 in staff costs in the current biennium as well as overtime and other costs. • Communications costs are being reduced by $400,000 in the United Nations Office at Vienna. • Quality assurance and client consultation guidelines are being developed by the Office of Internal Oversight Services.

15 July 1997 Secretary-General Invites Morocco and Frente Polisario to Meet in London

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6283); Western Sahara Following the first round of direct talks in Lisbon between the Government of Morocco and the Frente POLISARIO, under the auspices of the Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy for Western Sahara, James A. Baker III, the two parties have been invited to meet in London on 19 and 20 July. As before, Algeria and Mauritania will attend as observers. The talks will again be convened under the auspices of the Personal Envoy, who will facilitate the work of the parties. The talks will still focus on implementation of the settlement plan or such adjustments to it as the parties may agree, and will continue for so long as they hold any promise of progress in Mr. Baker's opinion.

16 July 1997 Secretary-General Presents Reform Proposals to General Assembly

Presentation to the General Assembly (EOSG, SG/SM/6284/Rev.2, GA/9282/Rev.2); UN reform Text of the Secretary-General’s statement to the special meeting of the General Assembly on reform, held at UN headquarters. The original included some sections in French, which appear here translated into English.

I am pleased to submit to you today my report “Renewing the United Nations: a Programme for Reform”. The reforms I am proposing are bold reforms. They are the most extensive and far-reaching reforms in the 52-year history of our Organization. Their aim is simple. To transform the Organization. To bring greater unity of purpose, greater coherence of efforts, and greater agility in responding to an increasingly dynamic and complex world. The establishment of the United Nations was an act of extraordinary foresight and creativity. Our founders, meeting in the aftermath of the Second World War and at the dawn of the era of colonial liberation, designed an instrument of common progress unique in human history. In five decades, the United Nations has more than proved its worth. In its halls, virtually all nations and all peoples come together to discuss common agendas and to resolve common problems. The victims of aggression and of oppression come to the United Nations in search of justice, redress and relief. There have been great achievements. Colonialism and apartheid are no more. We have worked to foster, restore, and build peace in all corners of the globe. We have moved decisively in the promotion of social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. We have promoted democracy and international law as the pillars of peaceful relations among States. From air traffic control to the law of the sea, from the use of chemical weapons to the judging of war crimes, we have worked to establish clear norms and practices of international cooperation. Faith in fundamental human rights has never been stronger. We have championed the advancement of women, and brought relief and shelter to refugees. We have fought to ensure that the needs of children—the most vulnerable of all the world’s people—come first. Today, the world has at its service a United Nations with a proven record of achievement, and a Charter of enduring validity. The need for a common instrument of global service has never been greater. The global agenda has never been so varied, so pressing and so complex. Member States face a wide range of new and unprecedented threats and challenges. Many of them transcend borders. They are beyond the power of any single nation to address on its own. And I repeat, any single nation, no matter how powerful.

158 • 16 July 1997

The United Nations faces, therefore, unprecedented demands and opportunities. That is why an effective and efficient United Nations—a United Nations which is focused, coherent, responsive and cost-effective—is more needed than ever. When Member States turn to us—when they call on us to alleviate suffering and ensure peace—we must be ready. However, the United Nations is not working as it should. Our Organization has been slow to reflect changes in geopolitical realities. Where we should have been flexible and adaptable, we have, all too often, been bureaucratic. Where we should have reached across sectoral lines and institutional boundaries, we have stayed within rigid structures, working in isolation, with little or no coordination. Where we should have been empowering managers, we have not made optimum use of our resources, either human or financial. Where we should have been enabling the staff to fulfil their potential, we have shackled them with bureaucracy. We must liberate their skills and their capacities. Now is the time for reform. The Organization needs it. The Member States of the Organization want it. Indeed, they are showing the way for change at the United Nations by rethinking their practices and adapting their policies, seeking out new efficiencies and value for money. I was given the honour of being elected Secretary-General after 30 years of service at the United Nations—in administration and personnel, in peace-keeping, at Headquarters and in the field. If there is one thing that my experience has taught me, it is that an adequately funded and properly structured United Nations—this Organization of ours—can and will carry out its mission on behalf of the world’s peoples and governments. Since taking office, I have vigorously pursued the goal of bringing a culture of reform to the United Nations. Today, we take a momentous step forward. You now have before you a full programme of measures and recommendations for reforming and renewing the Organization. It encompasses all the reform measures and proposals initiated during my first six months in office. It takes us in many new directions as well. Allow me to review for you some of the highlights. For the United Nations to pursue our core objectives, for us to carry out the tasks with which

we are entrusted, we must first refine our leadership and our management. Accordingly, a Senior Management Group will be formed that will function like a cabinet and help lead the process of change. A Strategic Planning Unit will be established within my office to identify and analyse emerging global issues and trends. Four Executive Committees, which I established in January to guide the Organization in its principal areas of work, will be strengthened. I will also recommend to the General Assembly that the post of Deputy-Secretary-General be established. A Deputy-Secretary-General will assist me in leading this diverse and global Organization. The Deputy-Secretary-General will be in charge of the Secretariat during my absence from Headquarters, and will spearhead the Organization’s efforts to raise financing for development. The Deputy-Secretary-General will also ensure the coherence of the Organization’s crosssectoral activities. The United Nations also needs streamlining. My reforms accomplish this in several ways: • By proposing a no-growth budget. This will be the first time in a generation that there has been negative growth, in real terms, in the United Nations budget. • By eliminating 1,000 posts—a 25 per cent cut from a decade ago. • By reducing administrative costs by 33 per cent. These savings will be reallocated to development. • And by cutting back on documentation. By the end of this year we will have reduced our use of paper by 30 per cent. I also want to end the persistent state of nearbankruptcy in which the Organization has been living for far too long. Too many Member States are failing to discharge their treaty obligation to pay their contributions in full, on time and without preconditions. In response, I am proposing that Member States establish a Revolving Credit Fund, initially capitalized at a level of up to $1 billion through voluntary contributions or any other means that Member States may wish to suggest. Let me be clear: assuring the Organization’s financial viability is not only an essential part of reform, it is a condition for the very success of reform. Reform must enhance our ability to promote development and address the root causes of pover-

16 July 1997 • 159 ty and conflict. The grouping of United Nations funds and programmes engaged in development into a United Nations Development Group will foster consolidation and cooperation amongst them, without compromising their distinctiveness or identity. This idea will be carried through to the field level as well, where all United Nations entities will function under “one flag” in a single “United Nations House.” I am proud to announce that the first such designation, effective immediately, will apply to the United Nations presence in South Africa. Let us turn now to the question of financing for development. Put simply, we need more financial resources for development, whether from private sector or governmental sources. I am therefore creating an Office for Development Financing. Raising such funds requires a concerted and fulltime effort. My report also proposes a “Development Dividend” in order to shift resources from administration to economic and social activities. Our projections are that it would reach a level of at least $200 million by the year 2002. I am also proposing that a down payment be made in January 1998 from savings achieved from the current biennium’s budget. The programme of reform you have in your hands will affect virtually every department and every activity of the United Nations. It contains proposals for increasing the speed with which we can deploy peace-keeping and other field operations. It focuses on improving our capacity for peace-building, advancing the disarmament agenda, and strengthening the environmental dimension of United Nations activities. It proposes ways to combat the scourge of “uncivil society”—criminals, drug pushers and terrorists. It reorients our public information activities so that the world’s peoples better understand our goals, our role and our range of activities. It calls for simplified administrative procedures and for a thorough overhaul of human resources policies and practices. It advocates major restructuring in several areas, including economic and social affairs, human rights and humanitarian affairs. The advancement of human rights needs to be integrated into all principal United Nations activities and programmes. We need to deal more effectively with com-

plex humanitarian emergencies. Accordingly, a new Emergency Relief Coordination Office will be established to replace the Department of Humanitarian Affairs. The natural complement to these proposals would be certain changes of a more fundamental nature, which can be undertaken only by Member States. Several of these changes relate to the General Assembly. I have suggested that the General Assembly refocus its work on issues of highest priority and reduce the length of its sessions. I am proposing that the Assembly enact “sunset provisions”—specific time-limits—for initiatives involving new organizational structures or major commitments of funds. Perhaps most significantly, I urge this Assembly to consider adopting a new system of budgeting—a shift from input accounting to “results-based budgeting”. This approach, which many Member States already use at the national level, would give the Secretariat greater flexibility while maintaining strict accountability. Finally, I have recommended that Member States consider establishing a commission to study the need for fundamental change in the system at large—the specialized agencies which are essential members of the United Nations family. These are, in broad outline, the reforms that I am submitting for your consideration. I am confident of their soundness. I am convinced of their necessity and dedicated to their implementation. We stand at the threshold of a new beginning for the United Nations. Truly, we are at the start of a new era for the Organization. Poised for a new century, able to adapt to a changing world environment, and committed to the enduring values of its founding fathers, the United Nations will be capable of worthily fulfilling the objective it has set itself: the essential pursuit of the common good. The reforms I am proposing will enable the United Nations to do more, to do better. They will enable us to seize the new opportunities that are now before us. They will enable us to make the world Organization truly the expression of humanity’s conscience in the service of humanity. Our aspiration with this reform plan—simply and immediately—is to transform the conception, quality and delivery of the services we provide.

160 • 16 July 1997

That is what you and the world demand of us. No less do we demand of ourselves. This is my pledge to you, and to the world: that starting today, we begin a quiet revolution in the United Nations. In return I ask of you, and of the world, that you judge us not only by the cuts we propose or by the structures we change. Judge us instead—and judge us rightly—by the relief and the refuge that we provide to the poor, the hungry, the sick and the threatened—the peoples of the world whom the United Nations exists to serve. “The Earth is not ours”, an African proverb teaches us. “It is a treasure we hold in trust for future generations.” We today must ensure that we are worthy of that trust, and make the United Nations, once again, the instrument of its fulfilment. We can and we will lay a new foundation of peace, progress and development. This is the age of the United Nations. Unfettered by ideological conflict and empowered by technology and global prosperity, we can envision like never before the realization of our noble aims. We owe it to all succeeding generations that this moment of promise becomes a new beginning for all nations and peoples alike. There is a light at the end of our century’s dark and dangerous tunnel, and it is brightened by the hopes and dreams of all the world’s peoples. The United Nations remains the one, true and universal vessel of those dreams. Reinvigorated, reformed and re-committed, it can carry those dreams into the next millennium, and make them reality.

16 July 1997 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6285); UN reform SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think that when I first took over as Secretary-General, at one of the early press conferences, you asked me if, as an insider, I could reform the Organization, and I think my answer was an emphatic “yes.” Some of you believed me, others did not, and some took it on faith. I thank you all, particularly those who took it on faith. I think today we have some answers, and you can judge our record. We have a record to talk about. The first time I did not, and you really did not know how to assess my statement that we can reform. You heard my speech in the General Assembly earlier today, and you have seen the report and, I believe, also the press release. Today, we are

launching a quiet revolution at the United Nations, and, as I said, we want to make the United Nations “reform-friendly,” we want to accept change as an ongoing process, and I am pleased to say that I have had the support of the staff and the Member States and individuals within and without who have done serious work on the United Nations. My reforms are intended to create a United Nations that embodies unity of purpose, coherence of efforts and the agility and ability to meet the mounting challenges of the nations and peoples of the world; a United Nations that is leaner and more cost-effective; a United Nations that is committed to solvency, that is better coordinated and more accountable; a United Nations staff that is committed to excellence while serving the world with pride; and a United Nations that is positioned to take on the new challenges and the global challenges as we move into the twenty-first century. As you have heard me this morning, I do not think I should make a long speech. I will take your questions now. RAGHIDA DERGHAM, President of the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA): Thank you for making time to meet with the United Nations Correspondents Association. You have probably not had a great deal of feedback yet from the Member States, but some are saying that there is “not too much beef” in this, that there is a lot of layering—once again layering the United Nations rather than restructuring and reforming— and that the “quiet revolution,” as you call it, from our point of view here in the press, has really not touched the media in relation to information as a priority in the new culture of the United Nations. How do you respond to this? S-G: Let me say that, when one looks at the report and looks at it carefully, there is no layering: we are restructuring the way this place is run, and grouping our key efforts around the four key areas—the four core activities—and if you add human rights, it is five. We are requiring the managers in those sectors to come together, to work together, to pool their efforts, to have greater impact on the ground. We are, for the first time in this Organization, offering a management group that will work like a cabinet. It is something we have never had before. I am suggesting that an organization that is global and diverse, that has so many activities going, needs a Deputy Secretary-General. This is an issue we have discussed for 50 years, and I am glad we are doing it. I do not think that is layering. I think the proposals are bold, but they are not

16 July 1997 • 161 suicidal. This is an exercise that required a keen sense of judgement, timing and understanding of the Organization, understanding of how the place works, and understanding of how one can get reforms done in the United Nations. I consider it bold; others may not. But when you take the package together and you analyse it and read the document simply and sincerely, you cannot help but agree with me that it is ambitious, it is far-reaching, and it is perhaps the most extensive reform proposal this Organization has ever gone through. When somebody asked me, “But can’t you really be bold and get out there?”, I told them that this reminded me of a story I had heard, where a bull was lying on the tracks and the train was coming at it. The engineer kept blowing the horn, but the bull would not move. Finally, the bull got upset and charged the train. And you know the result. Somebody was standing nearby and looked at the bull, and said, “I admire your courage, but I can’t say the same about your judgement.” I think that there is a bit of this in this exercise. QUESTION: Can you explain how the development fund you proposed is going to work? The people in Latin America, for example, have the experience of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), in which some operations are more expensive than going straight to the bank. S-G: I do not know how UNDP operates in Latin America, but I hope it does not operate like a bank—you are now comparing the rates of UNDP with a bank’s. When you indicate that UNDP is more expensive than the banks, I begin to worry. But here is what we intend to do: there are two funds we are talking about here. One is the “development dividend,” whereby we will apply savings from administrative overhead to economic and social activities. The estimates are that between now and the year 2002 we will be able to squeeze up to $200 million out of administrative overheads for economic and social activities. The other fund we have talked about is that, given the demands on the Organization and the need to work with Member States to alleviate poverty, we need to come up with creative means of raising funds, mobilizing additional resources, to help governments and to let the United Nations do what it would like to do and what the Member States expect of it. It is for that purpose that we are setting up a Development Finance Office, which will be under the Deputy Secretary-General, to mobilize resources for economic development. QUESTION: Could you give us an idea of how

quickly some of these things can be put in place, or are already being put in place, and in particular how you might try to move the Assembly on appointing a Deputy, and then when you might appoint an emergency relief coordinator? Will these cabinet sessions begin now? How often? Will this be a regularized thing? In other words, how soon, and how will it work? S-G: On the question of the Deputy SecretaryGeneral, I need the approval of the General Assembly. The General Assembly will take it up at its next session, and I would hope that I will have the approval of the membership fairly early in the session. I would hope that we will have decisions on the package by the end of November, so that we can give them the budgetary implications—for them to approve the package we need to do a revised budget for them. And we will begin implementing those decisions which require governmental decisions in January. But there are lots of initiatives that I started earlier in the year which are ongoing. There are certain things in the proposals which we can also move ahead immediately because they come under my authority. On the question of the humanitarian coordinator, I think we can begin redistributing the tasks of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, assigning the operational activities to other operational units. Ideally, I would prefer to have a new coordinator in place to work with me in doing this, and I think I will not wait for too long before we make some of these changes. On the question of the management group, the cabinet, I would hope that we can start. We are meeting a lot. Since I came into office, we have established a Policy Coordination Group, where fortnightly I bring the managers and heads of programmes and funds together, and we meet. That will continue. And I meet with my senior officials in smaller groups and individually, and we will continue. We can begin that: it does not need General Assembly approval, so I will start that straight away. QUESTION: I was wondering: at a time when several nations, particularly the United States, have been seeming to seek cuts in what the United Nations does, do you think that there is sufficient international support for the new department that you are proposing for disarmament affairs and arms regulation? S-G: Yes. I think disarmament is one of the crucial issues facing the world today. I am not dealing only with issues of weapons of mass

162 • 16 July 1997

destruction, but we will also be dealing with arms regulation, and we will need to be able to track the movement of lethal weapons, which these days get into hands which most of us would be worried about when we knew who those individuals were. We should also be able to track the movement of the small arms and the kinds of weapons that have really caused havoc in the Great Lakes region of Africa, in Albania and in other places around the world. We should also be able to work with governments to develop the political will for the banning of land-mines, for example. I think the United Nations should have a strong focal point that will work with Member States and move them in the right direction to tackle some of these disarmament issues. I think the support will be there, I think it should be there, and I would be disappointed if it were not. QUESTION: What kind of effective measures will you take to ensure your reform work goes smoothly? My second question is: Do you have any agenda for the reform of the Security Council? S-G: I think the effective measures that one needs to ensure that the reform is implemented effectively have already started. I started right from the beginning consulting the Member States, informing the staff and carrying the Member States with me. They have been associated; we have informed them; and I hope, now that the report is before them, once the report is approved, it is not Kofi Annan’s report for reform; it is not the Secretariat’s proposals for reform; I hope it will become our programme for reform and all of us—the Member States, the Secretariat, the staff— will move forward energetically to implement it. And so I think the basic work and the basic effort to move the reform forward has already begun. With regard to the Security Council, I say very little in the report because the issue is firmly in the hands of the Member States and I am leaving it to them. QUESTION: Going back to the question of disarmament, I understand the politics of it, but I wanted to know about the bureaucratic rationale. Why have you decided to recreate disarmament again as a department after it had been downgraded? And also, do you have a candidate in mind as UnderSecretary-General for this office? S-G: I think it was a mistake to have downgraded disarmament. I think disarmament is one of the crucial issues of our day and I am correcting that mistake. I think we have in the past sometimes been stampeded into making cuts to demonstrate

that we are reforming. I think it is functions and tasks which should determine the type of people we have in senior positions to handle these issues. It is the importance and the complexity of the issue that should determine whom we bring in at the senior level to do our task. And I think disarmament is one of those issues, and I hope you agree with me. QUESTION: And the candidate? S-G: I am not prepared to discuss a candidate yet, but there are some very, very good candidates out there and you will hear about them soon. QUESTION: One of the people who is likely to think that you have been too bold is probably Carol Bellamy [Executive Director of UNICEF]. How do you see this working out with her very strong public position on this? S-G: I think Ms. Bellamy and all my senior colleagues are on board. I think it was healthy and it was right that they spoke out and debated the issues when we were discussing options. But once the options were put to me and I took decisions, that was it. Everybody is on board, including Ms. Bellamy, and, as I have indicated, what I am doing is getting these programmes and funds and United Nations entities to pool their efforts to have greater impact. And by pooling efforts, we can also save some money. I have also made it clear that you can pool your efforts without losing your identity or without losing your ability to raise money, go directly to your constituents. And, in fact, in discussing with some other colleagues in Geneva, I used the analogy of a team. I want us to be a team, I want us to work as a team, but I am not talking of a rowing team, for example, where you all have to do the same thing, or an army, where you march in lock step. I am talking of a team like soccer, where you play as a team, but there is room for individual brilliance, individual expression and for entities to do what they do best. And if I may, I want to add something else. I know in this Organization, we are often worried about conflict. We go around believing that conflict must be avoided at all costs. I do not share that view. I am not a confrontational person, but I am not one of those who avoids conflicts. I think sometimes conflicts and open and serious discussions are healthy. They bring issues to the fore so that you can factor them into your decisions and reform process. And I think what happened was a very healthy one, rather than people keeping quiet and undermining the process later. And so I really admire the courage of my colleagues.

16 July 1997 • 163 As I said, we met on Monday. They are aware of the decisions, and everybody is firmly on board. It is our plan for reform and you will hear them and you will see them pushing for it. QUESTION: You are proposing the creation of a revolving fund of $1 billion to resolve the problem of cash flow. Could you be more explicit about it? Does it mean that you do not expect the Americans to pay their dues, finally? S-G: Oh! no, not at all. I expect Washington and every Member State to pay its dues. I think our rules are very clear. The only way this Organization is funded is through assessed contributions and Member States under our rules are expected to pay their dues 30 minutes upon receiving the bill. And if each Member State paid its dues in full and on time, we would never be talking of a financial crisis. Unfortunately, that has not happened. As we speak, of the 185 Member States, only 75 who are paid up. In the past, suggestions that have been made for sanctions or incentives to induce Member States to pay have been turned down by the membership. We are also aware that the only sanction we have does not work, that if you are two years in arrears, under Article 19 of the United Nations Charter, you lose your vote. But, if I owe $50 million, two years of arrears, I can make a token payment to stay under that ceiling. I wish we had a mechanism where Member States who get to that ceiling are required to clear the totality or at least half of it, before they get their vote back, thus not being allowed to circumnavigate the provision that, if you are two years in arrears, you lose your vote. In the past few years, we have survived by borrowing from peace-keeping. Peace-keeping operations have decreased and so the facility, the ability to borrow from peace-keeping funds, is no longer there. If the Member States continue to maintain this habit, this lack of discipline of not paying their dues on time, we can get into a very serious cashflow situation. This is why we have suggested a revolving fund of up to $1 billion and I have also challenged the Member States to come up with better ideas. They may not agree to the $1 billion. They may think there are better ways and we are not claiming any monopoly over brilliant ideas. And so we are open, but we do have a problem and they know it and we cannot face very, very serious cash-flow problems that might have dire consequences on the Organization. That is why we have made that proposal. QUESTION: On the question of peace-keeping

and peace-keeping reform, one of the ideas that was notably absent in the report—some of the most dramatic ideas, such as a standing army and other more radical ideas that have been proposed over recent years. Is that sort of thinking being effectively dropped from your agenda? Is that one of those things that a properly cautious bull should now avoid? Where do you see the peace-keeping coming out over the next . . . ? S-G: No, I think we did consider the issue of a standing army. You know, it has been around for a long time, but in the past few years we have been working very closely and constructively with Member States to develop the capability to deploy troops much more rapidly than we are able to do today. For example, the Danish Government has created a 5,000-man brigade for international service. That unit can deploy headquarters staff offices within 48 hours if they decide to participate in an operation, and the main body can move in two to three weeks, compared with the three to four months we take at the United Nations to deploy. We are working with other Member States to go that route so that we can have stand-by capacities at home. These units can move fairly quickly and help the United Nations solve the problem of rapidity of deployment. I think there are issues connected with a standing United Nations army. Here, the last question I was dealing with was the financial crisis and financial difficulties. It poses immediate budgetary issues. It poses legal issues; where do you station them? Under which jurisdiction do they come? So there are lots of issues connected with the establishment of a standing United Nations army that, given the situation we are in, I did not think it was appropriate to pursue. QUESTION: Considering, as you said, that peace-keeping has gone considerably down in the last year, how important do you think peace-keeping is, or should be, or should it move into a different sort of dimension? S-G: It has always been understood that peace-keeping would go through peaks and troughs. It has now decreased, but it is not going to stay there. In fact, when you look at the figures, you will realize that United Nations peace-keeping has decreased. “Blue Helmets” under the United Nations flag have decreased. But at the same time, up until a year ago you had 60,000 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Implementation Force (IFOR) forces in Bosnia. Today there are around 35,000. You have about

164 • 16 July 1997

18,000 Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) troops in Georgia and Tajikistan. You have the Economic Community of West African States’ Monitoring Observer Group (ECOMOG) troops in Liberia. When you add it all up, peace-keeping has not decreased; it has diversified. But peacekeeping under the United Nations flag has gone down. We also have to realize that some of the units, entities, CIS and NATO, cannot operate outside their region, and so if there are major crises that the international community believes something has to be done, they are more likely to turn to the United Nations than to NATO or the CIS. So we are in a trough, but we could go up again, and this is why we should take advantage of this lull to consolidate, to build on the gains we have made, to be ready when the time comes. QUESTION [translated from French]: Could you tell us about your expectations vis-à-vis Washington and Washington’s financial contribution? What do you expect, now that you have put forward your reforms? Could you elaborate on that? S-G [translated from French]: Well, I hope that Washington will pay up. They have already proposed to pay up $819 million. I think that now they should realize that we are serious and that the United Nations is undergoing a reform process. Member States have been asking for reform, and I think that it is quite clear that we are in the process of doing what we promised, and I hope that they will do their part. QUESTION: To return to the billion-dollar revolving fund, the two questions about it are, one, do you have any indication that any governments will be willing to contribute towards this in advance, and secondly, the grinches on Capitol Hill, who keep trying to steal United Nations funds—every previous move to diminish the leverage over United Nations funds has been vigorously resisted. Do you anticipate that the next finance bill will have yet another clause making any payments conditional on not having a revolving fund, since they are obviously clear what the intention is? S-G: Let me say that, as far as pledges by Member States, we have no pledges yet, but we are going to start talking to supportive and friendly Member States who believe in this Organization, and I expect that they will be helpful. I would also want to say that the purpose of the fund, as I have explained, is to help the United Nations. My report is also directed at the Member

States, and there are 185 of them. I know that you keep pulling me back to the Congress, to the Hill and to Washington. I know they are interested in the report, but my report is to the Member States. I know there are people in Washington who would want to see a much stricter and much deeper cut, who have also in some ways made certain conditions—or, in some instances, even threats. But I am also in touch with a large number of the Member States, both here and throughout my travels, and I am not sure that our friends—well, I do not know if friends is the word—that some of the people on the Hill who are so strong against the United Nations and come with these conditions and really make these demands on the other 184 States, realize the impact of their actions. In my contacts and observations with the Member States, I can tell you that my assessment is that these unilateral demands do not impress, they do not intimidate; in fact, they offend. QUESTION: In the light of what you have just said, you are obviously hoping that all the Members will take your report home with them, study it and come back in September in a very cooperative mood. But I suggest that particularly the United States, especially the Congress, is likely to be a problem for you. And other Members have criticized what the United States is doing, but this seems to be a very difficult job of [inaudible]. Now how do you intend to reconcile the differing views and get moving on the reform programmes? S-G: Let me say that I took office promising reform, and I have followed through. I have done my part, at least up to this stage. I think that Member States will also have to do their part, and I hope they can find ways of working together to work to move reform forward. They have all agreed with me that the United Nations needs reform and that if we do not reform and make the United Nations more effective and able to tackle the challenges ahead, the United Nations may lose its relevance. The final point I would want to make that you all keep asking me, “What are you going to say to Washington? What is Washington explaining to you?” In the final analysis, I think I have said where I stand, and you know where I stand on these issues. In the final analysis, the United States does not owe me an explanation. It owes an explanation to the other Member States, and there are 184 of them. Quite possibly, I will offer suggestions and proposals that may facilitate transactions among Member States. But the responsibility is theirs; it is between them. And the last time we

16 July 1997 • 165 spoke, when you asked me if the conditions would be acceptable to the Member States, I said it was a challenge for United States diplomacy, because it is the United States that has to go and explain and sell it to the other 184 Member States. QUESTION: What kind of person would be a good Deputy-Secretary-General for you? Is it someone who will possibly threaten to keep you out of the loop, is it someone who is going to cut the ribbons, is it going to be the former Prime Minister of Norway? Who do you want, and what kind of person is it going to be? S-G: I want the most competent candidate possible, and I think you have also judged by the appointments I have made that I am determined not only to reform the United Nations but to give it effective leadership. I have demonstrated that I am seeking competence, I am seeking people who can bring excellence to the Organization, people who can provide leadership and people who can assume responsibility and inspire others. And it is that kind of person that I am looking for, and I think the appointments I have made so far give you an idea of the standards I have set. QUESTION: United States Senator Jesse Helms proposed to abolish United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP). May I have your comments, please? S-G: For those of you who did not hear the question, he said that Senator Jesse Helms proposed to abolish UNMOGIP, and what is my comment on that. I think the proposal was not as direct as that. I think the proposal was that UNMOGIP and the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) should not be funded from the regular budget, which implies that, if the Member States were to accept, it would either have to be shifted to the peace-keeping budget and the peace-keeping assessment agreed upon by the Member States. And if that were not to be agreed upon and it were not to be funded by the regular budget, then of course UNMOGIP would be in trouble. My own view is that UNMOGIP and UNTSO have played a very useful role. I think there are very useful signs in the Pakistani talks. The two Prime Ministers are determined to make progress and you have heard me applaud their efforts, and I do not think this is the time to interfere with the arrangements which exist today. QUESTION: Two of the issues that have been discussed at the United Nations conferences have been gender concerns and sustainable develop-

ment. How do your proposals impact on those two areas institutionally? S-G: I think that is part of the reform that we have introduced in the economic and social areas and in the developmental areas. This is an area where we have indicated we are going to switch resources and we are going to raise additional funds. All our agencies are engaged on the ground in those areas and we intend to strengthen those programmes. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, one of the problems that other past Secretaries-General have had was how to operate under Article 99 of the Charter. How are you going to be able to operate under this Article? Are you going to be . . . S-G: Can you be more specific? QUESTION: Article 99 of the Charter only gives you authorization to address yourself to the Security Council. That is the only article in the Charter former Secretaries-General, like Secretary-General U Thant, used to refer to your job as a glorified clerk. Are you going to ask that your mandate [inaudible] so you can do something about it? S-G: No. I see the job as much broader than that, and I think in the last six months I have already demonstrated that. I think the SecretaryGeneral can refer issues to the Security Council, but the Secretary-General can bring issues to the attention of the General Assembly. The SecretaryGeneral can take initiatives under his good offices. The Secretary-General can intervene and mediate whenever and wherever he considers this helpful. So the job is administrative; it’s political; it’s diplomatic; it’s good offices; and it’s very broad and it’s very wide. I do not see that kind of limitation to the job and I certainly do not feel it. QUESTION: It seems as though the reforms today . . . that “track one” and “track two” have largely been structural and cultural. I am wondering when we are going to see some programme reforms. It seems as though a lot of this has been delayed or put off to the Member States, and I am wondering when we can see some response to that. And, also, whether there were no programmes or departments or projects within the United Nations at all that you wanted to see cut, by name. S-G: No. In fact, when you read the report, there has been quite a lot of consolidation and cuts and elimination. Apart from the three economic departments which were consolidated into one, there are expert groups, commissions and others which have been consolidated. About 10 of them have been consolidated into three in the manage-

166 • 16 July 1997

ment area. [Under-Secretary-General for Administration and Management] Mr. Connor and his team have almost 600 efficiency projects going, and that has led to lots of cut and lots of elimination. Perhaps what I should do is, some time in the course of this week or the next, really have Mr. Connor and his team take you through the details and some of the cuts and the serious eliminations that we have made in other areas. And in the General Assembly area—where there are 168 agenda items on the General Assembly programme—we are asking them to review their agenda, to try and group the 168 agenda items around the eight main priority areas designated under the medium-term plan and to adopt a theme about two years ahead where we can prepare documents and, during the high-level segment, have a serious discussion on them. We even go further and say that if the General Assembly were to simplify and restructure its programme that way, it ought to be possible to reduce the General Assembly by three weeks. We have those kinds of things in the report. But I know you just got it and you have not had time to study it. QUESTION: Just to rephrase the question, perhaps. In terms of the focus of the United Nations, it seems as though certain things are being emphasized in terms of development, for example. But I am wondering if there are any specific agencies or departments that you would like to see “sunsetted” or abolished, anything by name, perhaps. S-G: I think, on the agencies, I do not have any direct authority over them. It is up to the Member States. And I do make a recommendation in the report that maybe the time has come for us to take a fundamental look at the agencies, what they do and what changes are required. And I have offered that I would also discuss this with the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) and work with the Member States to do it. But I am limiting myself at this stage to the United Nations proper—the Secretariat, the programmes and the funds—and I am not getting involved with the other agencies for which I have not direct responsibility. QUESTION: How will your reform packet enhance the social and economic functions of the United Nations, considering that these have been an area of concern to developing countries in general and African countries in particular? S-G: I think that is one area where what we’ve done, in a way, is a quiet revolution. We have consolidated policy groups and organizations at Headquarters. We are moving into the field stress-

ing that all the United Nations entities must work as a team under a team leader—the representative of the Secretary-General—that they should pool their efforts and operate as a team and work with the Government on their national plan, and then determine which agency carries out which portion of the plan. This is a major revolution, and we are hoping to be able to get this structure in almost all the 134 countries in which we are operating. And I’ve also indicated the funds we’ve set up to try and give the economic and social areas additional resources. The other interesting thing here is that several multilateral agencies and Governments have assured me that if the United Nations were to structure itself properly and effectively at the country level, they would much rather channel their funds through the United Nations rather than go to these countries trying to establish offices with all the complications. And so if we are able to gain the credibility that I’m seeking, we should be able to raise additional money from multilateral and bilateral sources for economic and social development. Thank you very much, and I hope you agree with me that we have a story to tell, and I’m relying on you guys. QUESTION: Can we ask you if you agree with an analysis that was made about Louis XIV and the battles being fought at Versailles? Do you see yourself in that light, as one of your aides described the new cabinet? Is this how you see yourself? Is this why you have a public relations firm to bring out the image of the balance or the ...? S-G: I don’t see myself in that respect, and I don’t think barons or baronesses are that difficult to deal with. I think, as I said, they are involved, they are very supportive, they are very modern men and women, and they know that if we play as a team we will make a greater impact. And so I don’t have to go to that extent. Thank you very much.

17 July 1997 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Letter to the president of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Laurent-Désiré Kabila. An English version does not exist. Monsieur le Président, Je vous écris aujourd’hui pour donner suite non seulement à notre conversation téléphonique d’hier, mais aussi à la lettre que je vous ai adressée

17 July 1997 • 167 le 10 juin 1997 et dans laquelle je vous avais confirmé mon intention de nommer prochainement un Représentant spécial pour la République démocratique du Congo. Comme vous le savez, j’ai eu 1’honneur de présenter a votre Ministre des Affaires étrangères, lors de son passage a New York le 10 juillet dernier, le haut fonctionnaire des Nations Unies que j’ai décidé de nommer à ce poste extrêmement important, puisque son titulaire aura la haute main sur l’ensemble des activités de nos programmes et agences dans votre pays. Ce haut fonctionnaire est Monsieur Robin Kinloch (Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande du Nord), que j’ai choisi pour sa maîtrise des questions de développement, pour sa connaissance approfondie de plusieurs pays d’Afrique, et notamment de votre pays, où il a été Représentant résident du Programme des Nations Unies pour le Développement de 1984 à 1987, ainsi que pour la confiance qu’il inspire aux pays et institutions bailleurs de fonds et pour sa capacité a mobiliser et coordonner les initiatives de reconstruction et de développement. J’ai donné ordre à Monsieur Kinloch de se tenir prêt à partir pour Kinshasa dès que vous m’aurez fait parvenir votre accord. Une fois a Kinshasa, M. Kinloch prendra contact avec votre Gouvernement et avec vos services pour solliciter une audience que je vous serais infiniment reconnaissant de bien vouloir lui accorder. Comme je vous l’ai dit hien, je souhaite aussi dépêcher à Kinshasa, dès que possible, une mission de haut niveau qui serait chargée d’évaluer, en consultation avec votre Gouvernement, les besoins de votre pays et la façon dont le système des Nations Unies pourrait le mieux aider votre Gouvernement à y répondre. Là encore, cette mission se mettra en route dès que j’aurai reçu confirmation de vous que votre Gouvernement est prêt à la recevoir. Je ne voudrais pas clore cette lettre, Monsieur le Président, sans vous dire tout l’intérêt que j’ai pris à notre conversation téléphonique d’hier et toute l’importance que j’attache aux échanges que j’ai eus le 10 juillet avec le Dr Karaha. Il me reste à formuler le voeu que ces échanges aient permis de dissiper certains malentendus et de préparer notre collaboration future au service du peuple congolais. En vous remerciant par avance de votre prompte réponse, je vous prie d’agréer, Monsieur le Président, les assurances de ma très haute considération.

17 July 1997 Interview with the Secretary-General by Ray Suarez on NPR’s Talk of the Nation

Interview (OSSG); UN reform/Africa RAY SUAREZ, host: This is Talk of the Nation. I’m Ray Suarez. For a country that has hosted the United Nations and been its biggest benefactor for half a century, the United States doesn’t pay much attention to the world organization. It usually clears the threshold and makes the news only when there’s a vote that’s perceived as hostile to the American interests; or when obligations to the United Nations seem to end up costing American lives or money in ways American citizens had never bargained for. Into the vacuum created by that general lack of interest in the UN floods a lot of misinformation. We live in a country that one day says the United Nations is not capable of doing anything but spending American money on high living in programs that don’t work; and the next day, this same incompetent bureaucratic organization is capable of taking over the whole United States. It is a funny world. If the United Nations was perfectly healthy, running smoothly, and had the support of policymakers in Washington, the criticism of the UN would be no more than a nuisance, I suppose. But the American ability to believe the absolute worst of the United Nations is not confined to fringe groups. The hostility toward the UN exists right here in the nation’s capital. And my guest today, Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, has the difficult assignment of answering the American challenge to the UN, and meeting the needs of 180-plus member states from around the world as well. Mobutu may be gone, but the dying has continued in the eastern Congo. After $2 billion and years of work, the UN-sponsored rebuilding of civic life in Cambodia is unraveling. Extremely expensive UN peacekeeping missions have become the answer to urgent need in places like Cyprus and southern Lebanon and Macedonia— but the missions seem to go on forever. Let’s look at the UN this hour with Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General. Welcome to Talk of the Nation, sir. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Thank you very much. I’m happy to be here. RS: Our number in Washington: 800-9898255. That’s 800-989-TALK. If you’re listening from outside North America, over America One or the Armed Forces Radio Network, dial your inter-

168 • 17 July 1997

national access code: “1” for the United States; then 202-408-7544. We’d love to hear from you. Give us a call. Well, Secretary General, you’ve referred to your recently announced reforms at the UN as “a quiet revolution.” Tell us what they consist of and why you picked that way to describe it. S-G: I think it is a quiet revolution in the sense that not only do we seek to make the UN more effective and more efficient, but we are going to change the way we do business in this house, and offer a new type of leadership that will also make managers accountable and release the energies of staff. And we are also proposing that we focus on our main objectives and core activities. And I’m also challenging the governments themselves to think through how they structure their work in the General Assembly; to rationalize it; to develop a theme approach, allowing them to focus on a key global issue each year. And that—if they are able to restructure their own work and simplify it, we can even reduce the duration of the General Assembly by three weeks. We have also offered cuts—cuts in staff of 1,000. We are reducing our administrative overhead by a third, and applying those savings to economic and social activities. We are—have also indicated that we will reduce paper, and will reduce it by 30 percent. And as we consolidate our efforts and eliminate overlap, and the streamlining and restructuring continues, there will be possibilities for further savings. And what is more important, for the first time in a generation, we are proposing a negative budget for the next biannual. So, a lot is happening. RS: Meaning that your budgets for the next two years will be smaller than your current budget? S-G: It will be smaller than the current budget, and in fact, I have indicated to the member states that we will save about $124 million. RS: Now, already there’s been some negative reaction from members of the United States Senate. Senator Rod Grams from Minnesota whose committee is responsible for paying the United States arrears said that your administration runs a risk of turning the UN into a country club for diplomats. An assistant to North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms said that the changes are too small—not what the United States wanted to see. Knowing as you do the background of this issue, and how it undid the administration of your predecessor, how do you answer those sorts of charges?

S-G: Let me first say that as Secretary General of the United Nations, I report to 185 sovereign states, including the U.S. I think by and large, the membership of the organization who all had my proposals yesterday, think that this is a bold step forward. And I think generally, the media reports have been supportive. I know of the comments by Senator Grams and Senator Helms, and frankly I’m a bit disappointed, because Senator Gramms has been part of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations and to the General Assembly. And he knows what a complex place this is. Perhaps to put it dramatically, it’s like running a company with a board of directors of 185 members, and in my case, it’s not just 185 members— 185 sovereign states, with their own interest and ambitions. So to come up with the sort of ambitious, extensive far-reaching proposals I’ve come up with, which I’m confident I will be able to get it through, is a major, major achievement. Some want a revolution—a major revolution. Revolutions don’t occur every day, and even in this country, the last revolution took place about 200 years ago. And quite frankly, I’m not sure if anything we’ll do will satisfy certain elements in Washington. And I give up, quite frankly. RS: Would you, in a sense, go on the road in the United States to talk about these reforms? I know that you have stepped out in public using the national broadcast networks in a way that I think is rare for a UN Secretary General. I’ve always found it a little puzzling that as the host nation, the United Nations has had such a low profile in the United States. The Secretaries General have not been talking to Americans about what the UN’s doing; about how it works and so on. S-G: No, I think you make a very important point here. We have an interesting story to tell. The UN has a solid record of achievements. We’ve had some difficult operations, but there are lots of successful ones. And in a way, we’ve become an organization that hasn’t told our story, not even the successful ones. And we will be doing more of that. I will step out and talk. My senior officials and colleagues in the UN staff will talk. And I’ve told them that they should keep talking. They should explain the UN. They should let the public know who we are and what we do. And tell our story. And we will simply have to tell the truth, and tell our achievement. And we’ll keep

17 July 1997 • 169 telling the truth until our enemies stop misinforming the public and distorting our achievements. RS: If you’re just joining us, joining me from United Nations Radio in New York, Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations. He took office at the beginning of this year, and just yesterday announced a new reorganization plan for the United Nations: cost-cutting, consolidation of departments, a new organizational chart. The UN has many challenges on its plate, and the host nation is hundreds of million dollars in arrears in its dues. We’ll talk about the future of the UN this hour with the Secretary General. We welcome your calls from around North America and from around the world. You can dial 800-989-8255 from North America. And if you’d like to join us from the rest of our broadcast affiliate stations around the world, dial your international access code: “1” for the United States; then 202-408-7544. The United Nations has gotten some bad news from Cambodia in recent weeks. This was a country that seemed to be on the road to a better place, after years of disintegration. A lot of UN resources were put into putting Cambodia back on its feet. What do you make of the situation there today? S-G: Well, let me say that the bad news is not so much for the UN as it is for the people of Cambodia. I feel sorry for them. You are right: the UN and the international community made a major effort to give Cambodia a fresh start after the case of genocide and warfare. We had hoped that we had set them off on the road to democracy, political reconciliation, and prosperity. But today, we are disappointed by what is going on in that country. The UN went in to give them a start, not to be perpetually responsible for what happens in Cambodia. And I’m really, really disappointed that the arrangements one put together so delicately, with lots of support from around the world and the region, which we had hoped will hold together until the elections in May next year, has unraveled. And we are appealing to the parties concerned to respect the Paris accords, and there is pressure on Hun Sen to allow Ranariddh and the FUNCINPEC party to play its role. And hopefully, there will be some negotiations, but we are disappointed. RS: Is the UN prepared to stand on the sidelines and let things take their course in Cambodia? In effect, saying: “We’ve done all we can.” I know, Ranariddh was in New York trying to attract attention to his calls for help from the international body. S-G: Yes, I did meet him when he was here in

New York, and I’ve also consulted with the Security Council and key countries who have been very actively involved in the Cambodian process. The ASEAN countries have sent in a delegation of two: the Foreign Minister Ali Alatas [sic] of Indonesia and Minister Siason [sic] of Philippines. And I’m waiting to see what they report back, for us to determine what we, the international community—that is, the UN, the member states—and ASEAN can do together to restore democracy in Cambodia. RS: Has the United States begun to pay its arrears? Or is this something that’s still in negotiations? S-G: I think it’s still in negotiations between the Senate and the Congress. But there are indications that they would be prepared to pay $819 million of the $1.3 billion they owe. But that comes with conditions, which are going to be very difficult for the other member states to accept. And as I said yesterday, I as Secretary General have made it clear that member states should pay their dues in full and on time and without any preconditions. But in the final analysis, the U.S. owes explanation to the other member states, and there are 184 of them. To sell them that package, that set of benchmarks and conditions, is going to be a tough challenge for U.S. diplomacy. RS: How has it curtailed or constrained the day to day workings of the UN, that arrears? S-G: It has in the sense that there have been occasions when we could have taken advantage of cash purchases that we cannot do. We have had to delay some essential operations because we didn’t have the cash. What is even worse is that the governments who gave us troops to try and push out the bushfires around the world, whether it’s Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia—we have not been able to reimburse them for the costs they incurred for putting their troops on the ground, because countries like the U.S. have not paid what they owe. So not only do they go the field [sic] and go on to these operations and lose lives, the amounts we owe them we are not able to reimburse them because governments do not pay. RS: Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations is in New York. 800-989-8255 is our number. We’ll go first to Flint, Michigan. Henry, welcome to Talk of the Nation. CALLER: Oh, how ’ya doing, Ray? RS: I’m OK. CALLER: Thank you for taking my call. Good afternoon, Mr. Kofi Annan.

170 • 17 July 1997

S-G: Good afternoon, Henry. CALLER: Yes. I’m from Burkina Faso in West Africa. S-G: Yes. CALLER: I called to let you know how much I’m so happy to see you become the Secretary General. I’m so nervous, I have a question and comment. And my comment is this: we have seen so many things, bad things going on in Africa, and that is coming from our leaders. And we as a young people, we are sick and tired seeing our leaders doing this to our people. And I want to ask you if you can let them know how much we, the young people, are very mad with them, because we don’t want to see these kind of things going on in our country, because we all know that Africa is very important continent, not only for the African, but for all over the world, for what we have in Africa. And we don’t have honest people, very qualified people that will help us to develop our continent. And it’s very sad. Every day, you see the bad news going on in Africa, and we don’t want to see that anymore. So I want to ask you to help them know that we are past that kind of generation. Now, we are in a generation that want to go forth —I’m talking about development. And also I want to thank you for what you are doing for the continent, and also I want you to let Nelson Mandela know that we, the young people, who love him for what he has done. Because I know that if it wasn’t because of him and you, today is going to be a real chaos in Zaire, as even in South Africa and Angola—everywhere in Africa. And I’m so happy that he’s leading the continent right now, and I want to . . . RS: Well, Henry . . . S-G: Henry. RS: Let the Secretary General jump in there. S-G: Yeah. CALLER: OK. S-G: Yeah, Henry, thank you very much. Je crois que vous parlez francais, n’est pas? [sic] Anyway, let me thank you very much for what you’ve said. I share your concern about the state of affairs on our continent. There is lots of bad news coming out of Africa, but there’s also lots of good news. In the last couple of years, about 15, 18 countries have had freely democratic elections. Some are getting their economy together, and several of them have very positive growth rates. But I agree with you, that the source of the problem is good governance, accountability by those in authority, and the need to keep the pres-

sure on them. I was in Harare about four weeks ago, at the heads of state summit of the Organization for African Unity. And I stressed the issue of democracy, human rights, sustainable development, and the fact that the views of the governed ought to be listened to, and that is the only legitimate base for any leader in any country. And it was remarkable that quite a lot of the leaders agreed with me. You’ve also seen the universal rejection of the coup in Sierra Leone, which is a good sign for Africa. It is the first time that African governments have come together to say that a democratically elected government should not be overthrown by force. The soldiers exist to protect the nation and its citizens and the borders, not to turn their guns against innocent and unarmed civilians. And so, I think this is a very positive sign. And on the question of the corruption and the rule of the youth, I agree with you, and we need to create an enabling environment in these countries that will allow individuals like you and other groups to be able to go home—not only to go home, but to use your energy, your creativity, to help develop the countries and place yourself at the service of the community. So I share your vision, and you’ll be hearing a lot from me on these issues. Thank you. RS: Henry in Flint, thanks a lot for your call. Let’s stay with Africa for a moment, Mr. Secretary, because just recently there’s been a dispute between the United Nations and the new government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo over investigations into human rights abuses. The delegation from the United Nations was rejected, headed by Senor Garaton [sic]. S-G: That’s correct. RS: They said they just couldn’t do business with him, and you agreed to send a new chief for the investigation. Why did you make that agreement? And do you hope for better—what indications are there that you’ll get better cooperation this time? S-G: Well, I had spoken to President Kabila myself in Harare, and he gave an undertaking [sic] that he will cooperate with the international community, and he will allow a mission to look into the investigations. My concern was that we were making Garaton the issue. He was never the issue and should not be the issue. Yes, there were important legal implications, but the problem we are dealing with goes way beyond legal niceties. You have a unique situation, where thousands and thousands of people have been killed and perhaps are being

17 July 1997 • 171 killed. And we wanted to get a team in to investigate—to indicate who committed these crimes; for us to take steps to deal with the perpetrators of the crime. And also we needed to do it quickly, so that the evidence was not destroyed. The longer we argued about Garaton, the more time we gave to those who may want to tamper with evidence, and the likelihood that we will never get the invitations—the investigations underway. And if we didn’t, we would have failed the families and the relatives of those who have been killed. So, we were dealing with a unique situation where, if you will, some sort of genocidal pogrom was happening, and it required a unique and urgent action. It is in that context—in that—in those circumstances— that I took the decision that I had to take, and that’s, you know, the Security Council unanimously supported that position. RS: I’m Ray Suarez. You’re listening to Talk of the Nation from NPR News. But at the same time, I was talking to the new foreign secretary of the Kabila government, Dr. Karaha. S-G: Yes. RS: And he said that the real objections that members of his government had with the investigation is that it was too narrow and focused only on the misdeeds or potential misdeeds of the new Congolese government and its allies, rather than looking at the involvement of Rwandan Hutus in destabilizing the governments of the region; not looking into the involvement of other governments in widespread human rights abuses and killings. And he said, basically, that Mobutu, now in Morocco, had made a pact with Hutu powers in the region, and whenever a soldier died, they turned into a refugee, as soon as they took their last breath; and the victim of a human rights abuse, rather than a regular soldier caught in the field and killed. S-G: Yeah, I also spoke to Dr. Karaha. He came to see me in New York. And let me say that the history of that region, as you know, has been a sad and a brutal one. And so there is no doubt that killings have been going on for a while. If you’re going to carry out this kind of investigation, there has to be some parameters. I think one of the questions they raised was that the investigation should go back to ’93, and determine who did—who killed whom from that period. I—he’s a medical doctor, and I explained to him that if we send in— we’re going to send in forensic experts. We will do some diggings, as we did in Srebrenica, to determine how people were killed;

when they were killed. And we will use the evidence as they come out. It may turn out that some of the evidence we find in eastern Congo will indicate that people were killed in the last six months; or they were killed in ’94 or ’95. And we will have to make a judgment as to who was controlling the region at that time and who could possibly be responsible for those killings. And so, the evidence will speak for itself. And so, I’ve told him that they should not use that as an argument to delay the investigation, and yesterday, I spoke to President Kabila and I told him that we will be sending a team in, and I expect him and the government to cooperate, to give them full access, and to work with them. And he reiterated his commitment to me, and we will be naming a team shortly, which I hope will go in with the full cooperation of the government and get to the facts. RS: Donald is with us from Silver Spring, Maryland. Hi ya, Donald. CALLER: Hello. RS: Welcome to the program. S-G: Hello, Donald. CALLER: Hi. Your proposed reforms would produce substantial savings, which you propose to use primarily for development, I understand. S-G: That’s correct. CALLER: Why would you give more funds than needed for development? And what could they accomplish? S-G: I think when you look around the world, and the poverty around us, the task of alleviating poverty and encouraging sustainable development is a gigantic task. If you consider the figures of develop—official development assistance that the governments were giving to poorer countries even five years ago, the percentages and the figures were much higher than they are today. And we need to sort of squeeze every dollar we can to assist the needy. We are also going to challenge those governments with the greatest capacity to give to be sensitive to the needs of the least fortunate. And we will try and come up with innovative ways of raising more funds to help the needy around the world. And we need to understand that we live in an inter-dependent world, and we cannot live in splendid isolation when there is misery and poverty all around us. Thank you. RS: My guest is Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations. Donald in Silver Spring, we’ll continue with your point after a break, and when we return, we’ll take more of

172 • 17 July 1997

your calls. To contact us here at Talk of the Nation, you can send us e-mail at [email protected] or regular mail. Our address here is: Talk of the Nation, Letters NPR News, 635 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001. At 33 minutes past the hour, it’s Talk of the Nation from NPR News. RS: Welcome back. I’m Ray Suarez. My guest is Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations. If you want to join us from North America the number is 800-989-8255, if you’re listening over America One or Armed Forces Radio you can dial your international access code then 1-202-4087544. Mr. Secretary just before the break Donald was asking about using the savings in the reorganization to pay for development funds, and I think there’s a high degree of skepticism in the United States, in particular, about how development funds have been spent in the past and I think Donald’s question came from a curiosity about why the United Nations still believes that development spending is that effective. When I was in Lesuto [sic] in the—in the 1980s, I’d walk down the main street of the capital Masaru [sic] and there was United Nations office after United Nations office with Land Rovers parked along the fronts of these offices and air conditioning and international civil servants and a lot of money being spent. And I bet if we go back to Lesuto today a lot of the facts on the ground won’t really be that different, another 12 or 13 years after WHO was spending its money and the World Food Program was spending its money and on and on and on. I—I think there’s a skepticism about the effectiveness of development spending, when so many governments siphon money off, don’t spend it well or wisely, when programs go on forever without having their effectiveness challenged or tested. S-G: No, I think there’s no doubt that in any program there will be—there is some leakage or some waste. But when you talk to the governments on the ground, the UN development programs have really made a difference. And you would also notice that in recent years we are not trying to hand out things to governments, we are teaching them to fish not to give them fish. And what we’re doing in most of these countries is helping governments build institutions, helping them come up with legal frame works for investments, helping them with entrepreneurial approaches, and helping them even in privatization.

We do recognize that in today’s world the private sector, private initiative, individual and group actions can make a lot of difference. What we have done, apart from in some situations where we have had to go in and give direct relief and assistance, is to work on creating an environment that will foster development. We—I said for example thereby—that in February that we should join in strategic partnership with governments, with the private sector and the international organization to develop economies. And the figures tell the story, I mean the World Bank figures indicate that last year the Official Development Assistance gave $44 billion of aid to the developing countries. The private sector moved 400—no $244 billion, let me repeat, $244 billion into the developing country, but most of them went to about 12 countries. And if we are able to work with the governments to create the right environment and encourage the spread of investment and encourage increase in investments both international and domestic, we will be helping these governments. I think on the question of the corruption or siphoning of governmental resources and government officials and leaders not being accountable I dealt with that when I—when we spoke to Henry not so long ago. Thank you. RS: Geneva, Switzerland is next, Robert, welcome to the program. Robert in Geneva, Switzerland. CALLER: Mr. Annan my name is Robert Boss. I’m with the World Health Organization in Geneva ... S-G: Yes. CALLER: . . . and I’ve listened with great attention to your plans for the restruction [sic] of the UN proper. I would like to know how you see the broader restructuring of the UN system as a whole, with the specialized agencies and how you could achieve also a greater integration of cost saving and greater coordination in that . . . S-G: Yeah, no. Thank you, Robert, for asking that question and you may also be interested to know that I started my own international career with the World Health Organization in Geneva . . . CALLER: Yeah. S-G: . . . I said—yeah. But on the question that you raise in the reform proposals since I do not have any authority and control of other specialized agencies, I have proposed to the member states that we set up a high level commission to review the charters and the mandates of all the specialized agencies, and indicate where the gaps are, where

17 July 1997 • 173 we need to consolidate, and what changes we need to make to bring them in line with today’s realities. And I my self have undertaking [sic] to discuss with my colleagues of the ACC where all the agencies heads and myself meet twice a year, ways and means of coordinating our efforts and getting the UN and the agencies to work more as a system rather than individual fiefdoms. And in fact, we did start this discussion last April when we met in Geneva and we’re going to be meeting here in New York in October to continue the discussion to continue our efforts to reform and to discuss the very issue you’ve questioned me about. Thank you, Robert. CALLER: Could I just ask one small continuation on that . . . S-G: Please. CALLER: . . . with the report of the World Commission Environment and Development, the Bruntland [sic] report . . . S-G: Yes. CALLER: . . . be the basis to review this type of inter-agency coordination again? S-G: I think that is a document . . . CALLER: Yes. S-G: . . . that will be factored into the discussions, but in addition to the Bruntland report, I’m sure all their analysis and consultations will take place before we come to the conclusion as to what we should do about these agencies. CALLER: OK, thank you very much. RS: Robert . . . S-G: Thank you. RS: . . . in Geneva, Switzerland thanks a lot for your call. I noticed that in the current organization chart the head of WHO or the Atomic Energy Control Agency in Vienna or UNESCO in Paris reports directly to you. In the new proposed reorganization there’ll be a deputy secretary and these agencies will be clustered in—in several groups. Explain that. S-G: Yeah, no. I think—I’m glad you’re— you’re giving me a chance to explain this. The reforms that I have proposed yesterday concentrates on the UN and its funds and its programs. And so, the UN secretariat that is in New York with its offices in Vienna and Geneva and the economic commissions around the world and information centers, and on Unicef [sic], high commission for refugees, the UN Development Program, and the UN Population Fund. These are the agencies that are mainly affected directly by the reforms I propose. WHO,

UNESCO, ILO, and all these other agencies have their own governing boards and they report directly to them. I have some coordination responsibilities to work with them to ensure that the system is coordinated as effectively as it can be. But, the—the coordination has not been what it ought to be and this is why I said I’m discussing with them what we can do to make it more effective and I have also challenged the member states to look at the mandates of these agencies. RS: Ann Arbor, Michigan is next, June welcome to the program. CALLER: Thank you, Ray, always enjoy your show. RS: Thanks. CALLER: Thank you, Mr. Annan, for being on NPR radio today. S-G: Thank you. CALLER: I think your reorganization plan for the economic and social council sounds as if it will save money and a lot of duplication of efforts, so I’m eagerly awaiting more information on that. But, I have one question. As an American I feel we had a real bargain in only paying $7 per person in our assessed fees when I believe the Norwegians pay an assessed fee of $65 per person. Not very much money for peace and security, but my question is if the U.S. asked the General Assembly to negotiate a change in our assessment, will this involve changes in all nations’ assessments? S-G: That’s a very good question. I—what we have here in the United Nations is an assesation of member states who collectively pay to fund this organization. These member states have also agreed on the criteria for such payment, how much each member state should pay and why. The basis for the payment is a gross domestic product, in other words, how wealthy is the nation concerned and the population that lives in that country. And so based on that, U.S. as the richest country in the world has paid more in the past. If U.S. decides—if the member states, there are two issues, if the member states were to decide to review the scale of assessment and bring the U.S. contribution down, let’s say from 25 percent to 20 percent, they will have to distribute the 5 percent that they are taking of the U.S. dues to the other member states. So, U.S. pays less; others have to pay more. In some sense, it’s a zero sum game. What is important, and this I’ve explained to the administration, that the U.S. should not take a unilateral decision to reduce its contribution, which as you’ve pointed

174 • 17 July 1997

out is a real bargain, UN is good value for money. Because if U.S. were to take a unilateral decision we will be faced with a situation where one member state out of 185 takes a political decision as to how much it should pay, but the rest, the 184 are assessed on—on an objective criteria, which I’ve just described, and that really leads to tensions and unnecessary disagreements within the organization. And so, if U.S. for one reason or the other believes that it should not pay more than 20 percent, it should negotiate it with the other member states and try and get its contribution reduced. And of course then it will be—the 5 percent will be redistributed to the others, whom I see some amongst—whom as you said really are paying more than they should and have been very generous and the Norwegians in particular and the Scandinavian counties and the European countries by and large and even some of the third world countries, the ASEAN and others have been really—been very good member states and met the obligations in full and on time without any preconditions. RS: June, thanks a lot for your call. CALLER: Thank you. RS: Rudy is next in Seattle, Washington, Rudy, welcome to Talk of the Nation. CALLER: Yes, Ray, thank you for taking my call. First of all, I would like to compliment the new Secretary General Mr. Kofi Annan, sir for doing an outstanding job. And . . . S-G: Thank you, Rudy. CALLER: . . . I’d like to suggest that the world, including the United States, ought to be very, very thankful and consider itself very fortunate to have such an outstanding great individual to serve as head of the United Nations. RS: Well, you’re making him blush, Rudy you want to go to your question . . . [laughter]. CALLER: Well . . . S-G: And when—and when I blush . . . CALLER: If I may . . . S-G: . . . you want to know—when I blush I turn gray . . . [laughter] . . . imperceptibly so [laughter]. CALLER: My main point is the following: I’m a immigrant to the United States and a proud citizen, but I think the United States, we all ought to hang our head in shame, for not paying our full membership dues for so many years, and still today put conditions on paying the overdue payments by putting conditions on those. The United States, I believe, can not have it

both ways and use the United Nations in support of actions we agree with such as Korea and Bosnia, which were very effective, and other areas, and then unilaterally, as you just pointed out, not pay our dues because certain aspects of the way the UN is run do not suit us. I do not understand how United States can take that position. RS: Well, Rudy, have you . . . S-G: And Rudy . . . RS: . . . let your United States senators know that that’s how you feel? CALLER: Yes, I will certainly do this, I’ll be happy to. We should simply pay up on what was agreed upon, as you just pointed out, years ago as our fair share, and then jointly with the other members of the UN simply try to make the UN more efficient. We all agree there’s more improvement everywhere, but that’s . . . S-G: Absolutely. CALLER: . . . is not a reason for us not to pay. S-G: And Rudy, as you know I’m prepared to work with all the member states to make this great organization better, effective, and relevant, to be able to do what you and the people out there expect of us. And let me also say something, there is some misconception out there that the U.S. is doing a lot for the UN and is doing a lot for the world and they are giving away lots of money to people who don’t deserve it. Quite frankly, the U.S. gets more out of the UN than any country I know. For each dollar you put in, you get about two dollars back, and . . . RS: And what form does that take, Mr. Secretary? S-G: Most of our procurement is made here in the states. Even when we go on these peacekeeping operations, the biggest contractor to UN for goods and services has been the U.S. We have 185 missions in New York, who—they rent offices; they rent apartments; they employ people; they buy U.S. cars. None of the other 184 countries can claim the sort of commercial and economic benefit with this association with the UN. And yet, it is the U.S. that gives us more hassle about its contribution than any of the others. RS: Rudy in Seattle, thanks a lot for your call. Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, is with us from UN headquarters in New York. You’re listening to Talk of the Nation from NPR News. And we’ll go back to Geneva, Switzerland. Gene, welcome to the program.

17 July 1997 • 175 CALLER: Hello. RS: Hello. CALLER: This is Gene Houdena speaking. S-G: Hi, how are you? CALLER: Mr. Secretary General, I am . . . S-G: Yes. CALLER: . . . to speak with you. I work with the World Peace Day Association. S-G: Which association? CALLER: The World Peace Day Association. Journee Mondiale de la Pais [sic]. S-G: Tres bien. CALLER: We are concerned with promoting peace, and also with promoting . . . provide human relations. And in particular, to help save the young generation, who have been caught up in various conflicts. And this is why I am asking the following questions. It relates to the War Crimes Tribunal that has been set up, to judge crimes against humanity. And my question is: does the United Nations plan to somehow strengthen this tribunal, both in the way of assuring that the criminals that have been defined, as it was, would be brought before the tribunal, and also, to expedite the work of the tribunal, especially in relation to Rwanda, and of course, the former Yugoslavia. S-G: Now first of all, let me applaud you and your organization for the work you do. And I share your concern for the younger generation. And in fact, next week, I will be making an announcement, naming a special representative of the Secretary General, to implement—to follow up children in conflict, the boy soldiers, to see what we can do to assist them and to put pressure on governments not to put children in uniform and give them Kalashnikovs. We would also—we do support the work of the tribunal. And in fact, next year, there will be a meeting of plenipotentiaries to discuss the establishment of permanent international criminal court, where people who commit some of these heinous crimes can be brought to justice, and we don’t have to set up ad hoc courts when we go through these situations. We are taking measures to strengthen both the Rwandan Tribunal and the Hague Tribunal. And in fact, the Hague Tribunal is trying to build another courtroom, so that they can put the criminals on trial as quickly as possible, once they have been delivered to them. I have [been] to The Hague twice, twice to see the judges. They are determined to do their work. But they cannot do theirs until others do what they

have to do by apprehending and delivering the criminals. In that respect, we are much further ahead in the Rwanda trials, where we have quite a lot of the senior people in jail, who’ll be going on trial. And so, in one sense, they—Rwanda trial is much further ahead than The Hague, even though it is a court that had administrative difficulties. The Hague court is virtually established, but they don’t have the big criminals or the leaders to put on trial. But I think they have seen renewed effort by the international community to try and deliver these criminals. And in the last two weeks, two of them have been apprehended, one from Eastern Slavonia and the other one from Bosnia, and hopefully, the others will be picked up and brought to trial, because in these situations, justice and the healing among the communities are not divisible. And unless there is justice, the healing cannot begin, and peace cannot take hold. Thank you. RS: Gene in Geneva, Switzerland, from the World Peace Day Organization, thanks a lot for your call. We’re getting down to the end of our time, Mr. Secretary. Brian called from Indianapolis, Indiana to talk about changing the formula of the permanent members of the Security Council, or changing its number. To many people, it seems to be a relic of World War II, the victorious powers really still dominating that body, the Security Council, 50 years later. What suggestions have you looked at since you’ve taken over? S-G: I think the member states, by and large agree with his assessment. I mean, most of us accept that the composition of the council should be brought into the realities of the ’90s. The debate that is going on amongst the member states, and this is an issue for the member states to resolve, is that some believe that the council ought to remain small to be effective. Others believe that for the council to gain in greater legitimacy, it has to be more representative and bring in additional members, particularly from the third world. And I think what is going to happen—and of course, on the question of the veto, some have argued that the veto is anachronistic, and it should be abandoned. But I don’t think the permanent five are ready to abandon that privilege and prerogative, so what is being asked now, do you create additional permanent seats? And if so, who gets it? Thank you. RS: Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for joining us today on Talk of the Nation. S-G: Thank you [inaudible].

176 • 17 July 1997

RS: Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN, he joined us from the studios of United Nations Radio in New York City. Don’t forget to pick up a copy of this month’s Book Club of the Air selection, Memory Mambo by Achy Obejas. It’s about a 24-year-old Latina who, along with her family, is exiled from Cuba to the U.S. The Book Club meets at this time, next Thursday, July 24. Again, Memory Mambo by Achy Obejas, O-B-E-J-A-S.

17 July 1997 Secretary-General Tells Staff UN Can Do More with Less, Without Affecting Quality

Speech to staff (EOSG, SG/SM/6286); UN reform This morning, as I speak to you about the vital reforms of our Organization, I am very pleased to be addressing the staff of the United Nations throughout the world. Greetings, then, not only to colleagues here in New York, but also to those in Geneva, Nairobi and Vienna, and in the United Nations Information Centres and regional commissions, and especially to our colleagues in the field, and on United Nations missions, who with great courage endure hardship and danger in the cause of the United Nations. As you know, yesterday I submitted to the General Assembly my report “Renewing the United Nations: a Programme for Reform”. This reform package is the product of detailed review and careful consultation. I have briefed your staff representatives. It has one objective and one objective only: to strengthen our United Nations, and enable us—the staff—to do more and to do better. My aspiration—simply and immediately—is to improve and enhance the conception, quality and delivery of the services that we provide. That is what the world demands of us. No less must we demand of ourselves. Let me say to you at the outset: reform is not their cause, it is our cause. We who strive every day to honour our calling and improve our service want, more than anyone else, to enhance our effectiveness and unleash our potential. It is not their reform, it is our reform. I am convinced—having become SecretaryGeneral after 30 years of service at the United Nations—that the skills, idealism and sense of vocation of the staff are an extraordinary asset for the Organization and for the world. My reform package aims to liberate skills and

capacities. I want to ensure the highest levels of excellence. Mobility, opportunity for growth and continuing learning are the cornerstones of my vision for the staff. All three are central to this reform process. We must be able to attract and retain the most talented, able and committed staff members. The package I presented yesterday is comprehensive. I will not go into all the details here. Every one of you, through normal documents distribution, cc-mail, optical disk or our home page on the World Wide Web, will be able to read the report as well as my statement to the General Assembly. Let me say briefly, however, and in general, that its measures and recommendations touch virtually every aspect of our work: from development to disarmament, peace-keeping to the environment, humanitarian assistance to human rights. It discusses the technical support we provide to intergovernmental bodies, and our presence at the country level, where our efforts are felt most directly. It proposes new ways of putting the Organization on a sound financial footing, and of raising more money for economic and social activities. When it comes to management, the United Nations must follow the lead of its Member States. We should ask ourselves how we can do more with less, without affecting quality and impact. How we can meet growing demands within constrained resources. How we can avoid duplication of effort, and how we can achieve the results required of us by the Member States. This is a formidable challenge. My report embraces a number of related strategies. We must do away with excessive bureaucratic procedures and rules. Our administrative processes must be modernized. We intend to expand and strengthen common services: administrative, financial, personnel and procurement. I have also asked the General Assembly to consider shifting to results-based budgeting—an approach that moves us from micro-management to macro-accountability. But of all the strategies aimed at creating a new culture of management at the United Nations, none is more important than the management of our human resources. The United Nations approach to human resources management will be the subject of a con-

21 July 1997 • 177 tinuing and thorough review. It will be conducted by a task force to be established for this purpose. The task force will be comprised of human resource experts from both the private and public sectors. Management and staff will have ample opportunity to make their views known. Building on the General Assembly Strategy, it will examine all the relevant issues: recruitment and placement, human resources planning, career service and compensation packages, career development and mobility, performance management and staff-management consultation. I want quick results from this initiative. As you know, I have already pledged to eliminate 1,000 staff posts. This will be achieved through attrition. The retirement of nearly half will occur in the course of the next decade. This will allow our programme managers to create new career opportunities and recruit the talent we need for the next millennium. In this effort, geographical representation and gender balance will be paramount considerations. This is a new beginning for the United Nations. It will be a new beginning for the staff as well. The quiet revolution that we have launched will transform the environment in which we work and the prospects for our success. We will ensure a United Nations which, when called upon to restore the peace and advance the cause of development, can and will do the job. Yesterday, I asked Member States to judge the United Nations and this reform plan not only by the cuts proposed or the structures changed. I asked them to judge us as well—and rightly—by the relief and the refuge that we provide to the poor, the hungry, the sick and the threatened— the peoples of the world whom the United Nations exists to serve. That is the standard that we must meet, that is the calling to which we must be true. I know that we, the staff of the United Nations, care more deeply about fulfilling the aims of our founders than anyone. Let us now show the world that when we can, we will. I thank you all for your dedication and service. I look forward to working with you in building our United Nations for the next century.

21 July 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Africa

... The Secretary-General had been extremely pleased with the manner in which the elections in Liberia had been conducted, Mr. Eckhard said. Those elections had been peaceful, with only some complaints about irregularities. By and large, their outcome seemed clear. The Secretary-General had also been pleased with the work done by the United Nations electoral observers. Mr. Eckhard then said that the Secretary-General was gratified that the African leaders who had met in Kinshasa over the weekend had supported his insistence that an investigation into allegations of the killing of Hutu refugees in the Democratic Republic of the Congo be undertaken. The Secretary-General had been determined all along that no excuse should stand in the way of establishing the truth of what had happened in the Congo. As for the investigation’s time-frame, the Secretary-General had no argument with the African leaders’ request that it extend back to 1993, Mr. Eckhard continued. The SecretaryGeneral had said that the evidence would speak for itself. He had relayed that position in a letter to President Laurent Kabila on the mission’s terms of reference. Copies of that letter were available in the Spokesman’s Office. . . . On Friday, 18 July, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Angola, Alioune Blondin Beye, had gone to Bailundo, the site of the headquarters of the leader of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), Jonas Savimbi, Mr. Eckhard said. Mr. Beye had travelled with the “troika ambassadors”—United States, Russian Federation and Portugal—to meet with Mr. Savimbi and the UNITA leadership. The UNITA had guaranteed that information on the disposition of their troops would be forthcoming, and also that it would go along with normalization of the extension of the Government’s administration to the whole of the Angolan territory. A faceto-face meeting between President Jose Eduardo dos Santos and Mr. Savimbi was also being discussed. . . . Asked whether the account in today’s newspapers on that meeting was correct, Mr. Eckhard said that according to the coverage in the wire services, the meeting’s participants had supported the dispatch of an investigative mission, and had also supported President Kabila’s request that the timeframe go back to 1993. The Secretary-General appreciated the support from those leaders and had told President Kabila that the time-frame was not a problem. In a sense, the version appearing in the

178 • 21 July 1997

newspapers this morning had been misleading, he added. A correspondent noted that there had been allegations of mercenaries committing human rights abuses in Kisangani. Could the crimes of outsiders be considered in the investigation? he asked. Mr. Eckhard said the investigation’s primary focus would be to look into allegations of large-scale killings of refugees. If, in the course of the investigation, evidence emerged from the period from 1993 to 1996, then such evidence would speak for itself. . . .

24 July 1997 Secretary-General Speaks at Presentation of the “UN21 Awards”

Speech (EOSG, SG/6290, ORG/1242); UN staff awards Speech delivered by the Secretary-General on the occasion of the presentation of the “UN21 Awards,” at UN headquarters. I am delighted to be here today to recognize these teams of United Nations staff members. They are helping to prepare the United Nations for the twenty-first century. They are enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the Organization, laying to rest the canard that the United Nations cannot achieve value for money. They are delivering concrete results—the best possible response to the ideologues and wilfully misinformed people around the world who reflexively criticize the United Nations and its staff. The accomplishments we are recognizing today are indeed substantial: • Every permanent mission in New York is now connected to the Internet and to the United Nations wealth of electronic information; • The UN-I-QUE database is giving researchers around the world access to United Nations documents; • Sales of United Nations stamps here in New York have doubled; • Computer mainframe operations in Geneva have been consolidated; • The Department of Peace-keeping Operations has improved the way we select police monitors; and • The innovative Ombudsman’s Office in Nairobi has helped the staff of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) go through significant downsizing and restructuring. I salute each of the teams, and each team mem-

ber, whose hard work and creativity made these achievements possible. You have enhanced the services we provide to Member States and research institutions. You have promoted a broader understanding of this Organization, which all too often can seem remote or bureaucratic. You have reduced overhead, and saved millions of dollars. You have shown that efficiency and effectiveness are compatible goals. Across this great Organization, there are outstanding staff members who are making major improvements in how we accomplish our global mission. Hundreds of staff members have designed more than 550 efficiency projects. Nearly half have been completed already; the rest are scheduled to be completed this year. Together, you are bringing about a dramatic shift in the management culture of this Organization. You are using technology to build an electronic United Nations. You are using common services. You are setting new standards of performance and excellence. And you are working in teams that cut across the Secretariat, and across the funds and programmes as well. I am pleased that awards are being presented to teams that brought together staff members from the United Nations and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and in which personnel from the United Nations and the Geneva-based International Computing Centre pooled their efforts. This shift, this transformation in the way we carry out our work, is at the heart of the reform package I announced last week. We have reached a critical stage in the reform process: the stage of implementation. We must now turn promises into deeds, ideas into results. This reform report was not put forth just to gather dust on some forgotten shelf, or to be watered down beyond recognition. I am determined to carry out every action that is within my authority. But to do so, I need the help of every member of the staff of the Organization. I know that the staff members we are honouring today will not rest on their laurels. And I know that all of you believe in the importance of our work, and in its urgency. So let us all join in this quiet revolution to create a new United Nations, the United Nations of the twenty-first century. Together, we can accomplish great things.

24 July 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/581); Liberia

24 July 1997 • 179 Two letters to the president of the Security Council, Sergey Lavrov. Following the official announcement of the results of the recently concluded elections in Liberia, I am pleased to inform you of the successful completion of the electoral process, which constituted the final element of the revised schedule of implementation of the Abuja Agreement. In support of the efforts of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the United Nations Observer Mission in Liberia (UNOMIL) played an effective and critical role in bringing about this outcome. In February 1997, consistent with the United Nations recommendations on a framework for the holding of elections in Liberia, ECOWAS and the Liberian parties established an agreed framework for the conduct of elections. On 2 April 1997, an Independent Elections Commission (IECOM) was established in Liberia, with the support of ECOWAS, for the purpose of organizing and conducting elections in Liberia. A Special Elections Law was drafted by IECOM providing for the preparation and conduct of the elections in conformity with international standards for democratic elections. The law was endorsed by the Extraordinary Summit of the ECOWAS leaders held at Abuja on 21 May 1997, following consultations with the Liberian political parties. Logistical constraints experienced throughout the country during the registration process were overcome with the coordinated support of all the international actors, particularly the ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), UNOMIL, the European Union and the United States of America. In the end, IECOM succeeded in registering over 750,000 voters, including many returning refugees. This impressive achievement far exceeded expectations and clearly demonstrated the enthusiasm of the Liberian people for the electoral process. The large number of registration sites and their wide distribution throughout the country afforded Liberians a fair and adequate opportunity to register themselves for the elections. The political parties contesting the elections conducted a vigorous campaign. The campaign extended across the country, and was conducted in a generally civil and peaceful atmosphere. With ECOMOG providing security, political parties were free to travel and open offices in all parts of the country, and thereby take their messages to the people. In order to observe and verify the polling exercise, over 500 international electoral observers,

including a total of 317 medium- and short-term observers from UNOMIL, were deployed throughout all 13 counties of the country. The UNOMIL observers visited over 1,500 of the 1,864 polling stations. Throughout the country, they reported that polling was conducted in an organized and efficient manner and without reports of violence or intimidation. Voter turnout was high, and voters everywhere conducted themselves in an orderly and peaceful manner. No serious incidents were reported on polling day, and while a number of technical irregularities were noted, there were no reports of major irregularities or of any circumstance that could have affected the outcome or credibility of the polling process. Many observers noted the relatively large number of people asking for assistance in casting their ballots, owing to the very high rate of illiteracy throughout the country. In assessing the overall conduct of the polling, it was apparent that all eligible Liberians had a fair opportunity to vote for a political party of their choice. Counting took place at polling sites immediately after the close of voting. In all cases, party agents and national and international observers had an opportunity to be present at the unsealing of the transparent ballot boxes and the counting and tallying of votes at the polling sites by the presiding officers. ECOMOG was also present at every polling station, including during the counting and tallying of votes. Final results from each polling site were announced by the presiding officer in the presence of party agents, national and international observers, and ECOMOG. Tally sheets were verified by the party agents present, who were also entitled to receive copies of the tally sheet. The tabulation of results was conducted by IECOM in Monrovia, in the presence of party agents, national and international observers, and ECOMOG. Partial results were released by IECOM, beginning on 20 July, as they became available. Tabulation of the results was completed on 24 July, and final official results were announced by IECOM at that time. The official results showed that Mr. Charles Ghankey Taylor of the National Patriotic Party had received an absolute majority of votes cast, thereby making unnecessary the holding of a second round of balloting. Earlier today, I issued a joint statement (see annex) with the Chairman of ECOWAS, General Sani Abacha, Head of State of Nigeria, verifying that the elections had been held in a secure environment, that the process had been credible and transparent and that the announced results were in

180 • 24 July 1997

accordance with the votes cast. On behalf of the United Nations and ECOWAS, the elections were certified as having been free and fair. I commend IECOM for its effective management of the elections and ECOMOG for ensuring a secure environment for the electoral process. I also commend the international donor community for its effective and generous assistance to the electoral process. I commend and congratulate ECOWAS countries for their persistence and determination in seeing the peace process through to a successful conclusion, and for their efforts at making this unprecedented, joint operation between the United Nations and ECOWAS under Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, a success. It is an example of the type of cooperation that can help to give new impetus to international efforts to promote peace and stability, in Africa and throughout the world. Above all, however, I congratulate the people of Liberia for the serious and responsible manner in which they have demonstrated their commitment to democracy and their support for the peace process. I look forward to early discussions with the new Government on how the United Nations can best assist Liberia’s efforts at national reconciliation, reconstruction, and development. * * *

Joint certification statement by the Chairman of the Economic Community of West African States and the Secretary-General on the 1997 Liberian Special Elections. 1. The results of the Liberian elections held on 19 July 1997 have now been announced by the Chairman of the Independent Elections Commission (IECOM). With this act, IECOM has formally completed the electoral process, the last item on the revised schedule of implementation of the Abuja Agreement under the ECOWAS Peace Plan for Liberia. We have received the reports of our representatives in Monrovia that indicated that IECOM had succeeded in according Liberian voters the opportunity freely to elect their leaders. This was done within the framework of the Special Elections Law, a one-time only legal instrument, which conformed to international standards for democratic elections. The Law was endorsed by the Extraordinary Summit of ECOWAS leaders held at Abuja on 21 May 1997. 2. We were informed that more than 750,000 voters were registered nationwide to participate in the special elections and they turned out in large numbers to avail themselves of the opportunity to

express freely their will through the ballot. Polling took place without violence or intimidation. The entire electoral process was conducted in an impartial and transparent manner. There were no reports of irregularities or incidents of a nature that could have affected the credibility of the elections, which were verified by over 500 international observers. The outcome of the presidential and legislative elections therefore reflects the will of the Liberian voters. 3. On behalf of the Economic Community of West African States and the United Nations we declare that the electoral process, which culminated in the final announcement of the results on 24 July 1997, was free, fair and credible. 4. We congratulate the Liberian people for demonstrating, through this process, their commitment to peace and their desire for the establishment of a democratically elected government. As the newly elected Government embarks on the daunting task of reconstructing the country and reconciling the nation, we call upon all Liberians to give it their fullest support. We commend the Organization of African Unity and the international donor community, which provided generous contributions and technical assistance towards the process that facilitated conducive arrangements for the elections. ECOWAS and the United Nations intend to continue to be actively engaged in the reconstruction of Liberia and to assist in mobilizing international support for this purpose.

28 July 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/592, A/57/952); Afghanistan Letter to the president of the General Assembly, Mr. Ismail Razali. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to General.Assembly resolution 51/195E of 17 December 1996 on the situation in Afghanistan and to my reports, A/51/838 of 16 March 1997 and A/51/929 of 16 June 1997, issued pursuant to that resolution. In these reports, I set out both the on-going conflict among the Afghan parties and the efforts of the United Nations Special Mission and the international community to resolve the conflict. I remain convinced of the need to intensify the efforts of the United Nations and its Member States to help bring about a peaceful solution. I have, therefore, decided to appoint a Special Envoy, Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, to undertake a short-term mission in order to consult interested

30 July 1997 • 181 and relevant countries and parties, as well as the Organization of Islamic Conference, on their positions and proposals related to peace-making efforts in Afghanistan. I hope that the Special Envoy will be able to submit his findings and recommendations to me in time for my report on Afghanistan to the 52nd session of the General Assembly. I would stress that the mandate and activities of the Special Envoy are discrete and to be distinguished from those of the United Nations Special Mission, the mandate of which has been specifically defined by General Assembly resolutions. I would be grateful Mr. President if you would convey this information to the members of the General Assembly. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

30 July 1997 Secretary-General Expresses Horror at Today’s Carnage in Jerusalem

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6292); terrorism I am shocked and horrified by the carnage in Jerusalem today. At least 18 innocent lives are lost and over 150 people injured in apparent twin suicide attacks. I express my heartfelt condolences to the Government and people of Israel, and especially to the families of the victims. And I condemn this act of terror unreservedly, as I condemn terrorism from whatever quarter. Violence of this kind can never advance the cause of peace. This is a crucial time in the quest for peace in the Middle East. I appeal to all concerned to reject violence and pursue their aims through dialogue, at the negotiating table.

30 July 1997 Letter (EOSG, A/51/598, S/1997/605); former Yugoslavia Letter to the president of the General Assembly, Ismail Razali. Dear Mr. President, The President of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has requested, for the reasons set out in his attached letter of 18 June, an extension of the terms of office of the non-elected judges of the International Tribunal in order to allow them to dispose of on-going cases. This matter raises institutional and budgetary questions pertaining to the status of the judges beyond their

elected term of office and to related financial arrangements; these were explored in subsequent correspondence with the President, the Prosecutor and the Registrar of the Tribunal. You may recall that at the election of judges of the International Tribunal by the General Assembly on 20 May 1997, a number of judges currently serving with the Tribunal were not elected for a second term of office. This in particular is the situation of the three judges composing Trial Chamber II sitting in the Celebici case and whose term of office expires on 16 November 1997. If the same judges are not allowed to complete the case, it would be necessary to restart the trial with a new panel of judges and order the rehearings of witnesses and testimonies. At this stage of the proceedings this would unnecessarily prolong the trial and violate the right of the accused to due process of law. The Statute of the International Tribunal does not contain a provision similar to the one provided for in Article 13, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, whereby members of that Court continue to discharge their duties until they are replaced and, thereafter, until they finish any cases which they may have begun. It is, however, provided in Article 13, paragraph 4, of the Statute of the Tribunal that the terms and conditions of service of judges of the Tribunal shall be those of the judges of the International Court of Justice. Nevertheless, in the absence of an explicit statutory provision providing for the extension of the term of office of Tribunal judges to complete ongoing cases, an approval of the Security Council, as the parent organ, and of the General Assembly, as the electing organ, would be desirable to preclude any question about the legality of such an extension. As more fully elaborated in the letter addressed to me by the President of the International Tribunal, the period required to complete the Celebici case is estimated at one year and the annual budgetary costs are estimated at $668,480. It is, of course, understood that in the period until the expiration of their elected term of office said judges would be assigned efficiently so as to reduce the period of extension required beyond the end of their elected term to the minimum consistent with due process of law. I would appreciate it if you could bring this letter and its attachment to the attention of Members of the General Assembly for their approval in the manner they deem fit. I have also addressed a similar letter to the President of the Security Council.

182 • 30 July 1997

Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

30 July 1997 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Letter to the members of the Administrative Committee on Coordination. Dear ________, You might recall that, in my letter of 6 June to members of the Administrative Committee on Coordination, I outlined some of the actions being taken within the United Nations Secretariat to advance the follow-up to the ACC conclusions concerning peace-building, and to contribute to the further development of a strategic framework to guide the system’s response to crisis situations, as agreed upon at the last session of the ACC. In my letter, I also indicated that, in view of developments following the ACC session, a further priority had emerged of providing effective and well coordinated assistance to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of developing a strategic approach for building future stability in the region. Thus, I informed you of my decision to establish a task force within the United Nations, with the participation of the World Bank, to address issues and requirements affecting reconciliation, reconstruction and stability in the region, and indicated that I would revert to you, in the light of advice from the task force, on ways to further a concerted system-wide approach to this effort. The task force has been meeting under the chairmanship of Mr. Speth, as convenor of my Executive Committee on Development Operations, and has been assisted by an executive working group. The task force plans to open a broad dialogue with the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, representatives of United Nations organizations in the country and other partners, and to develop, in that light, proposals on the elements of a strategic framework and an overall structure for the system’s response to the country’s priorities and requirements. Such proposals will, of course, need to be followed by detailed programming which will require the full and direct involvement of all relevant parts of the United Nations system. With regard to the wider Great Lakes region, Mr. Speth and Mr. Akashi have meanwhile written jointly to the Resident Coordinators in the region encouraging them to take the lead in promoting common approaches and the necessary inter-

agency cooperation in the formulation of strategic frameworks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and, as circumstances permit, Burundi. I trust that I can count on the full cooperation of your organization in ensuring that our support to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Great Lakes region will develop as an effective and truly system-wide endeavour. Yours sincerely,

1 August 1997 Letter (EOSG); Trust Fund for Preventive Action Letter sent to all member states of the UN. The letter was also sent in French and Spanish. The Secretary-General of the United Nations presents his compliments to the Permanent Representative of . . . to the United Nations, and has the honour to inform him/her of the establishment of a Trust Fund for Preventive Action. The Trust Fund for Preventive Action is designed to enhance the capacity of the SecretaryGeneral to take early and effective diplomatic action to defuse potential conflicts and to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts. It will bolster the ability of the Secretary-General to deploy preventive mediation efforts expeditiously and effectively in crisis situations where, invariably, time is of the essence. The terms of reference for the Trust Fund for Preventive Action are attached. To date, the Trust Fund has received contributions from Norway in the amount of $4 million. The Netherlands have pledged $500,000. The Secretary-General invites interested States to contribute to the Trust Fund for Preventive Action.

1 August 1997 Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Somalia Completes Week of Consultations at Headquarters

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6294); Somalia The Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Somalia, Under-Secretary-General Ismat Kittani, today completes a week of consultations at Headquarters with the Secretary-General, UnderSecretary-General for Political Affairs Kieran Prendergast, senior United Nations officials, and the Ambassadors in New York of countries and organizations involved with and cooperating with the United Nations in regional peacemaking efforts. He

182 • 30 July 1997

Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

30 July 1997 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Letter to the members of the Administrative Committee on Coordination. Dear ________, You might recall that, in my letter of 6 June to members of the Administrative Committee on Coordination, I outlined some of the actions being taken within the United Nations Secretariat to advance the follow-up to the ACC conclusions concerning peace-building, and to contribute to the further development of a strategic framework to guide the system’s response to crisis situations, as agreed upon at the last session of the ACC. In my letter, I also indicated that, in view of developments following the ACC session, a further priority had emerged of providing effective and well coordinated assistance to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of developing a strategic approach for building future stability in the region. Thus, I informed you of my decision to establish a task force within the United Nations, with the participation of the World Bank, to address issues and requirements affecting reconciliation, reconstruction and stability in the region, and indicated that I would revert to you, in the light of advice from the task force, on ways to further a concerted system-wide approach to this effort. The task force has been meeting under the chairmanship of Mr. Speth, as convenor of my Executive Committee on Development Operations, and has been assisted by an executive working group. The task force plans to open a broad dialogue with the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, representatives of United Nations organizations in the country and other partners, and to develop, in that light, proposals on the elements of a strategic framework and an overall structure for the system’s response to the country’s priorities and requirements. Such proposals will, of course, need to be followed by detailed programming which will require the full and direct involvement of all relevant parts of the United Nations system. With regard to the wider Great Lakes region, Mr. Speth and Mr. Akashi have meanwhile written jointly to the Resident Coordinators in the region encouraging them to take the lead in promoting common approaches and the necessary inter-

agency cooperation in the formulation of strategic frameworks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and, as circumstances permit, Burundi. I trust that I can count on the full cooperation of your organization in ensuring that our support to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Great Lakes region will develop as an effective and truly system-wide endeavour. Yours sincerely,

1 August 1997 Letter (EOSG); Trust Fund for Preventive Action Letter sent to all member states of the UN. The letter was also sent in French and Spanish. The Secretary-General of the United Nations presents his compliments to the Permanent Representative of . . . to the United Nations, and has the honour to inform him/her of the establishment of a Trust Fund for Preventive Action. The Trust Fund for Preventive Action is designed to enhance the capacity of the SecretaryGeneral to take early and effective diplomatic action to defuse potential conflicts and to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts. It will bolster the ability of the Secretary-General to deploy preventive mediation efforts expeditiously and effectively in crisis situations where, invariably, time is of the essence. The terms of reference for the Trust Fund for Preventive Action are attached. To date, the Trust Fund has received contributions from Norway in the amount of $4 million. The Netherlands have pledged $500,000. The Secretary-General invites interested States to contribute to the Trust Fund for Preventive Action.

1 August 1997 Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Somalia Completes Week of Consultations at Headquarters

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6294); Somalia The Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Somalia, Under-Secretary-General Ismat Kittani, today completes a week of consultations at Headquarters with the Secretary-General, UnderSecretary-General for Political Affairs Kieran Prendergast, senior United Nations officials, and the Ambassadors in New York of countries and organizations involved with and cooperating with the United Nations in regional peacemaking efforts. He

5 August 1997 • 183 will set out on a mission to the region next week where he will continue his consultations with those directly concerned with the situation in Somalia. The terms of reference of Under-SecretaryGeneral Kittani include the following: • To assess the situation on the ground; • To ascertain the positions of the Somali factions and the regional governments and organizations concerned on matters related to national reconciliation and the establishment of a broad-based government; • To review and explore, based on the positions ascertained and the assessment reached, the role of the United Nations in support of regional peacemaking efforts; and • To make recommendations on any future peacemaking role of the United Nations.

4 August 1997 Letter (UN archives); UN reform/Millennium Assembly This memo from Joseph Connor was dictated over the phone by the Secretary-General, typed, and then copied to Maurice Strong and Joseph Connor. To: The Secretary-General From: Joseph E. Connor Subject: Track II Implementation Plan 1. Late on Friday afternoon I received, but did not have time to study, Mr. Strong’s memorandum to you on the above subject. I have now had time to read the plan and have a few comments. 2. First, I strongly urge that the implementation plan not be adopted until there is a full discussion by either the Steering Committee or your Senior Policy Group. It is highly desirable that “buy in” be obtained. 3. As to a second overall comment, I am concerned that a number of actions are to take place during the first week of August. This date is unrealistic. Senior executives are away on vacation and there is no time to attend to these early August issues now. At a minimum they should be postponed until mid-August. I refer particularly to the Task Force on Human Resource Issues. I have not seen any plan and, of course, I am named as one of the two action officers. 4. A third comment refers to the initiation of action relative to the Special Ministerial Commission, the Millennium Assembly and the People’s Millennium Assembly. It seems to me we should wait before commencing any action in connection with these issues until there is some indi-

cation at the September Plenary that such activities are welcomed by the Member States. 5. A fourth issue relates to the single item of a formation of your Senior Management Group: This will be a sensitive item and I would urge that you be the action person in regard to it. [Dictated over phone but not signed] Connor is right on all accounts. —K.A. 4/8

4 August 1997 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Sir John Weston. I have the honor to inform you and, through you, the Members of the Security Council that as required by paragraph 8 (a) (ii) of resolution 986 (1995), the Government of Iraq has submitted to me its Distribution Plan for the purchase and distribution of humanitarian supplies, for an additional period as defined in resolution 1111 (1997). The Government of Iraq was informed today that I had approved that Plan subject to the condition that its implementation would be governed by resolutions 986 (1995) and 1111 (1997) and the Memorandum of Understanding, and would be without prejudice to the procedures employed by the Committee established by resolution 661 (1990). A copy of the categorized list of supplies and goods that accompanied the Government of Iraq’s Distribution Plan is being made available to the Committee. The list has been scrutinized by experts of the United Nations Special Commission who have identified items that would be subject to notification under the procedures adopted by resolution 1051 (1996), the export/import monitoring mechanism for Iraq. The list of items falling under this category is also being forwarded to the Committee. The Distribution Plan and the letter conveying my acceptance of the Plan are attached. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

5 August 1997 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Letter to the president of the Security Council, Sir John Weston. Dear Mr. President, Further to our conversation yesterday, I am forwarding herewith a copy of the letter which I

184 • 5 August 1997

addressed to His Excellency M. Laurent-Désiré Kabila, President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, on 17 July 1997. I also attach a copy of the communication from His Excellency Professor Thomas Kanza, Minister for International Cooperation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to the United Nations Resident Representative in Kinshasa. As I mentioned to you yesterday, I telephoned President Kabila on 31 July and sought confirmation that the communication from Professor Kanza was not meant to constitute President Kabila’s reply to my letter. The President confirmed this and assured me that he would be replying directly to me. I would be grateful if you could share these communications with the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

5 August 1997 Letter (EOSG); UN reform Letter sent to all heads of state of the UN. Excellency, I have the honour to bring to your attention my report on Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform, which I presented to the General Assembly on 16 July. A booklet comprising the Highlights and Overview of the report is enclosed herewith, as is a copy of my statement to the Assembly. This reform effort rests on the premise that the world has at its service a United Nations whose Charter is of enduring validity, and whose contributions to international peace and security as well as economic and social progress remain indispensable as we enter a new century—and millennium. But it also recognizes frankly the imperative for the United Nations to do better what the world asks us to do, and thus we have embraced the need to change with vigour and determination. Because this thoroughgoing renewal of our United Nations is in the best interest of the Organization and all of its Member States alike, I know that I can count on, and I very much welcome and appreciate, your support. Those elements of the reform package that I can implement on my own authority will take effect as soon as possible. Those that require approval by the General Assembly will be taken up and, I hope, completed at its fall session. Permit me to describe briefly the main fea-

tures of the reforms. One set of major measures is intended to reconfigure fundamentally the leadership and management structure of the United Nations. This is the “quiet revolution” of which I spoke in my statement to the Assembly. It includes achieving greater focus in the strategic directions the Organization receives from the General Assembly, and on the Secretariat side, innovations to ensure greater unity of purpose, coherence of efforts, and agility in responding to the challenges of an increasingly dynamic and complex world. Central to the initiatives concerning the Secretariat are creating the post of Deputy Secretary-General, instituting a cabinet-type Senior Management Group, and establishing a Strategic Planning Unit. At the same time, we plan to do more with less by squeezing savings out of administration—from 38 per cent of the total budget to 25 per cent—and investing those savings in an account for development. A second set of measures aims to strengthen our delivery of services in the core areas of our work: peace and security, development cooperation, economic and social affairs, humanitarian affairs, and human rights. Among the most important innovations here are the creation of a United Nations Development Group; the consolidation of all United Nations activities to combat crime, terrorism, drug-trafficking, and money laundering into one Office in Vienna, to be directed by Senator Pino Arlacchi of Italy, an expert on organized crime; solidifying the institutional base on which President Mary Robinson, our new High Commissioner for Human Rights, will operate; restructuring Secretariat arrangements for coordinating humanitarian assistance; and moving toward a rapid deployment capacity for peacekeeping as well as streamlining the Organization’s response to the challenge of post-conflict peace building. Finally, the report acknowledges the growing significance of civil society to much of what the United Nations does, especially at the country level, and suggests ways to establish more effective partnerships with non-governmental organizations and the private sector. And it stresses the need for the United Nations to institute a culture of communications, from top to bottom, to better serve Member States and in order for us to become more effective at telling our story. The changes affecting our Headquarters operations will also shape our work at the country level. Where the United Nations has country programmes, we are moving toward common premis-

5 August 1997 • 185 es—“UN House”—utilizing common services, and operating under one flag. When I spoke to the Assembly I announced that the first UN House is being established in South Africa, effective immediately. Others are planned. In conclusion, allow me to reiterate how important it is for the international community as a whole to have a revitalized United Nations effectively performing its enduring core missions of working indefatigably for peace and progress. I trust that all delegations will come to the fifty-second session of the General Assembly determined to act promptly and decisively on the reform proposals that I have put before them. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

5 August 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Palestine Fred Eckhard began today’s noon briefing by announcing that the Secretary-General met late yesterday with the Permanent Observer of Palestine, M. Nasser Al-Kidwa. They discussed letters that the President of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, had sent to the SecretaryGeneral and to the Security Council concerning restrictions already imposed on Palestinians or being considered by the Government of Israel. The Council was expected to take up the matter this week, Mr. Eckhard said. The Secretary-General also discussed the situation in the Middle East in general, including how to get the peace process back on track, when he met this morning with Yossi Beilin, an old friend and member of the Israeli Knesset, the Spokesman said. . . . Referring to a statement issued yesterday by the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Angola, Alioune Blondin Beye, Mr. Eckhard said it was a strong statement which urged the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) to provide the information demanded by the Security Council. The action was taken in concert with the troika of observers of the peace process in Angola—Portugal, Russian Federation and United States. They considered that the revised proposals on the extension of State administration by UNITA were unacceptable. The Spokesman said UNITA had not provided more information on its remaining military elements, including its “so-called mining police,” nor

had it provided information on the measures to transform “Vorgan,” its radio station, into a nonpartisan broadcasting facility. It was considered imperative that UNITA comply with the Security Council demands to put the peace process back on track and avoid punitive measures, according to the statement—the full text of which was now available in the Spokesman’s Office. Mr. Eckhard reminded correspondents that last week the Secretary-General had approved the opening of a new border entry point at Al-Walid on the Iraqi-Syrian border, for the oil-for-food programme deliveries. It was now in the process of being set up and was expected to become fully operational in three to four weeks. The border point had been closed for more than 10 years and had only been open for the past three months, under a bilateral agreement between Iraq and Syria. As a result, much of the infrastructure needed to be rebuilt, including buildings and roads. He went on to say that 10 United Nations inspectors would be stationed at Al-Walid to authenticate the arrival of humanitarian supplies entering Iraq under the oil-for-food programme. They would live there and work on a 24-hour basis, operating three shifts per day. The Iraqi Government had requested the re-opening of that entry point at the end of June. Other entry points were at the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr, Trebil at the Iraqi-Jordanian border, and Zakho at the IraqiTurkish border. The report of the Task Force on the Reorientation of United Nations Public Information Activities—“Global Vision, Local Voice”—was now available as a United Nations document, Mr. Eckhard said. The SecretaryGeneral had read the report and agreed with the general thrust of it. However, the SecretaryGeneral was still awaiting specific recommendations to be formulated by the office of the Executive Coordinator for United Nations Reform, Maurice Strong. Once they were approved by the Secretary-General, those recommendations would be translated into administrative actions. The Secretary-General and Mrs. Annan last night hosted a dinner at their residence for the Chairman of the Task Force, Mark Malloch Brown, who is Vice-President for External Relations/United Nations Affairs at the World Bank, and for the other members of the Task Force, Mr. Eckhard said. . . . A correspondent drew attention to a break in communications between the United States Administration in Washington and the Ambassa-

186 • 5 August 1997

dor of Bosnia and Herzegovina to that country. Would the Secretary-General be influenced by that development and act in the same way towards the Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Nations? Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General had no intention of altering his relations with the permanent representatives accredited to the United Nations, including the Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That development in question was a matter primarily between the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and those governments which were pressing for implementation of the Dayton Agreement. What would happen if the Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina wanted to meet the Secretary-General? the correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said that Mr. Annan would see any properly accredited ambassador who asked to meet with him. “That is part of his job,” he added. ... A correspondent asked about the location for the second round of talks on Cyprus, expected to take place next week in Switzerland. Mr. Eckhard said they would be held in a conference facility in a small village near Montreux. The organizers wanted minimum publicity for the talks, to the extent that the Spokesman’s Office was still trying to get permission for a photo opportunity. As with the first round, he believed that the SecretaryGeneral’s Special Adviser on Cyprus, Diego Cordovez, would brief correspondents when the talks were over. Mr. Eckhard said he would check on the issue of publicity and inform correspondents of the location if that information could be released. . . .

11 August 1997 Secretary-General Outlines New Approaches to Development

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6300, DEV/2167); development Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at Uppsala University, in Sweden. It is for me a pleasure to return to this beautiful city and to this distinguished university. I am also conscious that I am walking here in the footsteps of a great former Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjöld. His inspired leadership covered all aspects of the Organization’s work. But his contribution to development cooperation—the subject of my address today—was seminal. He helped set in motion many initiatives which benefited developing countries in

the critical post-colonial period. So I begin by paying tribute to a great Swede, and a great international civil servant. In choosing to talk about development, I am addressing a subject which is dear to Sweden’s heart. Sweden has been notable for decades not only for its support for international development assistance, but also for its strong leadership in this field. It is an extraordinary fact that Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark together provided 20 per cent of the funds in 1995 for United Nations system operational activities for development. The work of the United Nations in peace-keeping, or in peacemaking, is often in the public eye on television and in our newspapers. That is not true of development. It directly affects the lives of many more people than do our peace-keeping activities. Conceptual work by the United Nations in the development field has influenced government policies everywhere. Yet, the development work of the United Nations almost never gets into the headlines. Today, I hope to begin to rectify that misconception. The world economy and the world political situation have changed radically in the past decade. There has been a revolution in the international economy. It is now global. The role of private capital in development, and of the organizations of civil society in political affairs have transformed the overall picture. Between and within nations, inequality is increasing. During the past decade, gaps have widened—between the rich and the poor, the skilled and the unskilled, the powerful and the weak. All too often, a cycle of deprivation then sets in. Disadvantaged segments of the population may feel angry and hopeless. Sensing that they have so stake [sic] in society, they may turn to crime or other forms of social misbehaviour. Marginalization, social exclusion and alienation are major challenges of our time. The immediate challenge is underdevelopment itself. Over 60 per cent of the world’s population subsists on $2 or less per day. Nearly 1 billion people are illiterate. Well over a billion lack access to safe water. Everyday, some 840 million go hungry or face food insecurity. Nearly a third of the people in the least developed countries are not expected to survive beyond the age of 40. Poverty and deprivation cause lack of access to education and housing, and unemployment. In many countries, unemployment among the young has become endemic. When men and women in their 20s or early 30s have no prospects for work, the results can be devastating. Chronic unemployment leads to unemployability because skills are

11 August 1997 • 187 lost, and once you’ve not been employed for a long time you can lose the habit of working. Despite major gains in the last two decades, structural inequalities between women and men persist. They are reflected in the continuing female-male literacy gap—women’s literacy rates are two thirds those of men. Overall, therefore, women have less access to rights, to opportunities, and to resources. These are the development challenges. But they are not insuperable. The latest Human Development Report produced by the United Nations Development Programme showed that, by sustained effort, extreme poverty could be banished in a decade. We need bold and concerted action on many fronts, in a spirit of global solidarity. And we need to target our efforts more than ever, to ensure that scarce funds are deployed to the best effect. For the United Nations, in the age of the global economy, this means helping countries to take full advantage of the investment and opportunities globalization brings. It also means helping countries avoid marginalization—the dark side of the global economy. To do this, the United Nations provides direct support to the least developed countries, particularly in Africa. But although United Nations grant resources and other development assistance can be crucial for many countries, the engine of development now, without doubt, is private capital. Most developing countries, as well as former socialist bloc countries, have moved decisively away from centrally planned economies. Import-substitution policies and barriers to trade are being replaced by export-orientation policies. With them come the elimination of tariffs, subsidies, and other trade distortions. The result has been a dramatic increase in private capital flows to developing countries in the past five years. Until the early nineties, most of the financial flow to developing countries consisted of official development aid. Now, official development assistance is declining: private sector capital flows have increased enormously. It is estimated that in 1996 foreign direct investment in developing countries totalled $244 billion, while official flows totalled $42 billion. Private investment does not, however, flow evenly to all developing countries. It tends to benefit some countries, and to leave others aside. In 1966, foreign direct investment in Asia amounted to $48 billion; in sub-Saharan Africa, it amounted to just $2.6 billion. Only 1 per cent of direct for-

eign investment goes to the 48 least developed countries. This situation raises important issues for development policy. Donors are having to target official development assistance flows much more carefully. With less aid money to go around, much more attention is being given to make sure it is used well. Developing countries are making policy and institutional changes so as to attract private sector capital. They are having to give priority to the creation of an enabling environment. That means more than ensuring that the private sector can prosper, although that is a vital part of it. It means, in many cases, redefining the role of the State, moving from a controlling State to a State which acts as partner, catalyst and facilitator. Development assistance can often be crucial in creating just such an enabling environment. In other words, careful targeting of official assistance can be instrumental in attracting investment capital. In terms of regional allocation, the largest proportion of United Nations grant resources goes to Africa—$1.7 billion of the $4.8 billion total in 1995. The aim of this assistance is to strengthen the capacity of weaker countries to be effective participants in the global economy. That involves helping countries overcome the negative aspects of adjustment programmes and other economic reform measures; supporting their participation in international markets; improving their access to new technology; and building capacity generally in science and technology. The United Nations and the international community are giving increasing attention to the question of governance. Governance means an effective, efficient State. It means giving attention to the delivery of services. It means ensuring that the State is responsive to its citizens. That means reinvigorating public institutions, improving the accountability of public officials, and eliminating corruption and clientelism. The redefinition of the role of the State should not be equated with reducing the State to a minimalist role. Part of the role of the State as catalyst and facilitator is to support the provision of good health services and educational opportunities for its citizens, either directly or by coordinating its provision by the private sector or by the institutions of civil society. Education is vital. Knowledge and skills will be the driving force in development in the twentyfirst century. It is becoming clear that, in today’s world, knowledge and skills are the decisive fac-

188 • 11 August 1997

tors in giving countries or corporations their competitive edge. A recent World Bank study found that close to 65 per cent of growth can be attributed, not to natural resources, finance or infrastructure, but to human and social capital. Increasingly, major corporations are investing heavily in the human and social capital of their organizations. They are thinking in terms of structures and policies which can attract, retain, develop, motivate and make effective use of high-calibre staff. Top managers are discovering the importance of their organizations’ knowledge base. Old-style centralized management styles are giving way to more collegial forms of management. The revolution in information technology is part of this. It will have an enormous impact on development. But its benefits are not being distributed equitably. The information explosion is widening the gap between the haves and havenots—the gap between the technologically rich and poor. For example, in the whole of Africa, there are fewer telephones than in the city of Tokyo. There remain great inequalities, and, therefore, great development challenges, in a world in which the principal source of production, jobs and sustainable development is in the private sector; and in which the role of the State is being redefined as that of facilitator and catalyst. But there is now a broad consensus on the preconditions for development. It is agreed that there is a paramount need for peace, political stability and mutual trust; for democratic government and a free market system. Other conditions include sound governance, good laws, decentralization, a competent, efficient, well-trained and dedicated public service; fiscal responsibility; an equitable and efficient tax system; and government capacity to steer and to sustain a friendly and enabling environment for business, for non-governmental organizations and for individuals—an environment that will release the energies needed. The promotion of development is one of the purposes of the United Nations. It remains so. But as economic and political conditions change, as new actors emerge, so our approach to development has to take those changes into account. One of my major priorities as SecretaryGeneral has been to establish a new partnership for development between the United Nations and the private sector. I see such a partnership as involving a joint programme of cooperation with governmental and non-governmental organizations, in both the developing and the transitional

economies. The aim will be to bring more of the world’s poor into the expanding zone of opportunity, by increasing the conditions for domestic and international investment, job creation and peopledriven and people-centred development. I see the partnership as working in the following fields: • Twinning companies in developed and developing countries. (Twinning agreements would include matters of public concern such as training, technological development and environmental conservation.) • Helping to develop financial markets, including appropriate regulatory frameworks. • Strengthening national and provincial chambers of commerce and industry, patent offices, technology parks, business incubators and other private-sector support institutions. • Developing market-based incentives for environmental management. • Support to international and regional institutions for promotion of business. • Support for non-governmental and other community-based non-profit organizations. • Provision of physical infrastructure. Some will say that emphasizing the importance of the private sector means neglecting the millions in developing countries who lack capital. It is true that, for millions of people with meagre resources, obtaining credit is either fraught with danger or simply impossible—the money lenders and his exorbitant charges are prohibitive. But new ways are being devised for ordinary, poor people, to have access to credit on affordable terms. The micro-credit movement is a new way of empowering women, especially rural women. It is rising to the challenge of extending small loans to people without collateral and a credit history. The Grameen Bank of Bangladesh is an often cited example of what can be achieved, particularly, in that case, by making credit available to microenterprises run by women. There are many other examples. The recently held Micro-credit Summit in Washington, D.C., was attended by more than 2,000 persons from 137 countries. The Summit set a worthy target to expand the reach of micro-credit to 100 million of the world’s poorest families, especially those headed by women, for selfemployment and micro-business, by the year 2005. It is an aim that we at the United Nations support most enthusiastically. I have outlined some of the new approaches to

13 August 1997 • 189 development we are working on at the United Nations and some of the ways we are responding to the new challenges. We need to rekindle the spirit of adventure, enterprise, optimism and solidarity which built the global partnerships—and the United Nations—some 50 years ago. Economic and social development is the surest foundation for peace, stability and security. The founders of the United Nations understood this. That is why the commitment to development is one of the guiding principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The peoples of the world demand no less.

13 August 1997 Secretary-General Says Concern for Human Rights Marks Changed Nature of World Politics

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6301); human rights Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the Foreign Affairs Institute of the Paasiviki Association, in Helsinki, Finland. The very name of Helsinki is synonymous with human rights. For millions of people, the Helsinki Process was in itself a message of hope. Your country has made important contributions to efforts to ensure that human rights are part of the international agenda. Finland not only is party to the six core human rights instruments. Finnish nationals are actively serving the United Nations in the peace-keeping and human rights fields; and Finland has been a generous contributor to United Nations voluntary funds in the human rights field. So no subject is more appropriate for a lecture in Helsinki today than the work of the United Nations in human rights. But there is another reason for me to address the subject of human rights today. In human rights as in other fields this is a time for reform and for decision at the United Nations. Ever since its inception, the United Nations has worked to refine and define international jurisprudence affecting human rights. But only very recently did the United Nations begin to undertake operational activities in human rights. In fact, the 1990s have seen an explosion of United Nations work in the field at the country level. Human rights are now a permanent feature of United Nations work for peace and a crucial factor in international relations. But we have responded to events, rather than building up structures in a coherent fashion. There is, therefore, a need to take stock of the work of the United Nations in the field of human rights.

The United Nations was born out of resistance to fascism and Nazism. It was understood that such evils cannot be combated except by united action by nations. And the appalling experience of the holocaust drove home to the drafters of the Charter the crucial importance of human rights in a new framework of international peace and security. Indeed, modern human rights law grew out of the determination that the monstrous abuses of human rights of the Nazi era should never be repeated. Sadly, human rights abuses have not ended. But the principles enshrined in the Charter, and in subsequent instruments, provide a standard yardstick, which is universal. The very first article of the Charter states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is “to achieve international cooperation in . . . promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”. But the Charter also makes it clear that all purposes of the United Nations should be blended together in the overall effort to promote peace and security. That, too, was a clear lesson from World War II. A peaceful and secure future would be built on a foundation of human rights, action to promote peace and economic and social development, and the advancement of international justice and democracy. In two specific ways, the United Nations Charter brought major political changes in international human rights policy. It made clear, without any shadow of a doubt, that human rights are legitimate matters of international concern. And it gave authority to the Organization, and placed an obligation on its Member States, to define and codify those rights. The foundation of the United Nations coincided with, and was part of, the human rights revolution. Human rights are the expression of universal aspiration towards common standards of behaviour for all governments and individuals. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose fiftieth anniversary we celebrate next year developed and described these aspirations and standards. “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”, states the first Article. Article 28 adds that “everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.” Then came the Vienna Declaration of 1993 which went even further: “all human rights

190 • 13 August 1997

are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated”. . . . their “universal nature” is “beyond question”. During the cold war, the United Nations made little headway in human rights work at the country level. While the Organization made steady progress in establishing norms and standards and in negotiating human rights covenants and conventions, the world political situation put a brake on major change in the human rights field. Several attempts were made, for example, to create the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. They were not successful. On the issue of human rights, there was a good deal of ideological posturing, but little concrete action. And doctrines of national security were often invoked to excuse or justify human rights abuses. But human rights, and in particular the Helsinki human rights “basket”, helped to bring about the end of the cold war. After that, human rights truly came into their own. A plethora of new operational activities by the United Nations in the field of human rights began. Soon, there were further major developments. In 1993, the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights was the first global conference to address the subject comprehensively. Following a recommendation by the Conference, the General Assembly created the post of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The High Commissioner is—as stipulated by the General Assembly resolution—“the United Nations official with principal responsibility for human rights activities under the direction and responsibility of the Secretary-General”. This, too, was a major step forward. In the 1990s, multi-faceted human rights field operations began to be deployed by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Such operations were mounted in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Burundi, Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), and Colombia. Their principal purpose was to monitor the human rights situation, and deal with allegations of human rights violations, in the countries concerned. From 1990, operational activities in the human rights field began to feature in United Nations peace-keeping operations. In 1990, the El Salvador mission became the first United Nations human rights operation in the field. In El Salvador, Cambodia, Haiti, and Guatemala, major human rights field presences were part of peace processes. In each case, establishing a framework of respect for human rights was seen as part and par-

cel of the work of establishing an atmosphere of trust in a post-conflict situation. Following up allegations of human rights violations was an important part of this process. In Guatemala, as in neighbouring El Salvador, the Human Rights Verification Mission—MINUGUA—was deployed in advance of the final peace agreement. MINUGUA’s mandate now includes verification of the peace agreement as a whole, even though it started by monitoring human rights. But between 1994 and March 1997, MINUGUA, with 245 international staff, was—and remains—the largest United Nations human rights verification mission ever mounted. MINUGUA was established in 1994 to verify compliance by the parties, the Government and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG), with the human rights agreement signed by both of them. With 13 regional and subregional offices, MINUGUA’s field presence was more extensive than that of many national institutions in Guatemala. It enabled individuals, even in the remotest parts of Guatemala, to bring forward, for verification, complaints of alleged human rights abuses by the parties. As the public developed trust in the impartiality and effectiveness of the United Nations, so the peace process advanced. Individuals saw that there was effective redress. The parties—and especially the Government’s security forces—also responded. The Mission reported a dramatic decline, in 1996 and 1997, in verified complaints of torture, forced disappearances, and arbitrary detention. The experience of the United Nations in El Salvador and in Guatemala, has demonstrated beyond doubt the crucial role of human rights— including an impartial international presence—in rebuilding trust and fostering a climate of reconciliation after armed conflict. This has been a vital lesson of United Nations peace-keeping in the 1990s. Now we must apply the lessons in the present and future work for peace. One month ago, I presented a package of reforms to the General Assembly of the United Nations. Its aim was to give the work of the Organization greater coherence, clarity of focus, and greater capacity to respond. I said at the time that it was the most comprehensive reform package ever. In that reform report, I said: “The connection between human rights and peace and security is laid out in the Charter and has been amply demonstrated by recent experience. An analysis of developments and trends in the area of human

27 August 1997 • 191 rights should be incorporated in the early warning activities of the Organization. Human rights are a key element in peacemaking and peace-building efforts and should be addressed in the context of humanitarian operations.” I also made it clear that I saw a re-organized human rights secretariat as contributing to these objectives. I therefore recommended that the High Commissioner’s office should undertake a reorganization of the human rights secretariat in Geneva (at present consisting of the Human Rights Centre and, separately, the Office of the High Commissioner) consolidating them into a single unit. My aim, when I appointed President Mary Robinson of Ireland to the post, was to make it crystal clear that I give high priority to human rights. I am delighted that she has agreed to take up the appointment next month, the first of September. It is yet another sign of the prominence of human rights on the international agenda. These measures, taken together, will, I believe, begin to introduce greater clarity of purpose and consistency of effort into the work of the United Nations in the human rights field. This is the age of human rights. The new emphasis on human rights symbolizes and expresses the changed nature of international politics in the post-cold war age—much as the expression “the iron curtain” came to symbolize the previous international order. Resistance by states to the application of international human rights standards has greatly declined. But some new manifestations of political intolerance in the world mean that we must stick more than ever to universal human rights principles. As the world economy becomes global, the demand for a common yardstick, for shared standards of governance, acquires even greater urgency than before. The need for the protection of the victims of human rights violations has not diminished. We have seen, across the world, an upsurge in political movements based on the assertion of ethnic, religious or linguistic identity. In some manifestations such movements can give rise to intolerance of cultural, ethnic, religious, linguistic, and political differences. Discrimination, and violations of human rights, can easily follow. Recent conflicts in Europe and Africa have been marked by massive human rights abuses. Those situations have demonstrated clearly that there is no one set of European rights, and another of African rights. Human rights assert the dignity of each and every individual human being, and the inviolability of the individual’s rights.

They belong inherently to each person, each individual, and are not conferred by, or subject to, any governmental authority. There is not one law for one continent, and one for another. And there should be only one single standard—a universal standard—for judging human rights violations. For all of these reasons, new and heightened responsibilities fall on the shoulders of the United Nations. It is essential that the United Nations system should include effective, coherent, and wellresourced machinery for the upholding and promotion of human rights; and that human rights should be fully integrated into all of the work of the United Nations, and coordinated with regional organizations and non-governmental organizations. Our founders showed the way. We must be true to their vision. The struggle for peace is the struggle for human rights, and against racism, genocide and repression. We have a lot to do, so let’s get with it.

27 August 1997 Letter (EOSG); finance of UN Letter to David E. Birenbaum, chair of the Emergency Coalition for US Financial Support of the United Nations, in Washington, D.C. This letter and the following one were sent in response to a press release sent to the US Congress by Victoria Holt, executive director of the Emergency Coalition for US Financial Support. The letter was also faxed to the Office of the Spokesman of the Secretary-General and is included below. Dear Mr. Birenbaum, I am extremely grateful to you personally, and to the members of the Emergency Coalition for U.S. Financial Support of the United Nations, for your initiatives and support. Enclosed herewith please find a copy of a letter I have addressed to the seven former Secretaries of State who have written to Senator Helms supporting full funding of the American financial obligations to the United Nations. Please feel free to share this letter with members of the Coalition. The United Nations and, I believe, the whole of the international community, owe you and the Coalition a great debt of gratitude. Yours sincerely,

27 August 1997 Letter (EOSG); finance of UN Letter sent to Alexander Haig, George Shultz,

192 • 27 August 1997

Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Lawrence Eagleburger, and Cyrus Vance. See also the 27 August 1997 entry above. Dear Mr. Haig, I should like to express my deep personal appreciation for the letter that you and other former Secretaries of State have addressed to Senator Helms, supporting full funding of the United States financial obligations to the United Nations. The position you have taken is in the finest tradition of American statesmanship. It reflects the fundamental principle of respect for the rule of law and the democratic ideals that the world associates with the American people and its political system. It is in the best tradition of bi-partisanship in American foreign policy. I am most gratified by your commitment to the Organization and its future, and the recognition your letter contains of the many accomplishments of the United Nations. Leaders in government and public life must recognize the self-evident truth that we have entered an era of global inter-dependence in which multi-lateral collaboration is the only effective means to prevent conflict and promote cooperation. There is now an unprecedented opportunity for far-reaching reform to equip the Organization to respond effectively to these challenges. I have launched a comprehensive process of management transformation and policy review. The ultimate success of this process will require a degree of financial stability—within the negative growth budget I have put forward—as well as broad-based support from the membership. Thus, in seizing the unique opportunity for reform that exists at the moment, a great deal hinges on the response to the appeal you have launched. A positive response to your appeal is in the best interest of both the United States and the United Nations. With high regards and renewed thanks, * * * EMERGENCY COALITION FOR U.S. FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Fax Message

To: Jane Gaffney, Office of the Spokesman, the United Nations (fax: 212/963-1899) From: Victoria K. Holt Date: August 4, 1997 Comments: Here is a copy of the letter to the Congress, as signed by seven former Secretaries of State,

regarding support for U.N. funding. (Note. The only living former Secretary of State who did not sign is William Rogers, and he is not well. He is also a member of our Leadership Council and supports funding the U.N.) A hard copy is being sent by mail to you. Best Wishes, * * * July 25, 1997 The Honorable Jesse A. Helms United States Senate Washington, DC 20515 Dear Senator Helms: We urge you to support full funding of the outstanding and current U.S. legal obligations to the United Nations. We are deeply concerned that the United States has become the world’s largest debtor to the United Nations. The continued failure of the U.S. to honor its legal obligations threatens the financial viability of the United Nations. While continued reform is necessary, the United Nations advances important U.S. interests and deserves the support of the President and the Congress as well as the American people. We believe that the United States should in 1997 pay its legal obligations to the United Nations and should, in the future pay its legal obligations on time. As former Secretaries of State, we know the role that the United Nations and its agencies have played and can play for global peace, stability and prosperity. The U.N. work is important: taking care of millions of refugees, condemning human rights abuses, providing humanitarian aid, running peace operations, and serving the promotion of the rule of law worldwide. The U.N. has also served specific U.S. interests, such as conducting inspections of Iraqi nuclear facilities, providing support to U.S.-led operations (such as the Persian Gulf war), observing elections (as in South Africa, Cambodia and El Salvador), fighting international crime and terrorism, and promoting fairer trade and agricultural standards, just to name a few. The U.S. can play an important role in bringing about institutional and programmatic reforms at the United Nations. New leadership at the United Nations appears committed to improving management and programs. Without a U.S. commitment to pay arrears, however U.S. efforts to consolidate and advance U.N. reforms and reduce U.S. assessments are not going to succeed. We urge that you support payment of U.S.

29 August 1997 • 193 legal obligations to the United Nations. Our membership in the U.N. is important to the U.S and to our leadership role in world affairs. That leadership role in turn is important to global peace, stability and prosperity. It is simply not right that the world’s only remaining superpower and the world’s largest economy and the beacon of hope to so many others should at the same time be the United Nations’ largest debtor. (Signed) The Honorable David E. Birenbaum (Signed) The Honorable Alexander M. Haig Jr. (Signed) The Honorable George P. Shultz (Signed) The Honorable Cyrus R. Vance (Signed) The Honorable James A. Baker, III (Signed) The Honorable Lawrence S. Eagleburger (Signed) The Honorable Warren M. Christopher

29 August 1997 Letter, EOSG, Democratic Republic of Congo Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, John Weston. Dear Mr. President, Further to the briefing provided to the Security Council by my representative on 28 August 1997, regarding developments concerning the Investigative Team I dispatched to the Democratic Republic of Congo, please find attached, for your information and through you the members of the Council, a copy of the letter I addressed to President Kabila. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

29 August 1997 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo English version of a letter originally sent in French to President Laurent-Désiré Kabila and transmitted to the president of the Security Council, John Weston. Dear Mr. President, The letter dated 27 August 1997, addressed to me by Prof. Thomas Kanza, Minister of International Cooperation and Prof. EtienneRichard Mbaya, Minister of Reconstruction and Emergency Planning, came as a complete surprise. The letter stipulates three conditions imposed by your Government before the Investigative Team I dispatched after our telephone conversation of 19 August would be allowed to commence its work. The conditions manifestly contradict the promises and assurances you personally gave me in our telephone conversation. Perhaps the

Ministers are not fully aware of the content of the communications between us. The first condition stated by your Ministers relates to a joint UN/OAU investigation mission. I should like to emphasize that neither I nor any representative of mine ever discussed with you or any of your officials the question of a joint investigation. I understand that your Ministers stated in a press conference in Kinshasa on 28 August that you and I had an oral agreement to this effect. You will recall that this issue was never raised in our discussions in Harare. On the question of the inclusion of security liaison officers in the Investigation Team, I had informed you during our telephone conversation of 19 August and in my follow-up letter of 21 August 1997, that such officers are normally attached to United Nations investigative missions in order to liaise between the relevant mission and local security officers as well as carrying out communications and logistics functions for the mission. Accordingly, UN was not in a position to withdraw the security liaison officers as requested by your Government. You confirmed your understanding of my position. With respect to your demand for the withdrawal of Mr. Atsu-Koffi Amega, Head of the Investigation Team, this is the first time that your Government is raising any objection about Mr. Amega’s inclusion in the Investigative Team. During my telephone conversation of 30 July and in my letter of 1 August I informed you of my decision to appoint Mr. Amega to the Investigative Team. This decision was repeated in my letters of 11 and 21 August 1997. No objections were raised by you. I must inform you clearly the United Nations is not in a position to accept any of these additional conditions. The imposition of which can only be perceived as an unwillingness on the part of your Government to accept the investigation of the alleged violations of international humanitarian law in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Promises and assurances have been given and are being reneged upon. As further delays would obstruct the effectiveness of the mission, since the relevant evidence must be gathered in a timely manner, I have, regrettably come to the conclusion that if the mission is not allowed by your Government to begin its work by midday (local time), Tuesday, 2 September 1997, it will be withdrawn and I will have no alternative but to report all relevant facts to the Security Council.

194 • 29 August 1997

I need hardly remind you that this mission was established by me in response to your objections to the mission previously engaged in these investigations. It is highly disturbing that the present mission also is being obstructed. I trust that I shall receive early confirmation from you that the mission headed by Mr. Amega can commence its task by 2 September. Accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

29 August 1997 Secretary-General Condemns Incitement of Violence in Brcko

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM 6307); Bosnia The Secretary-General strongly condemns the incitement of violence in Brcko yesterday, which resulted in attacks upon United Nations civilian and police personnel by hostile crowds of Serb civilians. The Secretary-General expresses his particular concern at the assault of four United Nations staff, who sustained minor injuries in the melee. He also condemns the vandalization and looting of United Nations property. The Secretary-General expresses his appreciation to the Stabilization Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (SFOR) for assisting in the relocation of all United Nations civilian and police personnel to secure locations in the area.

31 August 1997 Secretary-General Expresses Shock, Profound Sorrow at Death of Princess Diana

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6309); Princess Diana The Secretary-General learned with deep shock and profound sorrow of the tragic death of Princess Diana in Paris early this morning. The Princess made a major contribution to alleviating suffering, especially among the poor, the weak and the sick, throughout the world. Her unflinching commitment to the cause of banning anti-personnel land-mines not only helped in placing that cause high on every humanitarian agenda, but endeared the Princess to millions around the globe. The tragedy has robbed the world of a consistent and committed voice for the improvement of the lives of suffering children worldwide. The Secretary-General conveyed his deep condolences to the family of the Princess, the Government and the people of the United

Kingdom, and to the families and friends of the others who died in the accident.

1 September 1997 Secretary-General Says Good Governance Needed for Prosperity in the Developing World

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6310); good governance Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Danish Foreign Policy Society, in Copenhagen. It gives me great pleasure to speak to you today, in this beautiful hall among such long-standing, generous and steadfast friends of the United Nations. Ever since the founding of the United Nations, Denmark has been a model Member State—devoted to the aims of the Charter and committed to their fulfilment. You have shown, by example and through leadership, the necessity and the promise of effective multilateralism. From this, the United Nations owes you a tremendous debt. As we enter a new century, and as we seek a newer, more effective, more responsive United Nations, it gives me great confidence to know that Denmark’s unshakeable support is behind us. Denmark’s vision for the United Nations is our vision for the United Nations. Denmark’s support for development and commitment to conflict resolution are the very foundation of our work. The past 10 years have been tumultuous years for the United Nations, with difficult challenges and, occasionally, painful setbacks. Global developments have revolutionized the environment in which we seek to alleviate poverty and promote peace. But they have also been years of promise, opening new avenues of progress, and enhancing the potential for our success. Our challenge now is to enter the new age having drawn the right lessons from our past, and inspired to find a new path for our future. No one disputes the dangers of excessive inequality in any society any more. And no one claims to govern on any principle other than democracy any more. With the decline of ideological and political allegiances to one super-Power or another, however, movements for national self-determination and political liberalization have been given free rein— for good and, tragically, in some cases, for bad. The global response to these recent developments has, to an alarming degree, been one of despair and resignation. It is said that these state failures, and the civil and ethnic wars that too often

194 • 29 August 1997

I need hardly remind you that this mission was established by me in response to your objections to the mission previously engaged in these investigations. It is highly disturbing that the present mission also is being obstructed. I trust that I shall receive early confirmation from you that the mission headed by Mr. Amega can commence its task by 2 September. Accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

29 August 1997 Secretary-General Condemns Incitement of Violence in Brcko

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM 6307); Bosnia The Secretary-General strongly condemns the incitement of violence in Brcko yesterday, which resulted in attacks upon United Nations civilian and police personnel by hostile crowds of Serb civilians. The Secretary-General expresses his particular concern at the assault of four United Nations staff, who sustained minor injuries in the melee. He also condemns the vandalization and looting of United Nations property. The Secretary-General expresses his appreciation to the Stabilization Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (SFOR) for assisting in the relocation of all United Nations civilian and police personnel to secure locations in the area.

31 August 1997 Secretary-General Expresses Shock, Profound Sorrow at Death of Princess Diana

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6309); Princess Diana The Secretary-General learned with deep shock and profound sorrow of the tragic death of Princess Diana in Paris early this morning. The Princess made a major contribution to alleviating suffering, especially among the poor, the weak and the sick, throughout the world. Her unflinching commitment to the cause of banning anti-personnel land-mines not only helped in placing that cause high on every humanitarian agenda, but endeared the Princess to millions around the globe. The tragedy has robbed the world of a consistent and committed voice for the improvement of the lives of suffering children worldwide. The Secretary-General conveyed his deep condolences to the family of the Princess, the Government and the people of the United

Kingdom, and to the families and friends of the others who died in the accident.

1 September 1997 Secretary-General Says Good Governance Needed for Prosperity in the Developing World

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6310); good governance Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Danish Foreign Policy Society, in Copenhagen. It gives me great pleasure to speak to you today, in this beautiful hall among such long-standing, generous and steadfast friends of the United Nations. Ever since the founding of the United Nations, Denmark has been a model Member State—devoted to the aims of the Charter and committed to their fulfilment. You have shown, by example and through leadership, the necessity and the promise of effective multilateralism. From this, the United Nations owes you a tremendous debt. As we enter a new century, and as we seek a newer, more effective, more responsive United Nations, it gives me great confidence to know that Denmark’s unshakeable support is behind us. Denmark’s vision for the United Nations is our vision for the United Nations. Denmark’s support for development and commitment to conflict resolution are the very foundation of our work. The past 10 years have been tumultuous years for the United Nations, with difficult challenges and, occasionally, painful setbacks. Global developments have revolutionized the environment in which we seek to alleviate poverty and promote peace. But they have also been years of promise, opening new avenues of progress, and enhancing the potential for our success. Our challenge now is to enter the new age having drawn the right lessons from our past, and inspired to find a new path for our future. No one disputes the dangers of excessive inequality in any society any more. And no one claims to govern on any principle other than democracy any more. With the decline of ideological and political allegiances to one super-Power or another, however, movements for national self-determination and political liberalization have been given free rein— for good and, tragically, in some cases, for bad. The global response to these recent developments has, to an alarming degree, been one of despair and resignation. It is said that these state failures, and the civil and ethnic wars that too often

1 September 1997 • 195 have followed in their wake are inevitable. It is said that the difficulties occasionally faced by international interventions confirm precisely the intractability of these problems. I wish to propose a different view. And that is that these failures, these wars, these problems are political problems and economic problems with political and economic solutions. There is nothing inevitable about conflict in one part of the world, or tyranny in another. Freedom and human rights are concepts as universal as they are political, amenable to human agency of any colour or creed. The Charter of the United Nations was written in the name of “We, the Peoples of the United Nations”. This reality brings with it great responsibilities for the United Nations. So does the recognition that the most difficult and widespread of problems are those that cut across borders demanding multilateral solutions. Indeed, it is becoming apparent to all that the United Nations remains as much in demand as in need of change. That is our momentous challenge. That is our great promise. Fulfilling that promise, we are learning new ways to do what we do better, and we are finding new strategies to suit a changed environment. We are focusing, again, on the importance of sustainable development to all aspects of our work, including peace and security. Above all, we are directing more of our energies towards ensuring adequate institutional frameworks in developing countries. We are seeking to bring the stability, the trust, the legitimacy and the accountability of good governance to all parts of the world. Without good governance—without the rule of law, predictable administration, legitimate power, and responsive regulation—no amount of funding, no amount of charity will set the developing world on the path to prosperity. Good governance is the essential condition. And the United Nations is seizing on this instrument to ensure that development becomes lasting and equitable around the world. Member States have increasingly recognized that good governance is indispensable for building peaceful, prosperous and democratic societies. They are turning to the United Nations because, since the end of the cold war, our knowledge and our experience in this field has expanded greatly. Our programmes now target virtually all the key elements of good governance: safeguarding

the rule of law; verifying elections; training police; monitoring human rights; fostering investments; and promoting accountable, clean administration. Good governance is also a component of our work for peace. It has a strong preventive aspect; it gives societies sound structures for economic and social development. In post-conflict settings, good governance can promote reconciliation and offer a path for consolidating peace. There is a new realization that ensuring good governance—including securing human rights and the rule of law, assisting with elections and aiding development policies—constitute in themselves preventive action. The weakness of these rights and structures are not only the roots of poverty. They are also the causes of conflict and the impediments to postconflict reconstruction. Central to a renewed United Nations role in peace-keeping is an effective rapid response capacity. Here, too, I salute Denmark’s vision and will to see action by establishing the Stand-by Forces High-Readiness Brigade. Indeed, a member of my staff remarked to me recently that I mention this Brigade wherever I go. And I do. I truly believe that SHIRBRIG is a model arrangement that finally can begin to address the need and the potential that we all recognize: a small, well-trained, well-equipped force rapidly deployed with an adequate mandate and sufficient support can stop a conflict before it engulfs an entire society. It can provide a window of opportunity for peace-building and diplomacy, thereby preventing an escalation leading to massive loss of life and much larger investment by the international community. It can, finally, make our commitment to peace and conflict prevention real and tangible. I will continue to praise its establishment and call on other governments to emulate Denmark’s wonderful example. The transformations that I have spoken of— from the promise of good governance to the potential of a rapid reaction force—present us with a global age of opportunity. The reforms of the United Nations that I proposed last month will enable the United Nations to rise to the occasion of this age of global opportunity and make the United Nations truly the expression of humanity’s highest aims. In this effort, we have derived many lessons from Denmark’s own reform proposals. Indeed, your own policy of “active multilater-

196 • 1 September 1997

alism” reflects at a national level our own desire to target with great skill and discrimination productive programmes while eliminating waste and duplication. Understanding the comprehensive nature of the challenges we face, I have made the consolidation of United Nations activities a priority of my reform plan. At Headquarters, we are strengthening coordination by consolidating departments and unifying structures. In the field, we will bring all activities into one United Nations “House” which will facilitate greater and smoother cooperation internally, and provide a common face to the public that we serve. Our aspiration with the reform plan—simply and immediately—is to transform the conception, quality and delivery of the services we provide. That is what you and the world demand of us. No less do we demand of ourselves. In return, I ask of Member States and of the world public that you judge us not only by the cuts we propose or by the structures we change. Judge us instead—and judge us rightly—by the relief and the refuge that we provide to the poor, to the hungry, the sick and threatened—the peoples of the world whom the United Nations exists to serve. Denmark’s continued support for all that we do—in development and in peace-keeping—will be crucial to our success. I am convinced of that. I pledge, in return, that we will strive to make the United Nations as democratic, as equitable and as effective an instrument of multilateralism that you want it to be.

2 September 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, told correspondents at today’s press briefing that the Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bizima Karaha, had informed the Secretary-General by telephone yesterday that his investigative team for the Democratic Republic of the Congo could begin its work. The objections raised in a letter to the Secretary-General, signed by two ministers of the Congolese Government had been dropped. A written confirmation of that fact was still being awaited, but the team was now preparing for an immediate resumption of its work.

Regarding some reactions over the weekend to the Secretary-General’s statement on Friday concerning the events in Algeria, the Spokesman said that the Secretary-General “has consistently condemned all forms of terrorism wherever they might occur”. The Secretary-General did not say, as was reported by one news agency, that the matter could no longer be regarded as an internal affair. But, he felt that he had to “raise a moral voice against the bloodshed”, and invited dialogue to that end. . . . The Spokesman said that very late on Friday— following “the lid”—his Office had received a communication from the talks in Lisbon on Western Sahara between Morocco and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (POLISARIO). The SecretaryGeneral’s Personal Envoy for Western Sahara, James Baker III, said that the parties had reached a compromise agreement on the questions of containment of troops, prisoners of war and political detainees. Those talks, under Mr. Baker’s direction, were making rather substantive progress, and really picking up momentum. The next round of talks would take place from 12 to 14 September at a location within the United States. The Spokesman drew attention to a statement issued by his Office over the weekend concerning the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. In the statement, the Secretary-General paid tribute to the voice the Princess gave in support of the campaign to end the production and deployment of anti-personnel land-mines. She had also been in discussions with the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), which had invited her to be the Honorary Vice-President of its Global Business Council at the suggestion of the Honorary President, Nelson Mandela. “She had close ties to us and, of course, we very much regret her passing”, Mr. Eckhard added. He understood that the Secretary-General had been invited by the Government of the United Kingdom to attend the funeral. He would inform correspondents whether the Secretary-General would be able to accept that invitation. Turning to the situation in Congo-Brazzaville, the Spokesman said that negotiations had resumed in Libreville, Gabon, yesterday and were continuing today. Mohamed Sahnoun, the Joint United Nations/Organization of African Unity (OAU) Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region—facilitating the talks together with Gabon’s President, Omar Bongo—had reported that they were still waiting for a response from

3 September 1997 • 197 Congo’s President, Pascal Lissouba, on their latest proposals relating in particular to the role of the Prime Minister. Meanwhile, fighting was continuing in Brazzaville. . . . To a question about whether the SecretaryGeneral had been in direct contact with the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Laurent Kabila, concerning the human rights team there, the Spokesman said that the Secretary-General had spoken with the Foreign Minister, not the President. But, his earlier understandings with the President concerning the head of the investigative team and the presence of United Nations security guards had been reached in a telephone conversation—which may have been the reason for the misunderstanding of the Congolese Government ministers who wrote the letter. . . .

2 September 1997 Secretary-General Stresses Multifaceted Nature of Peacekeeping Mandates

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6312, PKO/60); peacekeeping Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Nordic–United Nations Senior Peace-keeping Management Seminar, in Copenhagen. I am delighted to be here today and to address our second annual Senior Management Seminar. Last year, in my capacity as Under-Secretary-General for Peace-keeping Operations, I had the pleasure of opening the New York phase of the first annual seminar. It was a great success. I am very pleased to see the important follow-up that is taking place today. Earlier this morning, I had a very productive meeting with the SHIRBRIG [Multinational United Nations Stand-by Forces High-Readiness Brigade] Ministers of Defence. We reviewed the progress made, and I emphasized, as I often do, the importance of this visionary idea. I truly believe that SHIRBRIG is a model arrangement. It will finally provide the instrument for swift and coordinated action that we all recognize is a condition for successful peace-keeping. I salute the Nordic countries for continuing and building on this management initiative. I welcome the cooperation that we have enjoyed in the planning and realization of this event. These seminars are especially important in the current era, because of the very nature of conflicts in which peace-keepers must operate. The threats to peace and security today are mainly intra-State.

In these conflicts, there is often a severe weakening or even breakdown of authority, and power devolves to factions and splinter groups. As a result, political and military leaders often exercise very little control over their territory. External States, including the great Powers, often have little influence over these parties. They have little leverage with which to support the peace-keeping operation and its mandate. In these changed circumstances, in order to ensure the fulfilment of the mandate and to protect the troops themselves, we should consider deploying stronger peace-keeping forces. In addition, peace-keeping mandates today are multifaceted. Containing conflicts is only one of their aims. Increasingly, they also work to resolve the underlying issues; and to help the parties building legitimate, responsive institutions. Only in this way can a lasting peace be achieved. Besides military personnel, these new missions often include civilian police, human rights monitors, humanitarian providers, electoral experts, political staff and even public administrators. In such complex operations, peace-keeping management—and I emphasize the word management—is in greater demand than ever before. That is why your gathering here is such an important undertaking. We will follow your progress closely and I look forward to hearing your conclusions. I wish you a stimulating, productive and insightful seminar—one that leads, in a very direct way, to better peace-keeping.

3 September 1997 Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the UN

Report to the General Assembly (GA, A/52/1); UN Annual Report Excerpts from the UN Annual Report, which includes the Table of Contents and Sections I and III. Contents I. Contours of the new era II. Managing change A. Good governance, human rights and democratization B. International economic cooperation and sustainable development C. Development operations D. Preventive diplomacy, peaceful settlement of disputes and disarmament

Paragraphs 1–20 21–166

Page 1 5

22–41

5

42–61 62–77

7 10

78–94

12

198 • 3 September 1997 E. Humanitarian action F. Peacekeeping and post-conflict peace-building G. The new transnational threats H. Legal affairs, management and communications III. The steps ahead

95–107

14

108–129 130–142

16 19

143–166 167–176

20 25

I: Contours of the New Era

1. We live in an era of realignment. At the international and national levels alike, fundamental forces are at work reshaping patterns of social organization, structures of opportunities and constraints, the objects of aspiration and the sources of fear. As is true of all transitional periods, very different expressions of the human predicament coexist in uneasy tension today: globalization envelops the world even as fragmentation and the assertion of differences are on the rise; zones of peace expand while outbursts of horrific violence intensify; unprecedented wealth is being created but large pockets of poverty remain endemic; the will of the people and their integral rights are both celebrated and violated; science and technology enhance human life at the same time as their byproducts threaten planetary life-support systems. 2. It is not beyond the powers of political volition to tip the scale in this transition, towards a more secure and predictable peace, greater economic well-being, social justice, and environmental sustainability. No country can achieve these global public goods on its own, however, just as none is exempt from the risks and costs of doing without them. Multilateral diplomacy was invented and has been sustained because political leaders as well as the people they represent have recognized this simple fact. Indeed, the twentieth-century project of international organization is all about how to stretch national interests and preferences, temporally as well as spatially, so as to produce in greater quantities the public goods that the political market place of inter-State behaviour would otherwise underproduce. The United Nations, with its near-universal membership, its comprehensive mandate, a span of activities that ranges from the normative to the operational, and an institutional presence that is at once global, regional and country-based can and should be at the very centre of this endeavour. 3. On 17 December 1996, Member States did me great honour in electing me the Organization’s seventh Secretary-General. Since taking office, I have had one overriding objective: to induce greater unity of purpose, coherence of efforts and responsiveness throughout the Organization so that it can more effectively help meet the chal-

lenges of our times. Each of the component entities that comprise the United Nations has made adjustments to the epochal changes of the past decade, and their progress during this past year is summarized in these pages. As we go forward, however, the Organization must learn to make far better use of its major potential source of institutional strength: the many complementarities and synergies that exist within it. The comprehensive package of reforms that I presented to the General Assembly on 16 July 1997, and which the Assembly will consider at its current session, were designed with that aim in mind. 4. This—my first—annual report on the work of the Organization proceeds as follows. The remainder of this introduction briefly highlights some of the key forces that are transforming the world around the United Nations and, therefore, its agenda. Chapter II presents an overview of the Organization’s activities of the past year, with a thematic emphasis on how the different programme areas have sought to adapt to and guide those forces in keeping with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the programme priorities set by Member States. In chapter III, I offer some overall reflections on the work of the Organization, and I indicate how and why my proposals for institutional reform constitute a necessary next step in ensuring that the Organization remains a vital and effective instrument of international collaboration as the world heads into a new century—and a new millennium. 5. The diverse ramifications of the end of the cold war remain a palpable factor in the world even today, nearly a decade later. The cessation of super-Power rivalry and military confrontation set in train a whole host of progressive changes within and among countries. At the same time, the international community is still struggling with the adverse consequences of bipolarity’s collapse. The inter-ethnic conflicts that followed the break-up of several multi-ethnic States, whether in Central Asia or the former Yugoslavia, are tragic cases in point. Some of the former proxy battlegrounds of the cold war in Asia and Africa continue to reel from instability. States that were held together by their perceived strategic utility to one side or the other in some instances have suffered grievously as a result; this was true, for example, in the Horn of Africa earlier in the decade, and most recently in former Zaire. The help of all States, especially those that played leading roles in the cold war, is necessary to undo its remaining social, economic, and political distortions.

3 September 1997 • 199 6. A second fundamental force reshaping the world today is globalization; it is perhaps the most profound source of international transformation since the industrial revolution began to turn external trade into a routine feature of international life. Beginning in the 1960s, with the limited lifting of capital controls and the gradual emergence of multinational manufacturing firms, financial markets have become increasingly integrated and the production of goods and services transnationalized. Numbers tell part of the story: international financial flows tower over world trade by a ratio of 60:1, while the growth in world trade itself typically exceeds the increase in world gross domestic product by more than 5 per cent each year. The other part of the story is in the organization of these flows: they take place within markets which, for most purposes, have become single markets, and within firms or among related parties that treat the world, synoptically, as a single market place. 7. Globalization and the liberalization that produced it have generated a sustained period of economic expansion, together with the most rapid reconfiguration of international economic geography ever. Unprecedented wealth and standards of living exist in the industrialized world. Elsewhere, some countries that struggled with poverty a mere generation ago are now economic growth poles in their own right. Over the course of the next generation, a majority of the world’s most rapidly growing economies will be located in what is now the developing world. 8. Globalization also poses numerous policy challenges, however. Among them are the inherent risks of markets lacking critical regulatory safeguards, as is true in some respects of international financial markets. Globalization is also eroding the efficacy of some policy instruments by which the industrialized countries had pursued full employment and social stability throughout the era that followed the Second World War. No consensus exists yet about how to replace the neo-Keynesian compromise that governed the political economy of advanced capitalism, but it would be folly to believe that the public in the industrialized countries is prepared simply to return to an era of unfettered market forces. 9. Additional policy challenges face the developing countries. To begin with, the benefits of globalization still affect relatively few among them. Some 40 per cent of the direct foreign investment flows to developing countries is accounted for by China alone; East Asia as a whole absorbs nearly two thirds. In contrast, Africa is the

recipient of a meagre 4 per cent, while official development assistance has fallen. Among the countries bypassed by global capital flows are those that are experiencing the most enduring poverty. As indicated in the 1997 Human Development Report, published by the United Nations Development Programme, lack of global financial resources is no impediment to eradicating extreme poverty. Pro-growth policies at the national level coupled with targeted external assistance can enable currently marginalized countries to become active participants in the global economy. I consider it to be a core mission of the United Nations to help facilitate their successful transitions. 10. Furthermore, developing countries are in the difficult position of having to realign the character of their state apparatus in several directions simultaneously. The growing recognition that the State is not itself a creator of wealth has led to widespread privatization and deregulation, but even in market-oriented developing countries the State has critical roles to play in providing an enabling environment for sustainable development. The World Bank’s 1997 World Development Report shows systematically how crucial an effective State is in this regard, as evidence from the socalled newly industrializing countries had suggested for some time. Finding the appropriate balance, however, especially in contexts where civil society is weak and transnational forces overpowering, is an exceedingly complex task. Various United Nations “good governance” programmes are designed to assist individual Governments in defining the balance that best meets their needs. 11. Third, globalization rests on and is sustained by a remarkable revolution in its own right in information technology, particularly the integration of increasingly powerful computers with telecommunication systems that permit high volume and high quality real-time voice and data transmissions. Indeed, the adjective “global” refers less to a place than to a space defined by electronic flows and a state of mind. World currency markets are the most global of all in this sense, and what has come to be known as the global factory relies similarly on such electronic infrastructure. 12. The information revolution has unfolded most extensively in the industrialized world, but it also holds enormous potential for the developing countries. It diminishes the constraints of distance in manufacturing industry and many services, and offers new tools in the form of administrative

200 • 3 September 1997

capacities, long-distance learning, telemedicine, the more effective management of micro-credit systems, agricultural production, and for a variety of other applications. Major efforts should be undertaken to support greater acquisition and utilization of information technologies by the developing countries. 13. The intensification of global environmental interdependencies constitutes yet a fourth transformative force. At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held at Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the international community endorsed the concept of sustainable development as the key to reconciling economic and social progress, which all desire, with safeguarding the planet’s ecosystems, on which all depend. Many of these systems are under increasing stress, however, with adverse consequences that range from the local destructiveness of flash floods resulting from deforestation, to the slower but globally indivisible atmospheric warming that results from increased emissions of greenhouse gases. As witnessed by the “Rio +5” summit, however, held at United Nations Headquarters in June 1997, progress since Rio has been disappointing, whether in meeting targets for controlling environmental degradation or providing technological and financial assistance to developing countries. We hope for a more favourable outcome at the Kyoto session, later this year, of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 14. A fifth fundamental shift in the world today is the pronounced transnational expansion of civil society, itself made possible by a combination of political and technological changes. This is of great significance for the United Nations. Private investment capital exceeds by a factor of six the available official development assistance and must be further mobilized for development purposes. In recent years, the United Nations has found that much of its work at the country level, be it in humanitarian affairs, economic and social development, public health, or the promotion of human rights, intimately involves the diverse and dedicated contributions of non-governmental organizations and groups. In response to these growing manifestations of an ever-more robust global civil society, the United Nations is equipping itself to engage civil society and make it a true partner in its work. As part of my reform proposals, I have urged all United Nations entities to be open to and work closely with civil society organizations that are active in their respective sectors, and to facilitate increased consultation

and cooperation between the United Nations and such organizations. 15. Sixth, and closely related, there is a growing trend towards democratization and respect for human rights. Countries in all parts of the world are voluntarily limiting the arbitrary powers of state agencies together with the abuses and the social and economic costs they engender. Some 120 countries now hold generally free and fair elections, the highest total in history. The social, economic and political benefits of basing systems of rule on the principles of human dignity and the will of the people are felt in domestic as well as regional peace and prosperity, though the transition to democracy is often slow and at times fraught with difficulty. 16. The same technological means that foster globalization and the transnational expansion of civil society also provide the infrastructure for expanding global networks of “uncivil society”— organized crime, drug traffickers, money launderers and terrorists. These parasitic elements constitute a seventh factor shaping the international agenda today. They corrupt local and in some instances national politics, undermine judiciaries, and pose security threats even to the most powerful States. I have moved rapidly to consolidate in a high profile office at Vienna all United Nations efforts to combat these elements, but a redoubling of resolve is still necessary for them to be controlled, involving new partnerships among national and international agencies. 17. Finally, and somewhat paradoxically, these integrative trends are accompanied by tendencies towards fragmentation. In some instances, what appears to be fragmentation is in fact a move towards decentralization in policy-making and administration due to the desire for greater efficiency, effectiveness and accountability, thus posing no grounds for concern. In other cases, as noted above, fragmentation has been a by-product of the collapse of bipolarity and has led to intracommunal strife and conflict. Economic globalization, too, has brought about instances of fragmentation because market forces can and often do undermine indigenous cultural values. Indeed, the broad uncertainties and insecurities engendered by fundamental change frequently result in a heightened quest to redefine and reassert collective identities. 18. At their best, identity politics provide a robust sense of social coherence and civic pride, which have salutary effects for economic development and the peaceful resolution of disputes at

3 September 1997 • 201 home and abroad. At their worst, however, identity politics result in the vilification of “the other”, whether that other is a different ethnic or tribal group, a different religion, or a different nationality. 19. This particularistic and exclusionary form of identity politics has intensified in recent years within and among countries. It is responsible for some of the most egregious violations of international humanitarian law and, in several instances, of elementary standards of humanity: genocidal violence; the conscious targeting of civilian populations, often women and children, by factional combatants; rape as a deliberate instrument of organized terror; and attacks on emergency relief workers and missions. Negative forms of identity politics are a potent and potentially explosive force. Great care must be taken to recognize, confront and restrain them lest they destroy the potential for peace and progress that the new era holds in store. 20. Times of transformation can be times of confusion. The policy-making process can easily get caught in transition traps, moments of discontinuity when taking the wrong step can have severe long-term consequences. The international community has an obligation to itself and to succeeding generations to strengthen the available multilateral mechanisms, among which the United Nations is a unique instrument of concerted action, so as to successfully harness the mutual benefits of change while managing its adverse effects. By adopting the proposals for reform I submitted to the General Assembly in July, Member States will equip the United Nations to better play its part in meeting this challenge. . . . III: The Steps Ahead

167. This is my first opportunity to report to Member States on the work of the Organization. Although I have served the United Nations for more than 30 years, never before has it been my responsibility to form a considered judgement about its overall functioning and efficacy. Having done so now I find that, all in all, I am prudently optimistic. 168. As documented in the preceding pages, the United Nations has taken considerable strides in recent years to adapt to the far-reaching changes in its external environment. No sector of its activities has remained unaffected. Indeed, within the framework of principles and missions enunciated by the Charter, entirely new programme areas and work modalities have been initiated and others redefined as the needs of the international commu-

nity have evolved. Moreover, despite the numerous constraints under which they operate, and notwithstanding occasional exceptions, the inventiveness of the Organization’s senior managers is commendable and the dedication of its staff a source of pride. 169. Much yet needs to be done, however. In chapter II of this report, I indicated some of the desirable and necessary steps ahead in the various substantive programme areas and support structures. Here I wish to draw attention to critical overarching issues that affect the future performance of the Organization. 170. The fiscal precariousness of the United Nations is unprecedented and debilitating. For too many years we have been forced to “borrow” from the peacekeeping account to cover regular budget shortfalls caused by non-payment of dues by some Members. That is to say, we have not reimbursed Member States for the cost of troops they provided and matériel they supplied in good faith and pursuant to Security Council resolutions. Now that source, too, is nearing depletion. I hope and trust that we shall soon be able to put this problem behind us, and that in the future all Member States will fulfil their legal obligations to the Organization—and one another—by paying their dues in full and on time. 171. Apart from the fiscal problems caused by arrears, as I noted in the opening section of this report long-term shifts at the national and international levels alike imply that fundamental change is in store for the workings of intergovernmental organizations. The resources available to such organizations, including the United Nations, are declining relative to the magnitude of the tasks they face and to the capacities of other actors, especially the private sector. What is more, the very concept of intergovernmentalism as we know it is being altered as a result of the redefinition of the role of government and the means of governance now under way throughout the world. 172. In this transformed context, the Organization’s past pattern of incremental adaptations will not suffice. To succeed in the new century, the United Nations must unleash its own major resource: the complementarities and synergies that exist within it. In other words, the United Nations must undergo fundamental, not piecemeal, reform. Three related steps are imperative. Each requires the support of Member States. 173. The first is to create the appropriate Secretariat structures that will permit the Organization to act as one within and across its

202 • 3 September 1997

diverse areas of activities. Acting as one does not mean moving in lock step. Nor does it imply denying the specific attributes of any component part. It does require that the Organization be capable of deploying its constituent units strategically while avoiding overlap and duplication, let alone competition, among them. Many of my proposals for reform are designed to achieve this aim: the position of Deputy Secretary-General, the Senior Management Group, the Strategic Planning Unit, four sectoral Executive Committees, and the United Nations Development Group, to cite the most important of them. 174. The second essential step is to reconfigure the balance of functions between the Organization’s legislative bodies and the Secretary-General. Largely for reasons relating to the cold war practice of bloc politics, a large number of the rigidities with which the Organization is afflicted are, in fact, mandated. Member States demand and deserve accountability, but the Secretariat also needs flexibility to get its job done in the most cost-effective manner. The current situation serves neither party well. Several of my reform proposals seek to redress this problem, including recommendations on streamlining the agenda and the deliberations of the General Assembly, instituting sunset provisions for new mandates, and most importantly moving towards a results-based system of budgeting. 175. Finally, even where the best of systems are in place, people matter. The United Nations staff is a precious resource, which in some measure has been squandered by rules and regulations that impede rather than serve the effective performance of its work. The Organization needs a functioning career development programme, meaningful criteria and evaluations of performance coupled with real incentive and disincentive systems, as well as a corporate culture that animates and unifies those who serve it. I look forward to joining Member States in devising personnel policies that will help bring these conditions about. 176. As we approach the new century, the international community has some way to go to realize the hopes and commitments of the Charter of the United Nations but, when we measure our progress against the state of the world a century ago, we can only be impressed by how far we have come. Indeed, one of the most significant differences between that fin de siècle and this is precisely the fact that international organizations now exist to remind, and enable, the world to do better.

That is why it is our solemn and historic obligation to make the United Nations the most effective instrument possible for the achievement of peace and progress—for our children, and for theirs.

4 September 1997 Reform Begins at the Top, Secretary-General Says

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6317, ORG/1246); UN reform Speech delivered by the Secretary-General on UN reform, in Reykjavik, Iceland. It is a real pleasure for me to address this audience of Icelanders. Iceland proves that a country does not have to be large, or militarily or economically powerful, to play an active role in the United Nations. Iceland’s commitment to international peace and security stems from its unique history and geography. Over the years, its history has known many twists and changes. Its position in the North Atlantic placed it in a sensitive position in the geopolitics of the twentieth century. Iceland thus understands the reasons for international cooperation. Like all peace-loving small countries, Iceland looks to the United Nations and other international organizations to set clear norms for relations among nations, and to serve as an instrument for common progress. Iceland has every right to expect that the United Nations is effective, efficient, and clearly focused. In a fast-changing world, the objectives set out in the Organization’s Charter more than 50 years ago have lost none of their relevance. We must still respond to threats to international peace and security. More than ever, we must promote economic and social development. The ideals of human rights, good governance and democracy still need to resonate more meaningfully in people’s daily lives. And the rule of law must take firmer root. Two years ago, Prime Minister David Oddsson told the Special Commemorative Meeting of the General Assembly on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations that all countries are increasingly affected by the same difficulties and challenges. Some threats are overt: terrorism, pandemics, arms proliferation. Others are insidious: climate change, drug trafficking, money laundering and corruption. All of them transcend borders. No country, acting on its own, can ward them off. Every country therefore needs the United Nations. Even those which, in the past, may have

4 September 1997 • 203 felt they could do without the Organization, can benefit from multilateralism and engagement at the international level. That is because the new global agenda can be tackled only by global action. The United Nations is the only organization with the legitimacy, expertise and presence to undertake such action. I have been pleased to note an emerging consensus on this point—on the virtues and objectives of international action, and on the need for common approaches to common problems. This is a major new development. During the cold war years, Member States were in fundamental disagreement about many key issues. So it should not surprise us that they never allowed the United Nations to fulfil its great potential, to become a coherent organization able to serve a common purpose. But now, with such dramatic changes in its external political environment, the Organization itself must change. That is why reform is necessary. That is why I have chosen to make reform one of my highest priorities. That is why I have launched a quiet revolution at the United Nations. The structures of the United Nations system— including the Secretariat, programmes, funds, specialized agencies and other entities—grew up not as the result of conscious planning. Rather, they grew incrementally, in response to mandates— mandates which changed over the years as the priorities of Member States changed. Today we must bring greater coherence to these structures and mandates. We need greater unity of purpose and effort. We must be more agile and cost effective. Our managers and staff must be committed to excellence, and held accountable for their performance. The reform package I presented to the Member States in July is intended to achieve these goals, and to bring about a fundamental transformation in the way we operate. Under the plan, the Organization’s work is grouped around four core areas: peace and security; economic and social affairs; development cooperation; and humanitarian affairs. Human rights cuts across each of these substantive areas, an example of the dynamic interplay that characterizes our work programme. Each activity buttresses and reinforces the others. Reform begins at the top, with leadership. Soon after I return to New York next week, I will be holding the first meeting of the new Senior Management Group: a small committee of senior managers that will function like a cabinet. This

may be standard operating procedure for most governments, but the United Nations has never had such an arrangement before. It will enable us to plan together, to pool our efforts, to coordinate our activities and to work for common objectives. The result should be greater impact on the ground. Reform is also comprehensive. My proposals will affect virtually every department and every activity of the United Nations. We aim to increase the speed with which we can deploy peace-keeping and other field operations. To improve our capacity for peace-building. To advance the disarmament agenda and strengthen environmental protection. The plan proposes ways to combat the scourge of “uncivil society”—criminals, drug pushers and terrorists. It calls for simplified administrative procedures that will generate a development dividend for developing countries. These are only some of my proposals. Other major features include negative budget growth and the elimination of posts. But reform is far more than the sum of its cuts. Rather, we are strengthening the United Nations positioning ourselves to tackle the new and mounting challenges of the new age. Consider, for example, the crisis in the Great Lakes region of Central Africa. Our response illustrates the capacity of the Organization to act effectively in the post-cold war climate. And it shows the spirit of reform in practice. The region is suffering through a series of overlapping upheavals: political instability in several States at different times; a genocide, spilling over into a refugee problem and a major humanitarian emergency; allegations of human rights violations; and enormous challenges of development, reconstruction and reconciliation. We have acted on all these fronts, employing some of the lessons of recent years and some ideas for the future. Politically, we have joined forces with the Organization of African Unity in designating a joint envoy to troubleshoot and negotiate peaceful settlements to the region’s problems. These efforts helped avert a bloody conflict in Kinshasa during the transition from former President Mobutu Sese Seko. They also demonstrate the advantages of our growing collaboration with regional organizations. Humanitarian assistance has been provided since the outset, often under perilous conditions. These efforts alleviated some of the suffering and cemented ties with a range of non-governmental organizations. I welcome these partnerships, too,

204 • 4 September 1997

and am eager to work more closely still with the full range of NGOs active in the Organization’s areas of concern. Our human rights mechanisms have also been deployed. An International Tribunal for the prosecution of war crimes in Rwanda has been established. Field operations in Burundi and Rwanda have been launched. And while the outcome has been very disappointing so far, efforts have been made to field a team to investigate allegations of human rights violations and atrocities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These activities are part of a major trend in United Nations human rights work: an explosion in field work. We now have more staff working on human rights issues in the field than at Headquarters. We are also conducting contingency planning for a possible peace-keeping operation in CongoBrazzaville, and our development arms are present throughout the region. We can do more, of course. But in this as in our reform efforts, the necessary complement is support and political will from the Member States. The fifty-second session of the General Assembly will begin in less than two weeks. With reform and renewal at the top of the agenda, this promises to be one of the most momentous periods of debate and decision in United Nations history. We are seeing our way steadily towards an end to the crisis of confidence that has plagued the Organization in recent years. I can now envisage a United Nations that enjoys the full support of the international community. A United Nations that embodies the hopes of small nations such as Iceland, who have much to offer, and of others whose needs make up the thrust of our global mission. A United Nations that delivers. Iceland has a role to play in this noble endeavour. I look forward to working with all Icelanders in our common quest towards the goals we share and hold dear—towards peace and progress for all humanity.

4 September 1997 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo English version of a letter originally sent in French to President Laurent-Désiré Kabila. Dear Mr. President, I refer to my letter dated 29 August 1997, in which I stated that the United Nations was not in a position to accept the conditions communicated to

me by your Ministers of International Cooperation and Reconstruction and Emergency Planning in their letter of 27 August. I further stated in my letter that if the Investigative Team was not allowed by your Government to begin its work by midday (local time), Tuesday, 2 September 1997, it would be withdrawn and the matter brought to the attention of the Security Council. In response, your Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Karaha telephoned me on 1 September 1997 to inform me that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo had rescinded the conditions communicated to him by the two Ministers referred to above. I asked the Foreign Minister to ensure that I received from you a written confirmation of the relevant decision. He assured me that such confirmation would be forthcoming within hours. In a telephone conversation with my Chef de Cabinet on 3 September 1997, the Foreign Minister again indicated that the written confirmation would be sent shortly. The United States Ambassador in Kinshasa also told the Chef de Cabinet that it was his understanding that the Government would be sending the confirmation letter shortly. As of this evening, no such letter has been received and the Investigative Team has yet to be allowed by your Government to commence its work. On the contrary, your Ministers of Reconstruction and Interior informed the Investigative Team in a meeting in Kinshasa this morning that “the Secretary-General’s belief that the Foreign Minister had dropped the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo’s objections to the mission was incorrect.” The Ministers also added that the Government would not send any confirmation letter to the Secretary-General and that the conditions stated in the letter of 27 August remained the position of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo. With a view to assisting in finding a solution to the difficulties, I spoke by telephone with the Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe who was present at your meeting with President Mugabe. The Foreign Minister informed me that at that meeting you had reconfirmed your full support for and readiness to cooperate with the Investigative Team. In the light of the above, I believe you will appreciate, Mr. President, the urgency of receiving from you clarification of the position of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo so that I would be in a position to inform the Security Council on Friday morning that the mis-

8 September 1997 • 205 sion will, after all, be allowed to begin its work no later than 12 noon (New York time) on Saturday, 6 September 1997. Failing that, I will have no alternative but to proceed as indicated to you in my letter of 29 August 1997. Accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

5 September 1997 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Bill Richardson, referring to the 4 September letter above, which was sent as an attachment. Dear Mr. President, Further to the briefing provided to the Security Council by my representative on 3 September 1997, regarding developments concerning the Investigative Team I dispatched to the Democratic Republic of Congo, please find attached, for your information and through you the members of the Council, a copy of the letter I addressed to President Kabila dated 4 September 1997. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

The Under-Secretary-General for General Assembly and Conference Services The Legal Counsel The Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information* The Chef de Cabinet United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva Director-General of the United Nations Office at Vienna 2.2 The Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, other heads of programme, fund or department and the executive secretaries of the regional commissions will participate as needed when specific issues falling within their competence are discussed. 2.3 The SMG will meet regularly on a weekly basis. It will be serviced by a secretariat provided by the Executive Office of the Secretary-General. Section 3: Objectives

8 September 1997 Letter (UN archives, ST/SGB/1997/3); Senior Management Group SECRETARY-GENERAL’S BULLETIN: SENIOR MANAGEMENT GROUP

The Secretary-General, for the purpose of ensuring strategic coherence and direction in the work of the United Nations, promulgates the following: Section 1: Establishment

A Senior Management Group (SMG) is hereby established to operate pursuant to the provisions set out in the present bulletin. Section 2: Composition and Functioning

2.1 The SMG is chaired by the Secretary-General and comprises: The Deputy Secretary-General* The Convenors of the four Executive Committees The Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations The Under-Secretary-General for Management *Subject to approval of the post by the General Assembly.

3.1 The SMG will serve as the Secretary-General’s cabinet and the central policy planning body. Its aim is to ensure strategic coherence and direction in the work of the Organization. 3.2 The SMG will advise the SecretaryGeneral on all matters of policy that affect the Organization as a whole, and will also serve in a crisis management capacity. 3.3 The issues with which the SMG will deal will include: (a) Considering strategic inputs for the United Nations legislative bodies; (b) Recommending appropriate policies for dealing with complex challenges that cut across sectors and institutional boundaries; (c) Monitoring the implementation of the reform package and any additional reform measures; (d) Guiding the work of the Executive Committees; (e) Providing advice to the Secretary-General on policy issues regarding his medium-term plan and programme budget submissions as well as in devising resource mobilization strategies; (f) Commissioning policy papers and proposals from the Strategic Planning Unit of the Executive Office of the Secretary-General.

206 • 8 September 1997 Section 4: Entry into Force

The present bulletin shall enter into force on 8 September 1997.

10 September 1997 Secretary-General Addresses 50th DPI/NGO Conference

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6320, PI/1027); nongovernmental organizations Opening address by the Secretary-General to the 50th Annual Department of Public Information/ Non-Governmental Organization (DPI/NGO) Conference titled “Building Partnerships.” It is a real pleasure and honour for me to welcome you all to the United Nations today. This Conference celebrates an anniversary, but it also marks a new era. We celebrate 50 years of what has become an annual event; but this year we also recognize that a profound change has occurred. The nature of this event, and of the relationship between the United Nations and the organizations of civil society that it has come to symbolize, have been transformed beyond all recognition since 1947. My own recent experience as UnderSecretary-General for Peacekeeping, confirms that. In 1992, for the first time, the mandate of a peacekeeping operation—the United Nations Operation in Somalia—included the protection of humanitarian workers. On one occasion the NGOs—40 of them— decided to have a picnic on the beach at Mogadishu. When they were attacked, they asked for the protection of United Nations peacekeepers. The United Nations commander’s first reaction was, “Why didn’t they tell me they were going to do this?” This incident illustrates for me a cultural gap that has now well-nigh disappeared. Today, we know each other well. On human rights, on humanitarian emergencies, close cooperation is now the norm. Your presence here, in larger numbers than ever before, is in itself a celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of this Conference. It is eloquent testimony to the changes that have occurred. The number of organizations taking part has reached an all-time high. Today, representatives of 637 non-governmental organizations from 61 countries, from all regions of the world, have gathered here. You have come here entirely voluntarily and at your own expense. Your presence, your enthusi-

asm, your commitment, are proof that the era of civil society is now, well and truly, a reality. In 1947, the Member States of the United Nations were virtually the sole actors in the international process. Non-governmental organizations were seen as supporters and allies of the United Nations. They were important, but in a relatively modest way. They were seen, above all, as mobilizers of public opinion in support of the unique goals and values of the Charter of the United Nations. Today, that relationship has been transformed. As the title of this Conference recognizes, the relationship today is one of partnership. Non-governmental organizations are now seen as essential partners of the United Nations, not only in mobilizing public opinion, but also in the process of deliberation and policy formulation and—even more important—in the execution of policies, in work on the ground. I spoke a moment ago about Somalia. There, for a number of years, the United Nations and NGOs have worked in partnership on the ground. In a whole variety of ways, the NGOs have become indispensable partners of the United Nations. The NGOs are often there on the ground before the international community gives the United Nations the mandate to act. The NGO information, guidance and inspiration can be crucial to us at the United Nations. The NGOs are particularly crucial—and I speak again from my own experience—in preventive diplomacy, in humanitarian work, in development and in human rights. The relationship is complementary, as in the best human relationships. Each contributes something unique, producing a result that is greater than the sum of its parts. It is a relationship based on trust, because partnership is both a privilege and a responsibility. That fact was recognized by the first group of non-governmental organizations, acting as consultants to the San Francisco Conference in 1945. “We shall spare no effort”, they wrote, “to see that in all the years that follow, the work begun at San Francisco is broadened and sustained by an active public interest and an informed public opinion”. Already, around the world, the United Nations and the non-governmental community are working hand-in-hand, together. Committed non-governmental organizations devoted to the objectives of the Charter—such as United Nations Associa-

10 September 1997 • 207 tions—mobilize public opinion in support of the United Nations. But the global Conferences, from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) at Rio onwards, broke new ground. The wholehearted commitment and involvement of non-governmental organizations extended to the very conference process itself. Since then, practical cooperation has become commonplace. In a vast range of activities, the United Nations and non-governmental organizations are now operational partners. Let me give some examples. In mine-clearance in Afghanistan, the United Nations has been working with six Afghan nongovernmental organizations, one international non-governmental organization and a relief agency from the Islamic Republic of Iran. We are engaged in a new dialogue with the private sector. An exchange of expertise, knowledge, advice and data is under way. Non-governmental organizations dealing with human rights have been essential partners with the United Nations in the rebuilding of civil society after conflict in such countries as Cambodia, El Salvador and Guatemala. The involvement of local government leaders, of mayors and of officials of provincial administrations from many countries has been crucial in United Nations programmes on governance. There is an important ongoing dialogue with them. The crucial importance of elected parliamentarians as partners in the realization of our common goals has been recognized by the close relationship now established between the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. This new partnership is more than ever necessary. The world faces a daunting agenda of global challenges. Our partnership is vital because we face new enemies—the forces of what I call “uncivil” society. They are the enemies of civil society. These new global enemies, which can be combatted only through international cooperation, include drug-traffickers, money-launderers, gunrunners, the exploiters of young people for prostitution and currency fraudsters. They all move in the netherworld between state sovereignty and international cooperation. They are part of the dark underside of the process of economic globalization. The positive effects of globalization include the huge growth and development of NGOs, easier access to information and the free exchange of people and ideas; but the downside of globalization includes these new global threats.

To combat them, international civil society must mobilize. That is why we must all—Member States, governmental and inter-governmental bodies, and non-governmental organizations—work together in partnership. Our partnership is, therefore, not an option but a necessity, if the new global agenda is to be effectively addressed. I congratulate you on the progress that has been made in defining the rights and responsibilities of non-governmental organizations. Already, many States are focusing on the necessary legislative frameworks. These arrangements include provision for tax exemption—in other words fiscal privileges—but they also address and define the responsibilities of not-forprofit organizations. In the Russian Federation, President Yeltsin signed, in May 1995, the Federal Law on Public Associations. In Japan, Senator Akiko Domoto has promoted legislation to provide nationwide standards for not-for-profit associations and foundations. I understand that the representative of the International Federation of Red Cross Societies will be explaining their initiative in developing a code of conduct for NGOs involved in operational and humanitarian activities. These are important matters on your agenda this week. But further discussion will be needed. The process will take years rather than months. As far as the United Nations itself is concerned, as soon as I became Secretary-General, I embarked on a process of reform. My reform plan, which I presented to the General Assembly, will be debated by the Assembly this month. Decisions will, I hope, follow soon. My vision is of a new and transformed Organization—one with enhanced leadership and management capabilities; with a streamlined structure; an Organization that acts as one United Nations at the country level; an Organization that is better prepared for humanitarian and political crises; an Organization with highly skilled staff; an Organization with a stronger role in development cooperation; and an Organization that is better managed and capable of reducing its costs to deliver a “dividend for development”. In my reform report, I floated the idea that alongside a “Millennium Assembly of the United Nations,” the NGOs might consider holding a “People’s Millennium Assembly”. I hope you will examine it further. It could pro-

208 • 10 September 1997

vide an excellent opportunity for cementing the new partnership. I, for my part, stand ready to receive your ideas and suggestions about the form and nature of our future partnership. Let us target the year 2000 for the completion of the task of launching a new and strong relationship between the United Nations and the NGO community. I wish you well in your deliberations. This is a historic conference. We are staking out new territory. “A journey of a thousand miles”, the Africans say, “begins with a single step”. Whether as peacekeepers, aid workers or simply as individuals, we can make a difference. The concern which our presence proves can have a vital impact. For both the threatened and the threatening, it makes a difference to know that the world is watching, and that it cares.

12 September 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/721); Western Sahara Letter to the president of the Security Council, Bill Richardson. I have the honour to refer to the question of Western Sahara, in particular the activities of my Personal Envoy, Mr. James A. Baker III, pursuant to Security Council resolution 1108 (1997) of 22 May 1997. As may be recalled, it was my intention to evaluate the situation concerning Western Sahara in the light of the findings and recommendations to be provided by my Personal Envoy. In this connection, the Council, in its resolution 1108 (1997), urged the parties to continue to cooperate with my Personal Envoy in his mission and to demonstrate the political will to overcome the persisting stalemate, and find an acceptable solution. The Security Council requested me to submit, by 15 September 1997, a comprehensive report on the results of my evaluation of all aspects of the Western Sahara issue. In the meantime, the Council decided to extend the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) until 30 September 1997. As the members of the Security Council are aware, following his exploratory mission to the region in late April 1997, my Personal Envoy held separate meetings in London on 10 and 11 June with the two parties to the Settlement Plan, Morocco and the Frente POLISARIO, as well as

the two neighbouring countries, Algeria and Mauritania. During these meetings, it was agreed with my Personal Envoy that the only way to assess the implementability of the Settlement Plan would be through direct talks between the two parties, under United Nations auspices, to address the obstacles in the implementation of the Plan. Algeria and Mauritania would be invited to the talks as observers, but would attend the discussions on issues directly affecting them. It was agreed that the talks would be private, would not constitute an international conference and would continue for as long as the Personal Envoy felt that there was progress. The parties also accepted my Personal Envoy’s suggestion that, during those direct talks, no issue would be considered as finally agreed until all outstanding issues were agreed. Under the conditions set forth and agreed to in London, the first round of direct talks under the auspices of my Personal Envoy was held in Lisbon on 23 June. At the end of the first round, my Personal Envoy submitted bridging proposals on the identification of prospective Saharan voters in the referendum. This led to a second round in London on 19 and 20 July, at which the parties reached agreement on issues related to the identification process and to preparatory work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for the return of refugees. A third round of direct talks was held in Lisbon on 29 August, during which the parties reached further agreement on issues related to the confinement of troops from the two sides and to the release of prisoners-of-war and of Saharan political detainees. At the completion of the third round of direct talks in Lisbon, my Personal Envoy invited the parties to a fourth round, with a view to resolving satisfactorily the proposed code of conduct of the parties during the referendum campaign. The fourth round is scheduled to be held at the James Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston, Texas, from 14 to 16 September 1997. Given the progress made thus far, and in order to take account of the results of the forthcoming round of direct talks and undertake thereafter a proper evaluation of the situation concerning Western Sahara, I propose to defer the submission of my report to the Security Council until later this month.

15 September 1997 Letter (UN archives); Millennium People’s Assembly

16 September 1997 • 209 This cover letter and attached interoffice memorandum were sent to the Secretary-General from assistant secretary-general for external relations, Gillian Sorensen. To: The Secretary-General From: Gillian Martin Sorensen Subject: Implementation of the Track II Reform: Measures and Proposals Pursuant to your memorandum dated 8 August 1997 on the implementation of the Track II Reform, please find attached a brief note outlining some preliminary ideas in preparation for a People’s Millennium Assembly as called for in paragraph 91 of your report to the General Assembly on Reform. I have consulted with both Mr. Strong and Mr. Jin in preparing the attached note. * * * INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

To: The Secretary-General From: Gillian Martin Sorensen Subject: Millennium People’s Assembly 1. In recognition of the increasing input on the part of civil society in United Nations affairs, the United Nations should encourage and facilitate the convening of a Millennium People’s Assembly. We have already received indications of great interest in this event on the part of NGOs and other sectors of civil society. 2. While the United Nations should encourage and facilitate the holding of such a meeting, the event should be a people’s event. It is recommended that a steering committee be established to provide technical assistance and support in the planning of such an event. This committee should consist of a few United Nations staff members and a balanced representation of non-governmental organizations. Discussions would be held with NonGovernmental Liaison Services (NGLS) for assistance in deciding upon the most appropriate NGO representation. While the United Nations should not run the event, it should ensure that it is run well. 3. The Millennium People’s Assembly could be held at United Nations Headquarters in New York during the week immediately preceding the beginning of the Millennium General Assembly, with the possibility of a one or two day overlap. This would allow for an exchange of information between the people and governmental processes. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Jin, and he has suggested that his Department would, for reasons of logistical necessity, service the two Assemblies

sequentially, as proposed above, as the number of participants needing conference facilities and services (not to mention hotel rooms) will be in the thousands. 4. There have been some suggestions put forth regarding themes for the Assembly including an assessment of the major United Nations conferences of recent years; closer coordination between the United Nations system and civil society, and the relationship of the United Nations system with other multilateral institutions. I would encourage different sectors of civil society to make suggestions as to the agenda. It would be desirable if the themes of the Millennium People’s Assembly and the Millennium General Assembly could be linked. Clearly, more discussions on the theme for the Millennium People’s Assembly is needed both within and outside the Secretariat. 5. In order to proceed with the planning for this event, I suggest that a small group of United Nations staff including, in the first instance, my office, the Department of Public Information and the Department for Economic and Social Affairs. All of which have significant NGO responsibilities, and the Department of General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services meet to discuss the United Nations’ role in the planning of this event. I would also suggest that consultations with the Directors-General of United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) and United Nations Office at Vienna (UNOV) take place as part of the early stages of planning for the Assembly. An excellent suggestion. Do proceed but be mindful that the GA may have an impact on the proposed Assembly. —K.A. 20/9

16 September 1997 Report of the Secretary-General on the Situation in Somalia

Report to the Security Council (SC, S/1997/715); Somalia Excerpts taken from a larger report by the Secretary-General on his efforts to assist the peace process in Somalia. This is as an illustrative example of the work of his “good offices.” REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL ON THE SITUATION IN SOMALIA

I. Introduction

1. In its presidential statement of 27 February 1997 (S/PRST/1997/8), the Security Council encour-

210 • 16 September 1997

aged me to continue consultations with the Somali parties and regional States and organizations on the role the United Nations can play in supporting peace efforts, including on specific options contained in my report (S/1997/135). It also requested me to continue monitoring the situation in Somalia and to report to it in an appropriate manner on those consultations and on developments in the situation generally. 2. As members of the Council are aware, I asked Mr. Ismat Kittani to visit the region as my Special Envoy (a) to assess the situation on the ground; (b) to ascertain the positions of the Somali factions and the regional governments and organizations concerned on matters related to national reconciliation and the establishment of a broad-based government; (c) to assess the extent to which recent regional and other peacemaking initiatives had advanced the Somali political process; (d) to review and explore the role the United Nations might possibly play to support the regional peacemaking efforts, including the options discussed in my report to the Security Council; and (e) to make recommendations on any future peacemaking role of the United Nations. 3. The present report summarizes the results of Mr. Kittani’s mission. II. Visit by the Special Envoy to the Region

4. My Special Envoy visited the region from 6 to 20 August 1997 and held consultations with all major Somali groups. On 14 August, in Addis Ababa, he met the delegation of the Sodere group, led by the Current Chairman of the National Salvation Council (NSC), Col. Abdullahi Yusuf, and two of its five Co-Chairmen, Mr. Ali Mahdi and General Gabio. On 15 August, he met Mr. Mohammad Sallah Nour, “Foreign Minister of Somaliland”, in Djibouti. On 20 August, he met a nine-member delegation of the Aidid group in Nairobi, led by Mr. Hilowle Iman Omar, one of the “Vice Presidents of the Transitional Government”. 5. My Special Envoy also consulted with senior Government officials of regional States and the leaders of regional and international organizations engaged in efforts to help resolve the conflict in Somalia. On his way to the region, he conferred with Senator Rino Serri, Vice Foreign Minister of Italy, outside Rome on 6 August and Mr. Amre Moussa, Foreign Minister of Egypt, and his colleagues, as well as Mr. Abdel Meguid, Secretary-General of the

League of Arab States, outside Cairo on 8 August. He held consultations in Addis Ababa with Mr. Meles Zenawi, Prime Minister, and Mr. Seyoum Mesfin, Foreign Minister, of Ethiopia as well as Mr. Kinfe Abraham, Acting Executive-Secretary of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), on 13 August, and with Mr. Salim Salim, SecretaryGeneral of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), on 14 August. On 16 August, in Djibouti, he met Mr. Barkat Gourad Hamadou, Prime Minister, Mr. Mohamed Moussa Chehem, Foreign Minister and Mr. Ismail Omar Guellah, Chef de Cabinet, of Djibouti. On 17 August, in Sana’a, he held consultations with Mr. Ali Abdulla Saleh, President, and Mr. Abdul Karim Al-Iryani, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, of Yemen. In Nairobi, he met with Mr. Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka, Foreign Minister of Kenya and General Lazarus Sumbeiywo, Adviser to President Moi, on 19 August, and with Mrs. Sally Kosgei, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on 20 August. 6. In Nairobi, he received briefings from the head of the United Nations Political Office for Somalia (UNPOS) and the heads of United Nations agencies operating in Somalia, all of whose temporary offices are located in Nairobi. He was also briefed by representatives of the European Union and met the Acting Chairperson of the Somalia Aid Coordinating Body. . . . VI. Observations

29. Developments since the Nairobi understanding and the Sodere declarations, namely, the agreement reached in Mogadishu and the Sana’a and Cairo agreements, have given rise to hope that the Somali parties may have finally arrived at a stage where they will engage in serious consultations for peace. 30. My Special Envoy’s mission has shown that the political process in Somalia is at another critical juncture. Having set 1 November 1997 as the opening date for the national reconciliation conference, the Sodere group made clear its intention to proceed with that conference, even if efforts by the Sodere group and the “external actors” fail to persuade Mr. Aidid to demonstrate readiness to engage in a serious dialogue with the Sodere group on issues concerning national reconciliation. There appears to be a substantial amount of sympathy for this position in the region. Meanwhile, the Sodere group and all the “external actors” have pledged to do all they can

18 September 1997 • 211 to persuade Mr. Aidid not to reject the national reconciliation process. . . . 36. I have directed that the following steps be taken as a matter of priority in line with recommendations made by my Special Envoy: (a) A meeting at the ambassadorial level will be convened at Headquarters in September 1997, chaired by the Under-Secretary-General of the Department of Political Affairs, with the participation of representatives of all the countries my Special Envoy visited (Italy, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti and Yemen), together with those of IGAD, OAU, the League of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Interested members of the Security Council will be invited to participate. The purpose of this meeting would be to harmonize views on mechanisms and measures to maximize the international community’s efforts to help Somalia achieve national reconciliation. These might include joint missions to convey agreed messages to all Somali factions. The meeting could also discuss such proposals as a trust fund for Somalia and other measures to strengthen the United Nations supporting and coordinating role. The meeting could also develop into periodically held consultations at the ambassadorial level for the purpose of harmonizing the efforts of the international community for Somalia; (b) In view of the contacts my Special Envoy had in the region, I have reviewed the role of UNPOS, which currently consists of a Director, one Professional assistant, and one secretary, and have concluded that its continuation and strengthening are essential in order to enable us to continue to extend assistance to those engaged in peacemaking efforts for Somalia. I have also accepted the conclusion of my Special Envoy that the personnel of UNPOS should undertake more visits to Somalia on a regular basis, security conditions permitting. I have therefore decided to add another Professional staff member to the Office. Unfortunately, with Mogadishu at phase V security status, it is still not possible to move UNPOS to Mogadishu at the present time. However, I shall keep the question of its relocation to Somalia under review. For planning and budgetary purposes, it is envisaged that UNPOS will continue to exist during the biennium 1998–1999. The necessary financial resources would need to be authorized and allocated; (c) Every effort will continue to be made to help the Somali people in the relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction and development fields, as circumstances permit;

(d) A general review of the role of the United Nations in Somalia will be conducted in November/December 1997 in the light of the results of the national reconciliation conference, if held, or of the situation that obtains if it is not. ...

18 September 1997 Letter (UN archives); Palestine Letter from Bill Richardson, president of the Security Council, referring to a letter received from the Secretary-General regarding the question of Palestine. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, I have the honour to refer to your letter of 9 September 1997 concerning resolution 51/26, which the General Assembly adopted on 4 December 1996, at its fifty-first session, under the agenda item “Question of Palestine”. The Security Council is gravely concerned about the recent developments in the Occupied Territories and the region. The Council calls upon the concerned parties to pursue the negotiations and to fulfill their obligations under the agreements achieved. The Council continues to be determined to provide the needed backing to the Middle East peace process, giving full support to the Agreements achieved as well as to the timely implementation of these Agreements. Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration. Bill Richardson President of the Security Council

18 September 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/722); Western Sahara Letter from the president of the Security Council, Bill Richardson, to the Secretary-General. I have the honour to inform you that your letter dated 12 September 1997 (S/1997/721) concerning the question of Western Sahara, in particular the activities of your Personal Envoy, Mr. James A. Baker III, pursuant to Security Council resolution 1108 (1997) of 22 May 1997, has been brought to the attention of the members of the Security Council. The members of the Council look forward to receiving your comprehensive report on the results of your evaluation of all aspects of the Western Sahara issue, called for in resolution 1108 (1997), later this month in time to

212 • 18 September 1997

enable the Council to take action with regard to the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), whose mandate was extended until 30 September 1997. (Signed) Bill Richardson, President of the Security Council

19 September 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); financial contribution ... “You’ve probably noticed a lot of people smiling in the Building today”, Mr. Eckhard told correspondents, lighting up like a Christmas tree himself. “It is a billion-dollar day at the United Nations”, he said, referring to last night’s announcement by Ted Turner, Vice-President of Time Warner, Inc., that he was donating $1 billion—$100 million annually over 10 years—to support United Nations activities. The moral boost that the donation had given to the Organization exceeded the financial value of Mr. Turner’s gift, the Spokesman said. In the unlikely case of those who might have missed the news, he told the packed news briefing of how Mr. Turner “stunned us all” at the United Nations Association dinner last night where he was being honoured as the principal guest. Some people had immediately inferred that the United States did not have to pay its $1.5 billion debt, but that was not the way the financial regulations worked. He explained that the United Nations could not accept contributions by private citizens against the regular budget expenses. The Charter was categorical that Member States had to pay those. No one, therefore, was “off the hook”. Mr. Turner had stated that his donation would go towards supporting humanitarian work: lifting landmines, helping refugees, and feeding hungry children. Mr. Eckhard said that the SecretaryGeneral had been making appeals to the private sector since January, asking them to get involved in the work of the United Nations. He hoped that Mr. Turner’s gift would be the first of many from the private sector. Correspondents would be able to hear for themselves what Mr. Turner said at the ceremony, as a videotape of it would be shown on in-house television (Channels 3 and 31) at 1 p.m. today, courtesy of Cable News Network (CNN). The Secretary-General was stopped by journalists as he came into the Building this morning after his breakfast with the International Peace

Academy, the Spokesman said. “I think it is a wonderful gesture and I hope it is a sign of things to come”, the Secretary-General said. “It shows his belief in the Organization and in international cooperation, and I hope it will inspire governments to pay what they owe.” . . . The Secretary-General was meeting with the “Group of 77” developing countries this morning, and with the Latin American Group and the Eastern European Group in the afternoon, the Spokesman said. All those meetings were reformrelated, in preparation for the General Assembly’s consideration of his reform package. He was briefing those groups on the specifics, and speaking with them about the strategy for implementing the package. . . . Apart from Mr. Turner, had there been any large private donors to the United Nations that could be identified? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said he understood from the UNHCR that George Soros had made a $25 million contribution for assistance to refugees in Bosnia; the money was put in a trust fund and disbursed consistent with UNHCR’s programme activities. The Spokesman said there was a meeting this morning between Joseph E. Connor, UnderSecretary-General for Administration and Management, and his staff and representatives of Mr. Turner, to begin to discuss the modalities for accepting the donation and how it would be spent. Noting that Mr. Turner had said in his speech that he would be contacting other people of means in the country to urge them to offer similar support to the United Nations, the Spokesman said the donor seemed intent on enlarging the fund. “Of course, we would welcome that.” . . . Had there been any concerns raised within the United Nations about one person giving such a large gift and earmarking it, in effect, setting United Nations priorities about how the money would be spent? a correspondent asked. Mr. Turner would not set United Nations priorities, the Spokesman stressed; those were set by Member States and funded out of the regular budget. Voluntary contributions could be accepted by the Secretary-General if they were used for purposes consistent with the programme objectives set by the General Assembly. “As long as that activity was approved of by the General Assembly, there is no reason why you cannot turn up the volume a little bit with additional contributions, either by individual governments or, as in this case, by private citizens.” . . .

22 September 1997 • 213 19 September 1997 Secretary-General Thanks Ted Turner for $1 Billion Contribution

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6333); financial contribution Ted Turner, the Vice-Chairman of Time Warner Inc., stunned participants in the United Nations Association dinner last night with the announcement of a $1 billion contribution to support the goals of the United Nations. The funds will not offset the $1.5 billion that the United States owes the United Nations because the world body cannot accept contributions from private citizens for that purpose. Mr. Turner said his intention was to acknowledge the reform efforts of Secretary-General Kofi Annan and to support the humanitarian work the United Nations does, such as lifting landmines and aiding refugees and children in need. The Secretary-General responded by thanking Mr. Turner and saying “He has shown the way” for how individuals can make a difference. Mr. Turner said his intent was to invite others to contribute to the fund. Senior Secretariat officials met with representatives of Mr. Turner this morning to begin discussion of meshing Mr. Turner’s objectives with those of the United Nations.

22 September 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); financial contribution ... The Secretary-General had this morning taken the unusual step of addressing the General Assembly, Mr. Eckhard said. It was not that such an address had not been done before, but was only done on rare occasions. It had never, however, been prior to the beginning of the general debate. In his annual report, the Secretary-General had saved the bulk of his remarks for the subject of reform. He had spelled out the objectives of his reform package, saying, “We aspire to a United Nations that can act with greater unity of purpose, coherence of effort and responsive in pursuit of peace and progress”. To Member States, he had said: “Some of you, I ask to do what your legal obligations require: to liquidate your arrears, and pay your future assessments in full, on time and without conditions”. He had further said to all Member States, “I ask you to move expeditiously to consider the package of reforms that is before you, with the aim

of reaching political consensus, and providing budgetary authority before this session ends. We live in a new day and it requires a new way. Therefore, let this be the ‘reform Assembly.’” The general debate had then begun, starting with Brazil, the Spokesman said, and the Secretary-General had heard from the first four speakers the kinds of endorsements he was looking for to get the debate on reform off to a good start. The Foreign Minister of Brazil, Luiz Felipe Lampreia, had “welcomed the Secretary-General’s proposals for reform”. President William J. Clinton of the United States had also said his “blueprint” was the “right plan for the future”, and that “we should pass the Secretary-General’s reform agenda this session”. Next, Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen of Denmark had also said that his country gave its full support to the reform package, while Prime Minister Sitiveni Ligamamada Rabuka of Fiji had endorsed the proposals in principle. Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General was meeting with the various national leaders who had come to address the Assembly. With President Clinton, he had discussed reforms, including Security Council reform. The Secretary-General had raised the issue of benchmarks that the United States Congress had sought to impose on the United Nations for payment of arrears. The SecretaryGeneral and President Clinton had also discussed Western Sahara, Congo-Kinshasa, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Haiti and Afghanistan. With the Foreign Minister of Brazil, he had discussed reform, and, at considerable length, Angola. . . . Concerning Congo-Brazzaville, Mr. Eckhard stated that the situation had deteriorated over the weekend, with heavy rocket shelling and arms fire breaking out. Three helicopters were used in attacks on the area of Brazzaville in which Denis Sassou N’guesso, the former President, resides. There had been weapons reportedly going into the city, and there was a possibility that the conflict could spread across the river, and, in fact, more widely in the region. Ambassador Mohamed Sahnoun, the United Nations/Organization of African Unity (OAU) Special Representative to the Great Lakes Region, who had been focusing his attention on Congo-Brazzaville, was in New York today, and would brief correspondents as soon as he had reported to the Secretary-General, and probably the Security Council. There was a press release from the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), which said that in line with the agreement

214 • 22 September 1997

reached on 15 September, the leaders of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities would meet to discuss security matters this Friday, 26 September, at 1700 hours at the residence of the Chief of Mission, Gustave Feissel. They would meet without preconditions and without an agenda. The two leaders would meet alone in the presence of Mr. Feissel. In the meantime, they had both agreed to refrain from making any public statements about the scope and possible content of their discussions. . . . Answering another question, he said that the Human Rights Verification Team in CongoKinshasa was “sitting tight”, and continuing to negotiate with the Government to get the first field trip under way. Asked how long the waiting might be, he said that would be the Secretary-General’s call; for now, he was content to allow them to attempt to carry out their mission. There had been no fresh meetings with representatives of the Government. . . . The Spokesman was then asked if the Secretary-General was satisfied with what President Clinton had said, that the “bulk” of the arrears owed the Organization would be paid. In addition, what had been the nature of the discussion with the Secretary-General on benchmarks? Mr. Eckhard said he could give no more information on the subject of benchmarks. On arrears, the Secretary-General’s position, as a matter of principle, was that every Member State needed to pay in full and on time. “We would hope that, starting next January, they would start paying on time.” Since January, when the Secretary-General had first visited Washington, the Spokesman added, it had been clear that the negotiations between the administration and Congress were not going to yield a billion and a half dollars. As for the “900-plus” million that was in the draft legislation, the Secretary-General had said that was a good first step, and that continued to be his position. A correspondent asked Mr. Eckhard to comment on the decision of the League of Arab States to allow Libya’s Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi to land planes in their countries. He said that the Secretary-General was waiting for the Security Council to respond to that decision. Was the Security Council going to respond? Said Mr. Eckhard, “I don’t know. Officially I don’t speak for them”. On Mr. Sahnoun’s proposed press briefing, he said it would depend on when the Special Representative got on the Secretary-General’s pro-

gramme, which would probably be Wednesday or Thursday. A correspondent, pointing out that the sanctions against UNITA would go into effect on 30 September if nothing had changed, asked when the Secretary-General would report to the Security Council to let them know that UNITA had not fulfilled their obligations. The Spokesman said he did not know, but that it was likely to be “close to the end of the month.” . . .

23 September 1997 Letter (UN archives); General Assembly debate Excerpts from Under-Secretary-General Kieran Prendergast’s summaries of the General Assembly open debate and the Secretary-General’s handwritten comments. NOTE TO MR. RIZA

Analytical Summaries of Major Political Statements During the General Debate

As requested, I attach for submission to the Secretary-General the summaries of yesterday’s General Debate. Kieran Prendergast Analytical Summary of the General Debate Monday, 22 September 1997

1. Brazil: The Foreign Minister expressed support for the Secretary-General’s “comprehensive” proposal on United Nations (UN) reform. He stated that there was no danger of an arms race in the Americas region, so any initiative to impose limits on the purchase of conventional arms was unjustified. The real fight was against the arms trade; hence, greater international cooperation would allow tighter controls on the production as well as the sale of weapons to private hands. In Brazil’s view, it was felt that the international community, particularly the Security Council, must closely scrutinize the Angolan peace process. Ambassador Razali’s proposals on Security Council reform provided a firm basis for a negotiating process that could lead to a GA decision. 2. United States of America: The President stated that the UN must continue to work for peace, human rights and sustainable development. UN peace-keeping operations will benefit from “training for United Nations troops . . . a stronger role for civilian police . . . and better integration between military and civilian agen-

23 September 1997 • 215 cies”. UN peacebuilding capabilities must be improved. This week’s Security Council ministerial meeting on African security will highlight the preventive role the UN should play in that continent. The UN must be prepared to respond to increased demands for human rights through field operations, early warning systems and institutionbuilding. Support for its war crime tribunals and truth commissions should be maintained and a permanent international court should be established before the end of the century. With respect to development, the UN “must focus even more on shifting resources from hand outs to hand ups” and continue to lead environmental efforts. The President said that he intends to work with Congress on legislation that would allow the US to settle the bulk of its arrears and pay in full its future contributions. In his view, these should be based on a more equitable scale of assessment. The US also supports expanding the Security Council. . . . 5. United Republic of Tanzania: The Foreign Minister, as Chairman of the G77, supported the Agenda for Development and negotiations completed in June 1997 by the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group. Noting that many developing countries did not benefit from the liberalization and globalization of the world economy, he called for measures to mitigate the adverse effects of implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements and for more flexible criteria for eligibility for debt reduction for developing countries. Regarding Africa, the Minister supported ECOWAS efforts to restore constitutional rule in Sierra Leone; termed “manoeuvres of UNITA” as “obstructionist” to the peace process in Angola; held the “military authorities” in Burundi responsible for frustrating the Arusha Initiative and appealed for support from the international community to help restart the talks. He further called for support and understanding for the governments of Rwanda and the DRC. In Somalia, the Minister stated that the Sodore Initiative had a chance and called on the UN to work closely with the OAU and IGAD’s efforts. . . . 10. Norway: The Foreign Minister appealed to States involved in the Ottawa Process to ratify the convention for a total ban on anti-personnel landmines after its signing in December. He also appealed to States that have not joined the Process to do so as soon as possible. He wel-

comed the fact that the Secretary-General would be the depositary of the Convention. The Minister fully supported the Secretary-General’s reform programme. Regarding the Security Council, it was stated that permanent seats should be given to Germany and Japan and developing countries. Changes to the scale of assessments were needed, while non-payments were unacceptable. On Bosnia, Norway would remain engaged until peace was consolidated; it would insist that war criminals be brought to justice. Norway was extremely concerned by the deadlock in the Middle East peace process. The Minister referred to Guatemala as one of the successes of UN conflict resolution. 11. South Africa: On African issues, the Foreign Minister expressed his concern at the persistence of intrastate conflicts which posed a threat to the continent’s stability and led to loss of life and economic hardships. He noted that South Africa had expressed grave concern at the involvement of its nationals in mercenary activities which often destabilize regions, adding that legislation had been drafted to regulate the rendering of military assistance by private individuals and companies to foreign Governments and agencies. On Security Council reform, the Foreign Minister reaffirmed Africa’s claim at the Harare Summit for two permanent and five non-permanent seats. ... 14. Islamic Republic of Iran: The Foreign Minister emphasized the emergence of a “Global Civil Society” founded on the rule of law, democratic participation, pluralism, the promotion of tolerance, moderation, human rights and “dialogue among civilizations.” He stated that the priorities of Iran’s foreign policy will be the expansion of relations with “all countries”, regional conflict resolution and active participation in the UN. To this end, Iran will pursue a “law based” approach to addressing the “root causes” of regional conflicts. It was stated that Iran’s policy in the Middle East has been misrepresented as support for terrorism—it also seeks peace in the Middle East on the basis of “regional consensus.” The Foreign Minister called for reversal of the “Cold War mentality” which required the existence of a real or imaginary “enemy.” He called for the total elimination of weapons of mass destruction, reduction of conventional weapons, and the establishment of security and cooperation regimes in different

216 • 23 September 1997

regions. The highest foreign policy priority of Iran is to strengthen confidence and build peace in its immediate neighbourhood. Iran is also ready to take part in any international effort to “uproot” terrorism, combat drug trafficking, enhance the role of women, and promote the protection of the environment. In Iran’s view, the United Nations has a central role to play in the future global order. An interesting summary; see the gist of Pres. Clinton’s statement. Not a word about his strong support for reform. I trust that Miles Stoby and his team are following these discussions. —K.A. 23/9

24 September 1997 Report to the Security Council (SC, S/1997/742); Western Sahara Excerpts from a longer report by the secretarygeneral on the peace process for Western Sahara and the work of his personal envoy, James A. Baker. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL ON THE SITUATION CONCERNING WESTERN SAHARA

I. Introduction

1. The present report is submitted pursuant to Security Council resolution 1108 (1997) of 22 May 1997, in which the Council urged the parties, Morocco and the Frente Popular para la Liberacion de Saguia el-Hamra y del Rio de Oro (Frente POLISARIO), to continue to cooperate with my Personal Envoy in his mission, and requested me to submit, by 15 September 1997, a comprehensive report on the results of my evaluation of all aspects of the Western Sahara issue. . . . II. Mission of the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General

4. Following his exploratory visit to the Mission area, my Personal Envoy, Mr. James A. Baker III, informed me that neither party had indicated any willingness to pursue any political solution other than implementation of the settlement plan. He advised that discussions with the two parties on the implementation of the plan would be necessary, but that the only way realistically to assess its implementability would be by arranging direct talks between them, under United Nations auspices. I decided therefore to invite the Government of Morocco and the Frente POLISARIO as well as the two neighbouring countries, Algeria and Mauritania, to send high-level representatives to

meet with my Personal Envoy in London, for separate consultations on that issue on 10 and 11 June. Throughout the consultations and subsequent direct talks, Mr. Baker was assisted by Mr. Erik Jensen, my Acting Special Representative for Western Sahara, Mr. Chester A. Crocker, former United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Mr. John R. Bolton, former United States Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations. 5. In London, my Personal Envoy informed each delegation of the conclusions he had reached following his exploratory visit to the Mission area. He explained that direct talks between the two parties would be necessary, in order to address the obstacles in the implementation of the plan. The talks, which would start on 23 June, at Lisbon, would be private, would not constitute an international conference and would continue for as long as he felt that there was progress. Algeria and Mauritania, as observers, would be kept informed of developments, but would take part in the discussions only on issues directly affecting them. 6. My Personal Envoy further explained to the parties that, during the direct talks, he would make suggestions and offer ideas to facilitate their work, including proposals for bridging their differences to try to eliminate deadlocks. However, he would have no power to impose solutions on them, or veto agreements reached by them. It was agreed with the two parties and the two observer countries that complete confidentiality would be maintained and that no issue would be considered as finally agreed until all outstanding issues were agreed. 7. Under the ground rules set forth and agreed to in London, the first official direct contact between Morocco and the Frente POLISARIO under United Nations auspices was held at Lisbon on 23 June, in a good, cooperative atmosphere. The discussions started with the primary issue that had deadlocked the implementation of the settlement plan, namely the identification of prospective Saharan voters in the referendum. At the end of the first day, my Personal Envoy submitted a proposal to bridge the parties’ differences in the identification process. The delegations of Algeria and Mauritania were kept fully briefed of developments. Since both sides indicated that they needed to consult with their principals before responding to Mr. Baker’s proposal, the Lisbon meeting was adjourned on the second day. However, both parties gave their responses to my Personal Envoy within 48 hours.

24 September 1997 • 217 8. This led to a second round of direct talks between the parties, held in London on 19 and 20 July. Algeria and Mauritania were also invited as previously. During those talks, agreement was reached on issues related to the identification of prospective voters and on preparations for the return of refugees. In addition, the parties confirmed their support for the provisions of the settlement plan concerning the reduction and confinement of Moroccan forces during the transitional period. Those agreements, and all others subsequently reached in the direct talks under the auspices of my Personal Envoy, were reduced to writing and initialed by the parties. 9. At the end of the second round, the parties agreed to hold a third round of direct talks at Lisbon, on 29 and 30 August, during which they would continue their discussions on troop confinement and would also discuss issues related to the release of prisoners of war and of Saharan political detainees. 10. My Personal Envoy opened the third round of direct talks between the parties in Lisbon on 29 August, as scheduled. Algeria and Mauritania were again invited as previously. During the Lisbon talks, agreement was reached on issues related to the confinement of Moroccan and Frente POLISARIO forces and to the release of prisoners of war and Saharan political prisoners and detainees. 11. While in Lisbon, my Personal Envoy also began discussions between the parties on a proposed code governing their conduct during the referendum campaign, as envisaged in the settlement plan. Following a general discussion on this question in the afternoon of 29 August, he decided to adjourn the talks, as the Moroccan delegation had not expected to discuss this issue in detail and therefore did not have the appropriate experts in attendance. The two parties agreed to hold the next round in the United States of America, with a view to reaching an agreement on the code and related issues. 12. The fourth round of direct talks between the two parties was held at Houston, Texas, from 14 to 16 September. Algeria and Mauritania attended again as observers. On 16 September, Morocco and the Frente POLISARIO reached agreement on the code of conduct for the referendum campaign and on a declaration of the parties relating to the authority of the United Nations during the transitional period. In addition, they agreed to a set of practical measures for the resumption of the identification process.

13. I take this opportunity to express again my appreciation to the Governments of Portugal and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, for having hosted the direct talks. . . . 26. With these agreements, and the goodwill and spirit of cooperation shown during the talks, the main contentious issues that had impeded the implementation of the plan have thus been satisfactorily addressed. It may be recalled that in order to reach resolution of these issues, my Personal Envoy agreed with the parties at the start of the talks that no issue would be considered as finally agreed until all outstanding issues were agreed. With the successful completion of the last round, all the agreements reached in London, Lisbon and Houston have taken effect. 27. These achievements create the conditions to proceed towards the full implementation of the settlement plan, starting with the resumption of the identification process. I believe that MINURSO should be provided with the resources to do so on an urgent basis, in order to build on the current momentum. It is my intention to approach the competent legislative bodies with a view to obtaining the necessary commitment authority in this regard to begin this process. It is hoped, however, that the two parties, as well as the two observer countries, will be as cooperative in implementing the agreements as they were in reaching them. Ultimately, it is only the genuine commitment of the parties to the settlement plan and the agreements reached in the direct talks that will determine whether it is possible to fulfill the objectives of the plan. 28. I therefore recommend that MINURSO proceed with the implementation of the plan, starting with the completion of the identification process. The identification of all remaining prospective Saharan voters could be completed at the earliest feasible opportunity, provided that both parties cooperate totally with the Commission in carrying out its tasks in accordance with the measures agreed. . . .

24 September 1997 Letter (UN archives); landmines convention Memo from Hans Corell covering the role of the UN and the Secretary-General in the newly completed landmines convention. To: The Secretary-General Through: Mr. Iqbal Riza

218 • 24 September 1997

From: Hans Corell, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Legal Counsel Subject: Landmines Convention 1. As you know, last Thursday, 18 September, the Oslo Conference adopted the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (the final text is already available in EOSG). The Convention is to be signed in Ottawa on 3 December (in the course of a mini-conference hosted by Canada from 2–4 December that will also deal with a number of technical issues). 2. It is important to recognize that the United Nations and the Secretary-General are to play a far more prominent role under the Convention as actually adopted than had originally been anticipated and that go far beyond the traditional duties of a Depositary. The present memorandum highlights this role and indicates the next steps. 3. The Convention, in order to accomplish the several purposes set out in its title, relies quite heavily on tasks to be carried out by the United Nations. Aside from normal depositary functions that are set out in Articles 15, 16.3, 20.2–3 and 21, the Secretary-General or the United Nations is to perform the following functions: (a) The “United Nations system” may serve as a conduit between States Parties in the provision of assistance for the care and rehabilitation, and social and economic reintegration of mine victims and for mine awareness programs, as well as for mine clearance and related activities; in the latter connection reference is made to the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for Assistance in Mine Clearance. (Art. 6.3–4) (b) Receiving information in “the database on mine clearance established within the United Nations system”. (Art. 6.6) (c) The United Nations may be requested to assist national authorities in the elaboration of domestic demining programs. (Art. 6.7) (d) The Secretary-General is to distribute to the States Parties reports these are to submit, under Arts. 7.1–2, annually, on their national implementation measures, stocks of mines, etc. (Art. 7.3) (e) The Secretary-General is to serve as a conduit to transmit Requests for Clarification (i.e. challenges) from one State Party to another regarding compliance with the Convention. (Art. 8.2, .3, .5) (f) The Secretary-General may be requested to exercise his/her good offices with respect to Requests for Clarification. (Art. 8.4)

(g) The Secretary-General is to convene Special Meetings of States Parties to deal with unresolved Requests for Clarification. (Arts. 8.5 & 11.3) (h) The Secretary-General is to prepare and keep up to date a list of qualified experts to carry out fact-finding missions to resolve outstanding Requests for Clarification. (Art. 8.9) (i) The Secretary-General is to appoint (and by implication despatch) fact-finding missions to challenged States Parties, in accordance with Arts. 8.10–16. (Art. 8.10) (j) The Secretary-General is to receive and transmit to Meetings of States Parties the reports of fact-finding missions. (Art. 8.17) (k) The Secretary-General is to convene Meetings of States Parties, initially on an annual basis. (Art. 11.2) (l) The Secretary-General is to convene Review Conferences, with a frequency of no less than five years. (Art. 12.1) (m) The Secretary-General (the “Depositary”) is to convene on demand Amendment Conferences, and perform various tasks in respect to proposed amendments. (Art. 13.1) (n) The United Nations (i.e. the SecretaryGeneral) may be invited to Meetings of States Parties, Special Meetings of States Parties, Review Conferences and Amendment Conferences. (Arts. 11.4, 12.3, 13.2) 4. It should be noted that in accordance with Article 14.1, the costs of the Meetings and Conferences that the Secretary-General is to convene are to be borne by the States Parties “in accordance with the United Nations scale of assessment adjusted appropriately”, and so are the costs incurred by the Secretary-General under Arts. 7 and 8 and the costs of fact-finding missions under Art. 8. This, in effect, covers all the costs likely to be incurred by the United Nations, except for those relating to the normal depositary functions. Though not stated, it is apparently understood that the Secretary-General will bill the States and collect their contributions. 5. The Oslo Conference has also requested the United Nations Secretariat to prepare the Arabic, Chinese and Russian versions of the Convention that will be required for signature. 6. In view of the extensive functions assigned to the United Nations under the Convention, it will be necessary that the General Assembly adopt a resolution which, inter alia, provides for the Secretary-General to carry out the various tasks foreseen for him under the Convention.

25 September 1997 • 219 Such a resolution might also make some provisions concerning the financial measures referred to in para. 4 above. It is understood the principal sponsors of the Oslo Conference: Canada, Norway, Austria, Belgium and South Africa, are likely to be the drafters and principal sponsors of such a resolution.

25 September 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Africa Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, told correspondents at the start of today’s press briefing that the Security Council ministerial meeting was wrapping up at about that same time. The Secretary-General had spoken second in the debate. Among other remarks, he had told Council members: “There is a new drive to democracy in much of Africa. Multi-party elections have underpinned democratic rule in some countries. In others, the democratization process is under way. The link between the democratization process and efforts to ensure social justice and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is recognized and understood.” Continuing, he said the Secretary-General had then quoted a Swahili proverb: “You cannot turn the wind, so turn the sail.” Africans, he had continued, were “working with the winds of change blowing around our globe, and they are beginning to reap the benefits”. The Spokesman said that at the end of his engagement at the Council, the Secretary-General would be talking with the Foreign Ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement, where he would basically be making a pitch for his reform package. The text of the Secretary-General’s statement was available in the Spokesman’s Office. In it, he remarked, “Today, more than ever, development is the crucible of all that we do and all that we seek. Indeed, there is no aspect of the work of the United Nations that does not ensure and enhance development.” He had further stated, “Peace leads to development. Human rights permit development. Democracy nurtures development. Good governance sustains development.” . . . Turning to Angola, he said that the SecretaryGeneral’s report was going to the Security Council today. He recalled that late in August, the Council had set the deadline of the end of September to

impose additional punitive measures on the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), unless the Secretary-General reported that UNITA had taken concrete and irreversible steps to comply with its obligations under the peace accord. While noting that some progress in the demilitarization of UNITA forces and the extension of State administration and transformation of UNITA’s radio station, Vorgan, had taken place, the Secretary-General had said in the report that the figure of 6,052 claimed by UNITA to be the total of its residual troops remained unconvincing, the Spokesman continued. No progress had been registered in the extension of government authority to the five strategically important areas of Angola. The Secretary-General had therefore concluded that he was not yet in a position to advise the Security Council that UNITA had taken the necessary steps required. He had therefore urged the two parties, in particular UNITA, to comply with their obligations under the peace agreement. Continuing, Mr. Eckhard said that Alioune Blondin Beye, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Angola had yesterday met with Jonas Savimbi and President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, as was reported in the noon briefing. Mr. Savimbi had given Mr. Beye assurances that serious efforts would be made to respond to the demands of the Security Council, so that sanctions could be avoided. The Secretary-General’s report on Western Sahara would also go to the Security Council today, the Spokesman said, and was expected to be on the racks later in the day. In the report, he had detailed the agreements reached in the direct talks between the two parties under the auspices of James Baker III, his Personal Envoy, and he had said that the achievements created the conditions to proceed towards the full implementation of the Settlement Plan, starting with the resumption of the identification process. He had therefore recommended that the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) take that course of action. The Secretary-General was planning to send a technical team to the mission area, during the first half of October, to assess the resource requirements for the deployment of MINURSO at full strength. The identification operation should be resumed as soon as possible, and a referendum held within a year. To initiate the preparatory work and enable concerned members of the Security Council to consult with their authorities on the proposed

220 • 25 September 1997

expansion of MINURSO, Mr. Eckhard continued, the Secretary-General had further recommended that the mandate of the mission be extended for three weeks, until 20 October. He had also recommended that the mandate be extended thereafter, for a period of six months until 20 April 1998, in order for the mission to proceed with the identification tasks. The Secretary-General expected to revert to the Council in November with a comprehensive report, including a detailed plan, timetable and financial implications for the holding of the referendum. Concerning the sanctions of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) against Sierra Leone, Mr. Eckhard recalled that the Secretary-General had last Friday met with the Committee of Five Foreign Ministers of ECOWAS, from Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia and Nigeria. The Committee had also met with members of the Security Council under the Arria Formula. [Note: The Arria formula is an informal consultation process, initiated by Diego Arria of Venezuela, which affords members of the Security Council the opportunity to hear persons in a confidential informal setting. The meetings are presided over by a member of the Council serving as facilitator for the discussions, and not by the Council president.] . . .

25 September 1997 Secretary-General Says Development Not Possible Without Peace

Presentation to the Security Council (EOSG, SG/SM/6335, SC/6421); development Statement delivered by the Secretary-General at the Security Council’s ministerial meeting on the situation in Africa. I welcome your decision to hold a ministerial meeting of this Council on Africa. Africa, and Africa’s relations with the rest of the world, are changing. Many developments are positive. It is, therefore, timely and appropriate for the international community to examine carefully how best it can support and assist Africa at this time of change and of hope. Ten years ago, many African countries were in crisis. Bloody conflicts raged in various parts of the continent. Economies stagnated. The spectre of famine, malnutrition and disease stalked several African countries. But now Africa has turned an important corner. Africa is rediscovering stability. Investment is returning to many African countries. Millions of

Africans are recovering hope for themselves and their families as reform helps bring growth to African economies. There is a new drive to democracy in much of Africa. Multiparty elections have underpinned democratic rule in some countries. In others, the democratization process is under way. The link between the democratization process and efforts to ensure social justice and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is recognized and understood. The Swahili proverb says, “you cannot turn the wind, so turn the sail.” Africans are working the winds of change blowing around our globe, and they are beginning to reap the benefits. As a result, there is a shift in perceptions. There is a new consensus that the primary responsibility for the solution of Africa’s problems rests with Africans themselves as we have heard from President Mugabe. This new realization also calls for a re-evaluation of the role of the international community in support of Africa’s goals. It places responsibilities as much on the shoulders of governments outside Africa as on African governments. It challenges us to rethink precisely how best we can accompany the Africans on their path to lasting peace, stability, justice, and sustainable development. In place of interventionism, it promises a mature relationship based on mutual support and trust. In place of papers, studies and document, it offers the prospects of targeted assistance and support based on common goals and shared analysis. Formidable challenges remain. Despite all the advances that have been made, armed conflict, political instability and retreats from democracy are still preventing some African countries from moving forward. Too often, economic development remains fragile. In some parts of the continent, vast movements of refugees and displaced persons continue. In some African countries, political instability and conflict have worsened. Nationalism is on the rise in some countries with cleavages between ethnic groups, as they battle as much for economic as for political power. Internal conflicts are threatening the cohesion, and even the survival, of those countries. The challenges of development are formidable. Of the 48 least developed countries, 33 are in Africa. This year’s Human Development Report from UNDP shows that of the 45 countries in the “low human development” category, 35 are in

25 September 1997 • 221 Africa. Statistics reveal that the gains of the 1960s and 1970s have been reversed in a number of African countries. There have been falls in per capita income, in the number of people with access to clean water, sanitation, and health services, in school enrolment and in life expectancy. Africa is the only region of the world where— if present trends continue—poverty is expected to increase in the next century. We have dissected and debated Africa, and studied and summarized its challenges, for decades. Now is the time for action. We—and I speak not only of this Council, but of the United Nations and the international community generally—must respond promptly and effectively to Africa’s call. We must do so with specific measures and clear proposals for action. This is our agenda. I, for my part, will continue to bring to the attention of the Security Council developments relating to peace and security that require timely action, to prevent conflicts escalating. After the unprecedented humanitarian crises of recent years, preventive diplomacy is not an option: it is a vital necessity. That is why I ask you to support the Organization for African Unity (OAU) in its efforts to strengthen its capacity for preventive diplomacy. We have established a close partnership between the Organization for African Unity and the United Nations. We can, therefore, build on very firm foundations. The OAU has opted to concentrate on preventive diplomacy and peacemaking; the United Nations has experience and pre-eminence in peacekeeping, peace-enforcement and peacebuilding. In several countries, United Nations peacekeepers are helping to ensure that armed conflict is replaced by the search for peace. Regional efforts have been important, notably in Liberia and in the Republic of the Congo. The United Nations has worked to support these efforts. I believe that there is hope for enhanced partnership between regional organizations and the United Nations in African peacekeeping. I welcome the initiatives of interested Member States to strengthen Africa’s peacekeeping capacity. With your continued moral and material support, and undertaken in consultation with the OAU, such activities are beginning to make a real difference to Africa’s capacity for peacekeeping. Peace-building embraces a wide range of activities, including rehabilitation, reconstruction,

maintenance of law and order, and good governance. But the crucial underlying need is for security in the lives of ordinary people—security in the form of access to health, education, clean water, and a decent standard of living. Security is no longer confined to preventing invasions. True security is built on a firm foundation of sustainable development. The pursuit of peace and security, and the building of societies based on justice, democracy and human rights, are not mutually exclusive. They are mutually supportive and reinforcing. Indeed, the goals of our Charter cannot be placed in orders of priority. We have to pursue peace and security, and economic and social development, together and at the same time. Without peace, development is not possible; without development, peace is not durable. Because the best way of ensuring peace and security in Africa is to promote sustainable development, I urge you to do all in your power to increase official development assistance to African countries. Africans and African governments share the primary responsibility, which is to mobilize and maximize their internal resources. But, over and above the increasing flows of inward private investment, external financing—from both public and private sources—will continue to be of vital importance for years to come. Only a comprehensive approach—combining poverty eradication and growth—will succeed. Growth-oriented strategies need to ensure that the results of growth are equitably distributed. To alleviate poverty in the short run, and eradicate absolute poverty, development assistance should be directed to the poor rural areas. Greater resources must be allocated to health, education, water supply and other basic infrastructure, as well as capacity-building and job-generating activities. That is the approach of the United Nations New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s, or what we call UN-NADAF. It is being put into effect by the United Nations system’s operational arm and through the United Nations Systemwide Special Initiative on Africa. More assistance should be given to African countries to help create an enabling environment—that will release the creative and entrepreneurial energies of their citizens, their non-governmental organizations, the private sector, and society at large. If Africa is to face the challenges of the global economy, including the need to diversify its

222 • 25 September 1997

economies, secure wider access to existing markets, and develop new markets, external assistance will be needed. Legal frameworks, infrastructure, education and training, transparency in business and in government affairs—all have a part to play. Technical assistance and advice in such fields can make a crucial difference. Another urgent priority is to relieve African countries of their heavy debt-service burden. The initiative of Bretton Woods institutions for the Highly-Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) is a step in the right direction. But more needs to be done. Members of the Group of Seven have expressed support for Africa’s development agenda. They have called for a new partnership involving developed and developing nations and the multilateral institutions. I welcome these initiatives. The United Nations stands ready to contribute to their speedy implementation. We have a wealth of international instruments, agreed at the intergovernmental level, focusing on African development and priorities. Development is a necessity in itself; it is also the only effective, long-term guarantee of lasting peace and security on the African continent. These are my views and my proposals. I stand ready to take whatever action the Council may require of me. Africa is showing the way. Today, the international community is called to action. Let us work together in response. Let us respond by producing an operational agenda, with clear and specific steps which we can take. Let us not only pledge, but also act, to work better together, with Africa, and for Africa.

26 September 1997 Secretary-General Speaks at Ceremony on the Landmine Treaty

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6338, DC/2591); landmines Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the ceremony and press conference where the foreign minister of Norway handed over to the foreign minister of Canada the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, negotiated at the Diplomatic Conference on Landmines in Oslo earlier this month. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome you today to the United Nations for this historic ceremony. The hand-over of the Oslo treaty banning anti-per-

sonnel mines marks the last step before the formal signing of the treaty in Ottawa. It is a great accomplishment, and I congratulate you. By initiating this process, Canada has set an example for all humanitarians, and by hosting the Oslo Conference, Norway underlined the partnership that is the essence of this worldwide effort. I am also very pleased to welcome today the representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. You have led the global grassroots movement that has carried us all to this place and time. You have spoken for all the innocent civilians killed, maimed and threatened by landmines, and your voice has been heard. To you, also, I offer my most sincere congratulations. Three weeks ago, I had the privilege to address the Oslo Conference and sensed first-hand the energy and the determination behind this campaign. I said then that the Ottawa treaty will be a momentous event in the peace-making efforts of our time. Indeed, I believe it will be a landmark in the history of disarmament. The United Nations is proud to play our part in this noble cause. In December in Ottawa, almost 100 countries are expected to sign the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction. That treaty will serve not only as a complement but also as an inspiration for greater and swifter progress in the Conference on Disarmament’s own deliberations towards a total ban on landmines. Together, the two avenues can truly lead to a worldwide prohibition, including all countries affected by landmines. The Ottawa Convention is, however, only the beginning. We must then work with even greater persistence towards the removal of the millions of mines that plague post-conflict societies, from Bosnia to Angola to Cambodia. With this treaty, we have seized on the opportunity of this new age of disarmament. We have, finally, turned the tide on the production and use of landmines and started a momentum which one day will include all nations in the fight against landmines.

30 September 1997 Secretary-General Pledges Effort to Assist Least-Developed Countries

30 September 1997 • 223 Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6342, DEV/2168); development Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the 7th Annual Ministerial Meeting of the LeastDeveloped Countries. This meeting is an occasion for sombre reflection. Over the past five decades, many parts of the world have made tremendous strides in social and economic development. Yet the least developed countries, a quarter of the United Nations membership, have been passed by. The robust engine of globalization rumbles on. Yet the least developed countries, so many of which are in sub-Saharan Africa, languish behind, largely disconnected from economic processes in the rest of the world. Least developed countries continue to face overlapping structural handicaps to development: economies are not diversified enough; sectors and activities are not sufficiently interlinked; physical, human and institutional infrastructures fall short; domestic resources are poor, internal markets small; the export base is narrow and dependent on a handful of commodities. This all adds to the heavy load on the uphill road towards development. The external situation facing the least developed countries has not improved. The burden of external debt remains onerous; the levels of public finance have stagnated or declined; the surge in private capital flows has virtually ignored the least developed countries. I am impressed that so many least developed countries have made strenuous efforts to reverse the economic decline, and have done so in the face of serious constraints. You have made steadfast attempts to promote growth and development. Many of you have done so even as you struggled with complex political tensions. I salute your efforts and achievements. You have implemented policy reforms; you have built and strengthened institutions; you have mobilized human resources and advanced the role of women; you have worked to develop good governance. Your efforts must be matched by stronger international support. International action should meet four broad objectives: a decisive reduction of the debt burden; a substantial increase in official development assistance; a significant improvement in external trading prospects; a further enhancement of the flow of foreign investment and technology. It pains me that in recent years, the already meagre official development assistance allocated

to least-developed countries has shrunk yet further. The developed countries’ ratio of assistance to gross national product hit its lowest point so far in 1996. I will bring to bear all the pressure I can to help reverse this trend. To ease the debt burden, relief measures should be applied with dispatch, flexibility and maximum coverage. For several decades, the United Nations system has been engaged in promoting the development of least developed countries at both policy and operational levels. Since its first session in 1964, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has worked to bring least-developed countries to the attention of the international community. Two United Nations conferences have adopted a series of national and international measures which formed the action programmes of the 1980s and 1990s. The UNCTAD has become the United Nations focal point in monitoring and reviewing their progress. United Nations funds and programmes, regional economic commissions, specialized agencies—all are engaged in the social and economic development of the least developed countries through technical, financial and humanitarian assistance. The United Nations is also proud to have been associated with the peace processes in several African, Asian and Caribbean least developed countries beset by civil conflict. But the United Nations will not rest there. It will make every effort to play a bigger role in improving the lot of the least developed countries. As we move towards the end of this decade, and towards a final review of the Programme of Action, every effort will be made to mobilize all available resources within the United Nations system. Let me assure you: the ongoing reform of the United Nations has this major objective—to enhance the United Nations capacity to meet the challenge of development. A reformed United Nations will free up resources for that challenge; it will benefit from greater unity of purpose, greater coherence of efforts; it will be able to act as a catalyst, helping to involve other actors in the development process. The development of the least developed countries is an ethical imperative for the international community. It requires painstaking effort, commitment, resolve and forbearance on both sides. I renew this pledge on behalf of the United Nations: we will continue to walk beside you on your journey.

224 • 1 October 1997

1 October 1997 Letter (EOSG); Nobel prize Letter sent to Nobel Laureate Willis E. Lamb Jr. Identical letters have been sent to all nobel laureates. Dear Professor Lamb, I am taking the liberty of writing to you as a laureate of the Nobel prize, along with your fellow laureates in all disciplines. I do so with the sincere hope that the United Nations will be able to draw upon the great intellectual resources you personally and collectively represent. As we approach the turn of the century, it is abundantly clear that the many challenges facing humanity require new and innovative strategies. The United Nations has a unique role to play in responding to these challenges, as the only truly universal Organization with a mandate that covers virtually all areas of human endeavour. Yet it is also clear that the UN cannot fulfill the weighty responsibilities set out in its Charter alone—that it needs to reach out to a wider circle of talents than it has customarily done in its search for global excellence. In that spirit, I am writing to inquire whether you would permit me to look to you from time to time for advice and ideas. It is my conviction that your willingness to play such a role, both individually and in groups, would be of great benefit to me personally and to the Organization as a whole as it seeks to be more effective and responsive in a transformed international environment. I do not expect the burden to be onerous, as I am conscious of the many demands on your time. I would be grateful for a reply at your convenience. Yours sincerely,

1 October 1997 Secretary-General Expresses Concern over Situation in Northern Iraq

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6344); Iraq Secretary-General Kofi Annan is following the situation in northern Iraq with growing concern. As he has made clear in the past, Iraqi sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected. He, therefore, urges Turkey to withdraw its troops as soon as possible.

2 October 1997 Greece and Macedonia Decide to Meet Again

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6347); Macedonia Pursuant to the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995, representatives of Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia met on 2 October under the auspices of the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General, Cyrus Vance. The Greek side was represented by the Permanent Representative of Greece to the United Nations, Ambassador Christos Zacharakis. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was represented by Ambassador Ivan Tosevski. The parties continued to exchange views in the context of article 5 of the Interim Accord. They decided to meet again on a date to be agreed.

3 October 1997 Secretary-General Welcomes Members of Democratically-Elected Liberian Government

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6349, AFR/19); Liberia Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the 4th Ministerial Meeting of the Special Conference on Liberia, at UN headquarters. I am pleased to welcome you to this Fourth Ministerial Meeting of the Special Conference on Liberia. This meeting has added significance, as it is the first to be held since the successful completion of the Liberian peace process. I wish, therefore, to extend a very special welcome to the distinguished representatives of the democratically elected Government of Liberia who are here today. I wish also to express my sincere gratitude to the governments, organizations and agencies represented here for the generous support you provided to the Liberian peace process. Peace-building must now be the common focus of Liberia and its partners in the international community. Much was sacrificed in the effort to bring peace to Liberia—in lives, in effort and in resources. The international community, for its part, must do all it can to ensure that the conditions for conflict do not return. Reconciliation, reconstruction and development are daunting challenges. But through the dynamism of its people, and with the support of its friends, I am confident that Africa’s oldest republic will emerge from its recent ordeal stronger and more determined to succeed than ever before. The primary responsibility for ensuring that conflict is not reignited in Liberia necessarily rests with the Liberian Government. I wish to take this opportunity today to commend President Taylor

224 • 1 October 1997

1 October 1997 Letter (EOSG); Nobel prize Letter sent to Nobel Laureate Willis E. Lamb Jr. Identical letters have been sent to all nobel laureates. Dear Professor Lamb, I am taking the liberty of writing to you as a laureate of the Nobel prize, along with your fellow laureates in all disciplines. I do so with the sincere hope that the United Nations will be able to draw upon the great intellectual resources you personally and collectively represent. As we approach the turn of the century, it is abundantly clear that the many challenges facing humanity require new and innovative strategies. The United Nations has a unique role to play in responding to these challenges, as the only truly universal Organization with a mandate that covers virtually all areas of human endeavour. Yet it is also clear that the UN cannot fulfill the weighty responsibilities set out in its Charter alone—that it needs to reach out to a wider circle of talents than it has customarily done in its search for global excellence. In that spirit, I am writing to inquire whether you would permit me to look to you from time to time for advice and ideas. It is my conviction that your willingness to play such a role, both individually and in groups, would be of great benefit to me personally and to the Organization as a whole as it seeks to be more effective and responsive in a transformed international environment. I do not expect the burden to be onerous, as I am conscious of the many demands on your time. I would be grateful for a reply at your convenience. Yours sincerely,

1 October 1997 Secretary-General Expresses Concern over Situation in Northern Iraq

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6344); Iraq Secretary-General Kofi Annan is following the situation in northern Iraq with growing concern. As he has made clear in the past, Iraqi sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected. He, therefore, urges Turkey to withdraw its troops as soon as possible.

2 October 1997 Greece and Macedonia Decide to Meet Again

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6347); Macedonia Pursuant to the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995, representatives of Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia met on 2 October under the auspices of the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General, Cyrus Vance. The Greek side was represented by the Permanent Representative of Greece to the United Nations, Ambassador Christos Zacharakis. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was represented by Ambassador Ivan Tosevski. The parties continued to exchange views in the context of article 5 of the Interim Accord. They decided to meet again on a date to be agreed.

3 October 1997 Secretary-General Welcomes Members of Democratically-Elected Liberian Government

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6349, AFR/19); Liberia Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the 4th Ministerial Meeting of the Special Conference on Liberia, at UN headquarters. I am pleased to welcome you to this Fourth Ministerial Meeting of the Special Conference on Liberia. This meeting has added significance, as it is the first to be held since the successful completion of the Liberian peace process. I wish, therefore, to extend a very special welcome to the distinguished representatives of the democratically elected Government of Liberia who are here today. I wish also to express my sincere gratitude to the governments, organizations and agencies represented here for the generous support you provided to the Liberian peace process. Peace-building must now be the common focus of Liberia and its partners in the international community. Much was sacrificed in the effort to bring peace to Liberia—in lives, in effort and in resources. The international community, for its part, must do all it can to ensure that the conditions for conflict do not return. Reconciliation, reconstruction and development are daunting challenges. But through the dynamism of its people, and with the support of its friends, I am confident that Africa’s oldest republic will emerge from its recent ordeal stronger and more determined to succeed than ever before. The primary responsibility for ensuring that conflict is not reignited in Liberia necessarily rests with the Liberian Government. I wish to take this opportunity today to commend President Taylor

6 October 1997 • 225 for the constructive and statesmanlike manner in which he has begun to lay the foundations for long- term peace, reconciliation and development in Liberia. In particular, it is important to acknowledge and applaud the formation in Liberia of a broadbased and inclusive government, as well as the expressed commitment of the new President to promoting the protection of human rights and respect for the rule of law. These actions and undertakings have sent a strong and positive signal to Liberia’s friends throughout the international community, and laid the groundwork for international cooperation with Liberia. Liberia faces a long and difficult road. Economic activity remains modest. Much of the population remains displaced. Most of the demobilized fighters are yet to be absorbed in reintegration programmes. And basic institutions and services are not yet fully operational. The impact on Liberia of the situation in Sierra Leone also remains a source of concern. It is for these reasons that I proposed the establishment in Liberia of a United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office, following the completion of the United Nations Observer Mission in Liberia’s (UNOMIL) mandate three days ago. President Taylor has welcomed this initiative, in particular, the commitment of the United Nations to assist Liberia in consolidating the peace that has now been achieved. I intend to have the Office established and fully functional within the next few weeks. The Head of the Office will be the focal point for the Organization’s post-conflict peace-building activities in Liberia, and will have overall responsibility for harmonizing the efforts of the United Nations system in the country. I am keen to ensure full consultation and cooperation with the Bretton Woods institutions, the African Development Bank, the European Commission, and other key bilateral and multilateral donor institutions. The presence of all of these partners here today is, therefore, especially significant. We must also take heed of the many lessons learned from our experience in Liberia. First, we should recall the critical importance of the Economic Community of West African States’ (ECOWAS) efforts to harmonize the policies of its member States. Without this effort, the implementation of the revised Peace Agreement could not have been achieved. Second, it is important to note the political,

material and operational support provided for ECOWAS’ efforts by the broader international community. Without this support, the peace process—including disarmament, demobilization, and the holding of free and fair elections—also could not have been successfully concluded. Last but not least, the establishment of institutionalized mechanisms for consultation and discussion among the principal international partners was critical to carrying out an effective peace strategy on the ground. These mechanisms included the Mediation Team in Monrovia, the Joint Coordination Mechanism for the Elections, and the Special Conference to Support the Peace Process. The initiative to establish the Special Conference on Liberia was a political one, originated by Minister Jan Pronk of the Netherlands. The Special Conference must now consider how best to ensure that the peace-building process in Liberia does not collapse as a result of a failure by the international community to provide adequate support at critical times. In addition to the usual background paper provided by the Secretariat, the Government of Liberia has prepared for this meeting a paper entitled “An Agenda for Rebuilding Liberia,” which the Secretariat has distributed to participants. Through this document, the Government has taken a very important first step forward in outlining its vision for a new Liberia. That vision is inclusive. It responds to the needs of the Liberian people. And it echoes the high aspirations that the international community has for Liberia. I commend the Government of Liberia for this very positive contribution. I hope that the international community will approach the task of peace-building in Liberia with an open mind. I call upon the members of the international community to demonstrate the same spirit of cooperation, generosity and goodwill in addressing the challenges of post-election Liberia as they did in helping to ensure the success of the peace process itself. Thank you for your presence here today. I wish you success.

6 October 1997 Letter (SC, S/1997/778); Iraq Letter from the permanent representative of Iraq to the United Nations, Nizar Hamdoon, to the Secretary-General, with an attached letter to the Secretary-General from the minister of foreign

226 • 6 October 1997

affairs of the Republic of Iraq, Moammed Said AlSahaf. On instructions from my Government, I have the honour to transmit herewith a letter dated 6 October 1997 addressed to you by Mr. Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq, concerning the continuing difficulties and obstacles impeding proper implementation of Security Council resolution 986 (1995), the memorandum of understanding and the work of the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990). I should be grateful if you would have this letter and its annex circulated as a document of the Security Council. (Signed) Nizar Hamdoon Ambassador Permanent Representative * * * In view of the importance of your role and your direct responsibility for the implementation of the memorandum of understanding signed by Iraq and the United Nations, I have ensured that you have been kept abreast of developments in the implementation of the memorandum and in the related work of the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990). At the time of writing, four whole months have elapsed in addition to the six months stipulated for the first phase of the memorandum. The food, medicine and other humanitarian needs included in the procurement and distribution plan signed by the Secretary-General, implementation of which began on 8 December 1996, were all supposed to have arrived in Iraq within the agreed period of six months. During this same period Iraq, for its part, strictly observed its obligation to supply the amount of petroleum agreed upon for the first phase. Nevertheless, the current situation, four whole months after the period specified for the implementation of the first phase, is the following: Forty-three applications to export goods to Iraq are on hold in the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990), as a result of the unjustified stance of the United States of America; Thirty-six export applications have also been blocked by the United States of America for the same reason. Furthermore, the secretariat of the Committee still has scores of applications that it has yet to circulate to its members for discussion. It shows no interest in accelerating action on these applications.

Ten whole months have elapsed and the eleventh is in progress, and we still do not know the fate of some of the applications submitted to the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990). Some applications still awaiting consideration were submitted more than eight months ago. They include an application to export spare parts and other requisites for the functioning of the Iraq-Turkey oil pipeline. The Security Council Committee has not yet seen fit to discuss this important application, despite the fact that it was specifically mentioned in the procurement and distribution plan and in the memorandum of understanding because of its importance for enabling the pipeline to function and Iraq to fulfil its obligations. Such an unjustified delay can only be intentional. I call upon you to provide an explanation for it and to examine its causes. I should like you to know that, were it not for the exceptional and unparalleled efforts of the Iraqi technical and engineering staff, the Iraq-Turkey pipeline would not now be working as well as it is. If the pipeline fails for technical reasons, how will this affect the obligations of Iraq? Who will bear responsibility for the results of such failure: Iraq or the Security Council Committee and its secretariat? On behalf of the Iraqi Government, I ask you to use your authority to intervene directly in the implementation of the memorandum of understanding signed by Iraq and the United Nations and to ensure early approval of the application to export essential components for the Iraq-Turkey oil pipeline and other export applications, such as those for emergency vehicles, vehicles needed to transport foodstuffs to every governorate in Iraq, spare parts for electric power plants, sanitation supplies and supplies for the agricultural and education sectors. I reiterate my request that you play your part and use your good offices to set a reasonable and acceptable term for the implementation of the first phase of the memorandum of understanding. It is quite apparent that the delay sought by the United States of America has been achieved, that difficulties and obstacles have indeed been created and that the orderly delivery of humanitarian supplies to Iraq has been disrupted, since such supplies have not been systematically distributed to the Iraqi people. We are still awaiting a solution to a further matter, namely, the methods used to implement the memorandum of understanding, and also the working practices of the Security Council

7 October 1997 • 227 Committee established by resolution 661 (1990), since these clearly demonstrate many deficiencies. Unfortunately, one party has gained control over the work of the Committee and it is this party that determines the fate of export applications in order to suit its political purposes. This situation is unacceptable and constitutes a flagrant violation of the memorandum of understanding and of Security Council resolution 986 (1995), which was said to serve a humanitarian purpose, being intended to provide the people of Iraq with food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies. We implore you to fulfil your responsibilities and to settle this matter expeditiously, in order to put us in a better position with regard to the implementation of the second phase of the memorandum of understanding. (Signed) Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq

7 October 1997 Secretary-General Calls for End to Anti-UNHCR Media Campaign in the DRC

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6352, AFR/20); Democratic Republic of Congo I deplore the radio and television broadcasts in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo which falsely accuse the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) of arming Rwandan refugees. The UNHCR has a consistent policy of humanitarian action around the world. It has never been involved in the provision or supply of arms to any refugee groups. The charges are completely without foundation. I reiterate my full confidence in the High Commissioner and in UNHCR staff in the region, who have performed with great courage and distinction in extremely difficult circumstances. I call upon those who are behind this unfounded anti-UNHCR media campaign to cease their false accusations, which could have a serious effect on the work and well-being of innocent humanitarian workers in the region.

7 October 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/776); Sierra Leone Letter to the president of the Security Council, Juan Somavia. In response to the request of members of the Security Council for an assessment of the current

situation in Sierra Leone, I should like to inform the members of the Council as follows: Since November 1994, when the then Head of State of Sierra Leone requested the good offices of the Secretary-General, the United Nations has worked closely with regional governments, the OAU and the OAU and the Commonwealth to help bring peace to Sierra Leone. United Nations cooperation and support have extended to: the restoration of democratic rule, the holding of elections, the conclusion of a peace accord, and efforts to move from peacemaking to peacebuilding. The Security Council has been fully engaged in this process and has issued a number of presidential statements. The efforts of the United Nations and others to help put Sierra Leone on the path towards development grounded in democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, were derailed by the illegal coup that took place on 25 May 1997. The Security Council, the OAU Summit, ECOWAS, the Commonwealth, I, and others, have been unanimous in strongly condemning the overthrow of the democratically-elected Government of President Alhaji Ahmad Tejan Kabbah and have called for the immediate restoration of constitutional order. ECOWAS, as the regional organization directly concerned, has taken the lead in trying to bring about the return of the democratically-elected government of Sierra Leone. ECOWAS Foreign Ministers briefed members of the Security Council on 11 July and again on 19 September 1997. The ECOWAS Foreign Ministers also briefed me. Last week, President Kabbah and the Secretary General of the OAU met with me and urged Security Council support for the efforts of ECOWAS. Repeated efforts by ECOWAS and other organizations since May 1997 to get the junta to stand down, have been met with a series of stalling and diversionary actions and the junta shows no signs of wanting to relinquish power. To the contrary, the evidence is that the junta is planning for a prolonged stay in power. In the meantime, the population of Sierra Leone is bearing the brunt of the situation caused by the illegal coup. Efforts for the peaceful resolution of the situation and for the junta to stand down deserve the support of the Security Council and the international community. In this connection, the sanctions imposed by ECOWAS and the corresponding support requested of the Security Council, may be seen as measures intended to promote a peaceful resolution of the situation. I am confident that the Council will wish to lend its support to measures

228 • 7 October 1997

which it considers conducive to a peaceful outcome. At stake is a great issue of principle, namely, that the efforts of the international community for democratic governance, grounded in the rule of law and respect for human rights, shall not be thwarted through illegal coups.

8 October 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG) Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, today informed correspondents that the Security Council was in formal session on the subject of Sierra Leone. It was hearing statements before the vote, and was expected to adopt a resolution by which they would demand that the military junta in that country take immediate steps to relinquish power to make way for the restoration of the democratically elected government and the return to constitutional order. The Council resolution under consideration would decide that until that was done, oil and arms sanctions against the junta would be imposed. A committee to monitor the sanctions regime would be established, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the United Nations and humanitarian agencies would be asked to establish appropriate arrangements to provide humanitarian assistance to the civilian population, which was not the target of the sanctions. Mr. Eckhard added that in a letter to the Council yesterday, concerning Sierra Leone, the SecretaryGeneral had said that “at stake is a great issue of principle, namely, that the efforts of the international community for democratic governance, grounded in the rule of law and respect for human rights, shall not be thwarted through illegal coups”. On the Secretary-General’s programme today was a meeting with his Senior Management Group, sometimes described as his “cabinet”, the Spokesman said. It was the second such meeting and had been linked to Vienna and Geneva by video-conferencing. They had discussed a position paper by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on eradicating poverty early in the twenty-first century, and how best to coordinate the United Nations approach to achieving that objective. They had also had preliminary discussions of the issues and priorities for 1998. Continuing, the Spokesman said that some of the items that had come up at the meeting includ-

ed a major report on Africa to be submitted to the Security Council in February; the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and a special session of the General Assembly on drugs and related objectives. The meeting had also looked at the problems of sanctions and humanitarian assistance, the issue that today’s resolution on Sierra Leone had attempted to address; the need to extend common services to the whole of the United Nations system; and the implementation of reform, including extension of reform to the specialized agencies. “That will give you a little flavour of the discussion that took place this morning”, Mr. Eckhard said. . . . Mr. Eckhard pointed out that today at 3:30 p.m., the Secretary-General would have a meeting on Congo-Brazzaville. The Special Representative of the United Nations/Organization of African Unity (OAU) to the Great Lakes Region, Mohamed Sahnoun, would be there, as would the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Kieran Prendergast, and Mr. Miyet, to review the latest developments there and to discuss United Nations policy. A correspondent asked if there was any information available on the question of the human rights investigative team to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the possibility of a United Nations envoy going there to prepare the way for the investigation to start. Mr. Eckhard said that the correspondent may have been looking at press reports of a possible United States special envoy travelling to the region. The investigative team was today meeting with the Office of Legal Affairs. They were also tentatively on the Secretary-General’s programme for this afternoon, although that meeting might not happen until tomorrow. “They are debriefing us and then they will be discussing with the Secretary-General recommendations for where we go from here. Parallel to that, we understand there is a United States diplomatic effort”. . . .

10 October 1997 Letter (EOSG); business community Letter to Maria Livanos Cattaui, secretary-general of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). A preliminary note on the relationship of the business community to the United Nations follows. Dear Maria, It was very good to see you again on your recent visit to New York. My staff also reiterates

10 October 1997 • 229 how much they look forward to working with you on our proposed joint venture. As was discussed at your meeting with my staff, we very much hope to establish a programmatic relationship with the ICC, one focused on concrete activities of benefit to the mission of both organizations. Our preference is for us to jointly define a UN/ICC project on “the next emerging markets”. Its objective would be to work toward increasing the pool of developing countries that are recipients of significant amounts of investment capital. The project would involve participants from the United Nations system, some of your member firms and national policy makers. I suggest that the early, high-level meeting with leading members of your own organization that you propose be devoted to launching the project. In the first instance, this project might comprise a series of regionally-focused meetings. Their aim would be two-fold. First, to discuss the institutional and other requirements of successful private sector-led economic growth and sustainable development. Second, to highlight potential investment opportunities in developing countries that may currently be overlooked by international industrial and financial players. We propose that investment in Africa be the topic of the first such meeting. Once a series of regionally focused meetings has been held, it may be useful to convene a global “lessons learned” workshop and then decide how to proceed on other concrete projects. In short, we are proposing a working relationship with ICC structured around joint activities that result in practical benefits on the ground. Needless to say, we would be happy also to have United Nations officials attend relevant ICC functions, and would hope to involve your membership in our own workshops and conferences on appropriate subjects. I have asked Mr. Patrizio Civili to continue his role of coordinating our efforts with you. For your information, I enclose a brief note on the evolving relationship between the United Nations and the business community, which we prepared for an upcoming meeting of the executive heads of all United Nations agencies. Yours sincerely, The United Nations and the Business Community: A Preliminary Note*

Over the course of the past decade, a fundamental shift has been taking place in the relationship between the United Nations and the business community. The United Nations has abandoned its ear-

lier “balanced” if not negative attitude toward the private sector, and now seeks actively to engage the business community in the Organization’s missions. The private sector, in turn, has increasingly moved beyond the suspicions triggered by the code of conduct negotiations of the 1970s and early 1980s, and now works more readily with United Nations entities in a variety of capacities. On the United Nations’ side, the shift was led by programmes that deal with functional areas in which the business community is a core stakeholder—as in the case of the environment, for example, where success can be critically facilitated or hindered by the posture and practices of industry. In broader policy terms, the shift is directly attributable to the end of the cold war and the subsequent ascendancy of economic liberalization. Engaging the private sector not only became permissible at the political level. It also became desirable and even necessary at the practical level as, to cite but one trend, private capital flows to developing countries came to exceed official development assistance by a factor of six. Responding to these changes, the SecretaryGeneral has proposed that the ACC discuss in a systematic manner the changed relationship between United Nations entities and the global business community. Moreover, in his report on the reform of the United Nations (A/51/950) he further proposed “to consult with the ACC with a view to establishing a jointly-funded inter-agency business liaison service to be named the United Nations Enterprise Liaison Service, patterned along the lines of the Non-Governmental Liaison Service”. This note is intended to facilitate that process of discussion and consultation. The note briefly describes the changing attitude of the United Nations at the overall policy level; it illustrates how the quest for a new partnership is working in practice on the United Nations side; it summarizes the specific interests the United Nations has in forging a closer relationship with the private sector and vice versa; and it indicates some practical and policy challenges posed by these developments. 1. Attitudinal Changes

Before the Berlin wall fell, United Nations debates about the role of the private sector in economic *This note reflects largely the experience of the United Nations per se, not the larger U.N. system. Nevertheless, it is hoped that some of these observations will be of relevance to all United Nations entities, and that they will help initiate a broader and more in-depth exchange of experiences on this subject.

230 • 10 October 1997

growth and development were significantly constrained by the ideological dimensions of the cold war rivalry. This constraint was reflected at the policy level by the United Nations having to be neutral as to the ultimate efficacy of markets versus planning mechanisms, and at the operational level by pursuing project-based approaches that at least in principle were compatible with either overarching ideology. At the same time, questions regarding the international distribution of wealth were stressed over those concerning the internal conditions of its creation. The changing climate is reflected in successive General Assembly resolutions. In 1990, a resolution on the subject of entrepreneurship, introduced by the United States, was adopted by consensus (45/188). Subsequent resolutions expanded the concept of entrepreneurship (46/166), promoted privatization and deregulation (47/171), introduced the notion of sustainable development (48/180), and built a case against illicit payments. and bribery in the conduct of business (50/106 and 51/191). The change is also reflected in debates concerning development cooperation. From a prior focus on negotiated state-to-state resource transfers, the primary emphasis has shifted to the creation of enabling environments, domestically and internationally, for private sector-led strategies, supplemented by official development assistance, selective debt relief, and the like. Similarly, United Nations organizations and programmes embarked on a variety of activities to promote small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), investment and trade, and generally to provide business-friendly environments. Today, almost all United Nations entities that deal with economic questions have concrete programmes or activities towards that end. Finally, starting with UNCED and UNCTAD Vlll, a number of international conferences gave additional impetus to the role of the private sector in the work of the United Nations. Most recently, HABITAT II and its follow-up relied heavily on enterprise involvement, and UNCTAD IX mandated closer collaboration with the private sector. 2. Illustrative Experiences

A selective and preliminary survey of the relationship between UNCTAD, UNEP and UNDP and the business community confirms that with the end of the East-West ideological confrontation, United Nations organs and programmes have significantly enhanced collaborative arrangements with business. The increase in quantity and scope of the collaboration is remarkable in itself, and by now cov-

ers virtually all functional activities and subject areas including policy analysis, debate and consensus-building, advocacy, fund raising and project implementation. A notable example regarding policy analysis is the agreement between DuPont and UNEP whereby private sector expertise was made available to the Atmosphere Unit of UNEP. This relationship was crucial for the successful conclusion of the Montreal Protocol and continues to bolster UNEP’s ability to devise programme plans for atmospheric matters. UNCTAD has frequently involved private sector representatives in intergovernmental debates on trade and investment issues, most recently in the form of panels and hearings on the benefits of a possible investment framework. Private sector involvement at the expert level has also been important in elaborating technical norms and standards (e.g., rules for multimodal transport, standards for international accounting and custom procedures). In the field of advocacy, UNEP has involved various industries in promoting environmental awareness and best practices. All of these organizations have been successful in tapping in-kind contributions. For example, IBM made a large donation to UNEP to construct an environmental information network (hardware and staff secondment); UNDP received donations from Hewlett-Packard to initiate a networking programme on sustainable human development; and UNCTAD’s Automated System for Customs Data has been installed in developing countries with financial contributions from the private sector. All three organizations encountered legal and administrative difficulties in accepting donations. In response to these problems, UNDP has recently launched a tax-exempt fund, geared to attract private sector donations. The question of sponsorship in the context of identity promotion of individual corporations has remained an unresolved problem. Overall, the surveyed organizations all have plans to gradually deepen their private sector programmes. UNDP has begun an initiative at the country level that is intended to strengthen collaboration with the private sector. UNEP is planning risk management workshops with the banking and insurance industry, while its regional offices are reinforcing environmental information systems with private sector involvement. UNCTAD, in response to a mandate from its ninth conference, will hold a meeting in Lyon, France in 1998, where a number of concrete projects with industries will be discussed. Some institutional changes are also reported. For example, UNDP recently established a Private

10 October 1997 • 231 Sector Development Programme, and UNCTAD a division on investment and enterprise development. By now, networking and partnerships with private sectors firms from both the developed and the developing countries are established approaches in the pursuit of development. Despite these organizational changes, most of the concrete collaborations with business remain at the project level, responding to given needs and opportunities rather than resulting from an overall policy. Consequently, cooperation has been on an ad hoc basis, and experiences gained so far have not yet been translated into consistent policies or approaches. Neither have organizations exchanged experiences among themselves. In terms of business community interlocutors, broad questions on the role of business in development tend to attract the interest of cross-industry groups, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the United Nations Business Council or the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). More specific subject areas, on the other hand, such as commodity risk management or developing international standards for accounting, attract the interest of highly specialized business groups. 3. Complementarily of Interests

Any overall framework of collaboration between the United Nations and the global business community should reflect a clear understanding of the respective interests of both sides in pursuing potential partnerships. From the outset, the United Nations has sought from the business community access to technology, technical expertise and know-how, in specific functional areas as well as more for the broader purposes of promoting economic development. In addition, the United Nations has long recognized the need to involve industry in certain technical norm-setting and policy-making processes that cannot possibly succeed without such involvement. More recently, the United Nations has begun to turn to the business community as a source of financial resources that are beginning to dwarf those of the intergovernmental system. This includes project support and programme funding. Increasingly, it also involves efforts to link the financial needs of developing countries with the investment and lending capacities of industry and finance in the industrialized world. Finally, as the United Nations has become more concerned with its public image, particularly in key industrialized countries, it has looked to the

business community as a potential ally and public advocate. What’s in it for business? First of all, business itself has an enormous stake in the “soft infrastructure” that the United Nations system produces— the norms, standards, best practices and the like on which the smooth flow of international transactions rests. In some areas the private sector has generated its own international governance mechanisms, such as private commercial arbitration, or it may prefer smaller intergovernmental forums, as in the case of OECD rules on bribery and corruption. But even then the United Nations plays a critical role in developing model arrangements, legitimizing key concepts and setting the agenda. Secondly, in principle business has as much of an interest in creating the next generation of emerging markets as the United Nations does. In practice, activating that interest may require prior action by the United Nations and other international bodies to help create the appropriate domestic contexts—in the form of physical and social infrastructure, national trade and investment regimes, and the like. Thirdly, some businesses clearly see the United Nations as a possible vehicle to promote their own images as good corporate citizens, as well as to provide markets for new products. Finally, business ought to have the same interest in supporting an organization that promotes peace and security at the international level that it does in supporting domestic institutions that provide a stable public order. To date, however, this interest has remained relatively dormant. 4. Some Challenges

Because no systematic and exhaustive survey exists of new patterns in the relationship between the United Nations and the business community, it is not possible to say how uniform the challenges are that our initial anecdotal reports have found. Nevertheless, they suggest a typology that may constitute a useful basis for discussion by ACC. The first set of challenges concerns institutional practices and cultures. Individual United Nations entities that we have surveyed concede that their cumbersome internal decision-making and clearance procedures, slow lead times and lingering institutional biases often impede attempts to establish smooth working relations with the business community. Moreover, no uniform points of access exist for the business community within individual United Nations entities, and no single such point exists for the system as a whole. A second challenge is more directly political. In

232 • 10 October 1997

most instances, Member States as a whole remain ambivalent about inviting the business community to participate in “their” organizations’ deliberative processes. In addition, many remain suspicious of extensive private-sector involvement in United Nations deliberations, even when they may have fully liberalized and privatized at the domestic level. A variety of formats have been explored, including hearings and expert panels, but no universally satisfactory solution has been identified. A third challenge is devising ways to avoid the international equivalent of “regulatory capture”, a well-known phenomenon in domestic societies. The term refers to the practice whereby a particular industry comes to exercise extensive influence or even control over governmental bodies that are established to monitor, coordinate or regulate it. A fourth and final challenge may be the most profound. It concerns the role of civil society at the international level—as distinct from the business community or private sector. This requires some elaboration. The concept of civil society refers to a social realm that is constituted neither by the state nor by economic actors. Indeed, in the Western philosophical tradition from where the term civil society comes civic associations, churches, the voluntary sector and other expressions of civic values are expected to moderate the impact that the state and market rationality alike have on the social order. Accordingly, if the concept of civil society is to be embraced in its full, historical meaning by the United Nations, then it must be understood that a new relationship with the private sector by itself is incomplete, that it must somehow be coupled with a corresponding role for the voluntary sector and other expressions of international civic values. However, it is no trivial task to determine precisely who the carriers of civic values are at the international level, nor how to devise institutional forums in which they, the business community, and the intergovernmental system can interact so as to promote the global equivalent of the national interest. 5. Next Steps

The ACC may wish to consider two initiatives to further the dialogue and cooperation between the United Nations system as a whole and the business community. The individual efforts of all United Nations entities would be aided by their collecting and sharing information among themselves and with other organizations of the United Nations system

about their respective policies, practices and experiences vis-à-vis the business community. The ACC may want to agree to a process of designing a uniform system-wide survey instrument, summarizing its main findings and presenting the results to a future ACC meeting. Beyond that, attention is drawn to the Secretary-General’s reform report proposal that ACC consider establishing a jointly funded interagency business liaison service. Among the goals of this unit might be: • providing a forum for development and other global issues dialogues between the United Nations, civil society and the private sector; • promoting system-wide collaborative projects with such business associations as the International Chamber of Commerce or alliances of individual firms; • fostering and promoting corporate responsibility and accountability; • providing opportunities for the voice and experience of small producers in developing countries to be heard; • securing inputs from the private sector to the United Nations’ policy-setting and development work; • forging stronger, across-the-board links with employees associations, trade unions, cooperatives, and similar entities. The ACC may want to discuss the general desirability and feasibility of establishing such a unit at the current ACC meeting, and if the concept is approved to prepare a concrete proposal for adoption at a future meeting. The SecretaryGeneral will be pleased to facilitate this process.

10 October 1997 Secretary-General Says Nobel Prize to Landmine Campaign is a Well-Deserved Honor

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6354); landmines I was really delighted by the announcement today to award the Nobel Peace Prize to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. This well-deserved honour is a victory for every child and mother and for all those vulnerable people who have been killed or maimed by these silent weapons. It also shows that when civil society and non-governmental organizations come together and work with governments, a lot can happen in a relatively short time.

15 October 1997 • 233 I urge all Governments to sign on to the antilandmine convention.

13 October 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); UN reform ... “In his report to the General Assembly, entitled “Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform”, the Secretary-General stated, inter alia, that the management of the Iraq Programme, established by the Security Council resolution 986 (1995) will be handled by a special unit within the Secretariat (document A/51/950, para. 187). “Accordingly the Secretary-General has decided to establish the Office of the Iraq Programme and to consolidate the management of United Nations activities pursuant to Security Council resolutions 986 (1995) and 661 (1990). He has also decided to appoint Benon V. Sevan, a national of Cyprus, as the Executive-Director of the Iraq Programme, effective 15 October 1997. Mr. Sevan will report directly to the Secretary-General.” In Iraq yesterday, Mr. Eckhard said, a German aircraft transported medical equipment into the country under Security Council resolution 986. That shipment of supplies, which was too delicate to be brought in overland, marked the first time that humanitarian goods had arrived by air directly to Iraq, a flight that had been authorized by the Sanctions Committee. The shipment was of 30 tons of magnetic imaging resonance equipment, purchased from the Siemens Company, and had been received by officials of the Iraqi Ministry of Health in the presence of World Health Organization (WHO) observers. The United Nations would ensure follow-up observation on its installation. . . . Turning to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General had met with the five permanent members of the Security Council late on Friday. Following that meeting, United Nations officials would be meeting with the military observers of the Permanent Five and African members of the Council tomorrow, to discuss the contingency planning for a peacekeeping mission to Congo-Brazzaville. The Spokesman pointed out that that would be the first time that a meeting between the military observers of the permanent members of the Security Council and the African members would take place. In addition to those meetings, there would also be a

meeting of potential troop-contributors to discuss those contingency plans. . . . Mr. Eckhard noted that the Secretary-General would be meeting today with President Martti Ahtisaari of Finland. (He recalled that Mr. Ahtisaari was formerly the Under-SecretaryGeneral for Administration and Management here at Headquarters.) The Secretary-General would be hosting a luncheon in his honour, after which President Ahtisaari would appear outside the Security Council to make a short statement and take questions from correspondents. . . . A correspondent reminded the Spokesman that when the heads of the human rights investigative team to the Democratic Republic of the Congo were recalled, 15 October had been mentioned as the date by which a decision would be made. Did the date still stand, or would the decision-making be pushed forward based on whether or not the United States appointed an envoy to the area? Mr. Eckhard said that that discussion had taken place between the Secretary-General, the Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ambassador Bill Richardson of the United States. The Americans originally wanted more time, he explained, but the Secretary-General said “please try to do your assessment and get back to me by the 15th of October”. He said it was understood that the Americans were close to announcing their choice of an envoy, and that the envoy would be coming to the United Nations in the next few days for consultations with the investigative team, which was still working on its report. “So the date of the 15th is going to have to slide a bit.” In connection with that, he said that the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Kieran Prendergast, had been invited to the briefing tomorrow to give correspondents some information on the human rights verification team. “We hope we will also have some more information from the Americans concerning when they intend to send their team.” . . .

15 October 1997 Letter (EOSG); Rwanda Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Juan Somavia, and the president of the General Assembly, Hennadiy Udovenko. Dear Mr. President, I am attaching, for your consideration and that of the members of the Security Council and the General Assembly, a letter dated 1 August 1997 from the President of the International Criminal

234 • 15 October 1997

Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). In his letter, president Kama raises the problem faced by the Tribunal due to the increase in the number of individuals detained at the Tribunal’s Detention Facility in Arusha, in anticipation that all or most of them will be indicted by the Tribunal. President Kama notes that, taking into account its current capacity, and depending on the number of persons who will be indicted, the Tribunal might require considerable time to complete all the trials. Such a develoment would negatively affect the right of the accused to be tried without delay and certainly disappont the expectations of the Rwandan people and the international community. With a view to adressing the above requirements, President Kama suggests that a third Trial Chamber of the Tribunal, staffed by three additional Judges, be established. It will be recalled that by its resolution 955 (1994) of 8 November 1994, which incorporates the Statute of ICTR, the Security Council established two Trial Chambers composed of three Judges each. The Council, in paragraph 7 of the resolution, expressly reserved the possibility of increasing the number of Judges and Trial Chambers should this become necessary. The establishment of a third Trial Chamber would require the amendment of Articles 10 and 11 of the Statute by the Security Council. Following such amendment, the General Assembly would be requested to approve the related increase in the budget of the Tribunal. Finally, the Security Council and the General Assembly would have to elect three additional Judges in accordance with the Statute of the Tribunal. The Registry of the Tribunal estimated the costs of establishing the third Trial Chamber at $5,582,000 for the year 1998. More detailed estimates will be made available to ACABQ and the Fifth Committee. I would appreciate it if you would bring the present letter and its attachment to the attention of members of the Security Council and the General Assembly for their approval of the request for the establishment of an additional Trial Chamber for ICTR. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

20 October 1997 Secretary-General Says UN Has Key Role in Evolution of Global Trading System

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6365); trade

Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the World Trade Center, in Chicago. It is truly a pleasure to join you today in this great city. This may be America’s heartland, and we may be far from both coasts, but Chicago is one of the world’s leading international centres. This is a place in which immigrants have made their home and fashioned a vibrant urban mosaic. It is the proud host to consulates, companies and banks from countries on all continents. Its extraordinary output of manufactured goods has made it one of the world’s major exporters. Here in Chicago, I’ve noticed, radio stations offer the latest commodities prices along with weather and traffic reports. Long known as “the city that works”, Chicago is also “the city that trades”. Trade is as important to the United Nations as it is to you. Peacekeeping operations, refugee crises and the Organization’s financial problems keep the United Nations in the world’s headlines. The “Blue Helmets” are the Organization’s most well-known public face. But by far the biggest portion of our budget, as well as the lion’s share of our personnel, are devoted to development: the lower-profile work of helping countries to create jobs and raise their standards of living, and helping people live peaceful, healthy, productive lives. Trade and investment lie at the core of this effort. International trade has been growing strongly at a rate of 10 per cent per year since the mid1980s, enabling many developing countries to enjoy remarkable gains in prosperity and growth. Private investment in developing countries has increased even more dramatically—from $5 billion in the early 1970s to more than $240 billion today. This, too, has allowed some countries to attain vital social, economic and environmental goals. Other numbers, however, are not quite as encouraging. Eighty per cent of the private capital flow to developing countries goes to just 12 countries. Only 5 per cent goes to Africa. Nearly 50 developing countries are not attracting any foreign capital at all. This is marginalization—the downside of globalization. Extreme poverty remains a plague, with more than 1.3 billion people lacking even the most basic health, sanitation and education services. One hundred countries are worse off today than they were 15 years ago. Aid budgets, already far short of targets agreed upon by the General Assembly, are shrinking.

20 October 1997 • 235 Thus, we see a mixed picture—of progress and pitfalls, opportunities and obstacles, affluence alongside deprivation. I believe firmly that it is within our power to tip the balance towards the positive side of this ledger. But it will take all the will and creativity we can muster. That is why, since taking office in January, I have sought to establish a new partnership among governments, the private sector and the international community. We live in a changing world. Today, market capitalism has no major ideological rival. There is now a universal understanding that market forces are essential for sustainable development. The role of State is changing as well. In Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Commonwealth of Independent States, governments are embracing economic and political liberalization. Where once they sought to impose a model of development, today they are focusing more on creating the conditions and institutions through which development—and private enterprise—can flourish. The United Nations welcomes these new realities, and in particular the growing role of the private sector. Businesses command vast resources and are the dominant engine of growth in the world today. Their technological prowess and entrepreneurial spirit make them leading founts of innovation and the principal creators of jobs and wealth. The United Nations would like to harness this dynamism for the common good. But just as there is no doubting the importance of business for the success of economic and social development, there is likewise no doubting the Organization’s importance for the success of business. The United Nations system defines the technical standards in shipping, telecommunication and postal services that make international transactions possible. We help countries privatize State enterprises, create special economic zones, remove trade barriers and devise business-friendly legislation. We protect copyrights. Our good governance programmes target corruption as a particularly insidious obstacle to development and growth. We are often the principal, if not the sole, source of financial and technical support to many nations. And in the broadest sense, our work—such as electoral assistance, the promotion of literacy and the eradication of disease—helps to build stable, functioning, democratic societies. These are the relative strengths of the private sector and the United Nations—the contributions each of us is uniquely placed to make. The dividends for business are clear: reduced risk; emerging markets; new opportunities for production and

investment; a rule-based global economy and trading system; and a peaceful international order. But with such rewards come responsibilities. Globalization has helped to generate a sustained period of economic expansion. But globalization is not a panacea. We must bear in mind that market forces do not always heed the United Nations imperatives of sustainability, equity, social justice and long-term thinking. Not all developing countries are participating in the global economy. Many lack the infrastructure, both physical and institutional. Communications may be inadequate. Information may be lacking or incomplete. People may lack skills in new technologies. Financial services may be unavailable. Government bureaucracy may hinder, rather than help, foreign investors and exporters alike. Decision-makers in the new global economy must not forget the developing world. The emergence of powerful regional trading blocs has opened markets and enhanced trading opportunities. But it has also added to the marginalization of the world’s poorest nations. Producers in developing countries fear they will be swallowed up by transnational corporations. Workers feel their livelihoods are secure only as long as it takes companies to identify the next low-wage economy. If developing countries are unable to join the new world of international trade and investment, the cause of development will suffer. And if development suffers, so will international peace and security. In our changing world, it is perhaps here, in our understanding of peace and security, that the most profound change has occurred. During the cold war, peace and security tended to be defined simply in terms of military might or the balance of terror. Today, we have a greater appreciation for the non-military sources of conflict. We know that lasting peace requires a broader vision, encompassing education and literacy, health and nutrition, human rights and fundamental freedoms. We know that we cannot be secure amidst starvation. We cannot build peace without alleviating poverty. We cannot build freedom on foundations of injustice. In today’s world, the profit motive and the development motive go hand in hand. They have become two sides of the same coin. Much of the dramatic growth in the world today is led by countries from the South. This offers you, business and corporate leaders, unprecedented opportunities. There is a clear link between profitability and rais-

236 • 20 October 1997

ing living standards for the world’s poorest nations. World Trade Centres understand this. They have been collaborating with UNCTAD—the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development—in promoting trade and linking local businesses with global opportunities. World Trade Centres in 25 cities around the world have joined UNCTAD’s “trade points” network. The trade points are one-stop electronic centres bringing together all the services required for international commercial transactions: customs, freight forwarders, transport companies, banks, insurance firms and foreign trade institutes. Detroit and Minneapolis are part of this network, which contains valuable data about markets and ventures involving more than 7 million enterprises worldwide. It would seem natural for Chicago, a classic port city, to be among those who are now building the “cyber ports” of the twentyfirst century. Trade, investment and development are about partnerships. Partnerships between importers and exporters. Between producers and consumers. Among the countries of any given region. And especially, in our era of globalization, between countries of the North and those of the South. The partnership between business, governments and the United Nations is one of the most fruitful to have taken shape in recent years. Already, we have achieved important economic goals. But we can do more. Strengthening this relationship will be one of the priorities of my term as Secretary-General. I know that, for us to succeed, the business community must have confidence in the United Nations. That is one of the reasons reform is also among my highest priorities. The reform package now being debated by the Member States is aimed at transforming the way the United Nations manages the resources placed at its disposal. The proposals touch on virtually every aspect of our global operations. We are seeking to create a culture of reform, so that the hallmarks of private enterprise—agility, coherence and cost-effectiveness— become part of the way we, too, do business. Chicago’s own Carl Sandburg wrote in 1922 that “Nothing happens unless first a dream.” The founders of the United Nations had such a dream: peace, progress and freedom for all the world’s peoples. Let us fulfil these high aspirations. But let us also be practical. With greater cooperation, our partnership can help unlock the economic potential of an underdeveloped world, for the benefit of

all. I look forward to working with you in rising to this challenge.

20 October 1997 Secretary-General Says UN Reform Aims to Direct Resources for Common Good

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6368); human rights Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Thank you, Mr President of the Council, for your kind introduction. Let me say first how very happy I am to be here to address such a distinguished gathering. To me, it is a matter of the highest priority to explain the role and purpose of the United Nations to the widest possible audience, and I hope to be able to do more of that. I am therefore particularly delighted to have been invited by this august and respected forum in the heartland of America. Your city has been described by the poets as the “Queen of the West”; the “Great city of visions, waging the war of the free” and, perhaps best of all, as the “City of the Big Shoulders”. On a more personal note, it also means a lot to me that Chicago is twinned with the city of Accra—the capital of my home country, Ghana. I am all the more honoured, therefore, to be addressing you in this seventy-fifth anniversary year of the Council. At 75, you are 23 years older than the United Nations. I hope that what I learn from you in our discussions tonight will be part of a long and fruitful exchange; part of the dialogue with civil society which I have made one of my missions as Secretary-General. I have been in the job of Secretary-General now for 10 months. For much of that time, I have been pursuing a quiet revolution to reform the organisation; reform which I consider to be both desirable and necessary. You will no doubt have heard and read some of the debate concerning the objectives and recommendations of that reform programme. Yet the process of reform, as everything we do in the United Nations, is and always must be conducted under the same guiding principle—to direct the United Nations resources to work in practice for the common good of nations. This evening I would like to share with you a few examples of our activities on the ground. Drawn from areas as diverse as human rights, electoral assistance, landmine clearance, peacekeeping and the fight against organized crime, they are activities that I believe have one single element in

20 October 1997 • 237 common: they bring about changes that benefit not only those countries where they are undertaken, but humanity as a whole. Let me begin with a concern that touches us all as human beings: that of human rights. The world is changing. Modern technology, communications and open borders have led to a movement and exchange of ideas on a scale never seen before. Those nations which fail to uphold basic principles of acceptable behaviour can no longer hide behind their borders. That makes all the more compelling our duty to translate into practice the United Nations’ commitment to human rights. For several decades, the primary focus in human rights was on establishing international norms and standards. That work was largely successful. In the 1990s, the emphasis has shifted to implementation. There are now operations in more than 10 countries across four continents. Human rights monitors are often attached to peacekeeping operations. We run advisory services to strengthen the judiciary. Special rapporteurs are investigating torture, child labour and child prostitution, religious intolerance and violence against women. I am pleased to report that we now have more staff working on human rights in the field than at Headquarters. And, of course, the United Nations provides global leadership on human rights. I am truly delighted that Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland, has joined us as the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights. Mrs Robinson possesses a unique combination of leadership, commitment and sensitivity. She is clearly the right person for the job. Hand in hand with human rights come issues of democratization and good governance. Increasingly across the world, it has become an established norm that military coups by selfappointed juntas against democratically-elected governments are simply not acceptable. The Security Council recently imposed sanctions on the military leaders of Sierra Leone in support of the strong stand taken by the region and by the Organization of African Unity. With the wave of democracy sweeping the globe, the United Nations is receiving more requests for electoral assistance than ever before. In the past five years, we had no fewer than 80 such requests. The United Nations helps teams of international observers assess the legitimacy of an elec-

toral process and its outcome. We guide, monitor and sometimes run elections in various countries. Electoral assistance is a peace-building activity that invests in the future. Some of our peacebuilding activities, however, have to heal wounds from the past. One of the most tangible legacies of modern-day warfare can be summed up in one word—landmines. Well after many conflict situations have died down, these abominable weapons lie in silence, waiting to kill or maim innocent civilians—usually unsuspecting women and children. The agreement concluded in Oslo last September as the culmination of the Ottawa process will ban their manufacture, production, stockpiling and use. I am delighted that the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which inspired that process, has been awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. But the painstaking and time-consuming efforts to clear existing fields—with millions and millions of mines—must and will continue for many years to come. In some countries, the incidence of explosions is such that on average every family—I repeat, every family—has had a member either killed or maimed by a mine or unexploded ordnance. In Angola, no serious specialist is able to mention even an approximate number of mines laid after 25 years of fighting. The reason is simple: the protagonists themselves do not know. In several countries, the United Nations is working with non-governmental organizations and local bodies not only to clear the mines, but also to educate people, especially children, on how to behave with explosives, using teaching aids such as travelling theatre groups or puppet shows. The long-term goal is to develop a national demining capacity in the country in question. I would now like to turn to quite a different problem—organized crime. That is a problem that you in Chicago were once intimately familiar with; but whereas you, the good people of Chicago, confronted this scourge long ago, it is one which is increasingly in evidence in the post-cold war world at large. In this world of ever more porous borders, drug traffickers, money launderers and terrorists make up a new and insidious threat. This year, we brought together our efforts to fight this threat under one roof: the Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention in Vienna. To head it, I have appointed former Senator Pino Arlacchi of Italy, one of the world’s leading experts on organized crime.

238 • 20 October 1997

One of his priorities will be an integrated approach to drug control and criminal justice; because, as he has said to me, when you go into the real world, there is no clear-cut division between organized crime and drug trafficking organizations. My friends, in addition to your own, there is another anniversary I would like to mention this evening. The United Nations flag was created 50 years ago today. At the moment, it flies over 15 peacekeeping missions throughout the world, in places ranging from Georgia to Angola, from Haiti to Lebanon. More than 22,000 soldiers and civilians serve under this flag. Maintaining and restoring peace and security is a fundamental purpose of the United Nations. Over the years, the Blue Helmets have become a global symbol of peace and hope. More recently, peacekeeping has evolved beyond traditional operations in which troops are positioned in demilitarized zones or observers are put in place to monitor ceasefires. It is now just as likely that the United Nations peacekeepers—both military and civilian—will be asked to observe elections, uphold human rights, protect deliveries of humanitarian assistance or help rebuild roads and bridges. Peace is like good health. We often do not realize its value until we lose it. The earlier we can get in to deal with a crisis, the better. Several Member States are developing military units that could deploy without undue delay following a decision by the Security Council. Some of these countries are forming a standby high-readiness brigade. Our hope is that it will no longer take several months to deploy a mission in the field. Many of the countries who have signed on to the standby high readiness brigade are veteran contributors of peacekeeping personnel. In one of them, Norway, one out of every 100 citizens has been involved in a United Nations peacekeeping mission. Ladies and gentlemen, I have tried to give you some idea of what we are doing in practice to tackle problems that no government—however powerful—can handle on its own; problems that affect every individual, every country, every government, because they affect humankind. Yet, I cannot end this speech without some mention of the question of funding. President Bill Clinton pledged in his speech to our fifty-second General Assembly last month to continue to work with Congress to pay the US contribution in full. The amount owed by the United States amounts to $1.4 billion. While this is a respectable

amount, I would take this opportunity to ask you to reflect for a moment on what that sum actually means to a great country like yours. On a per capita basis, it represents less than $6 per American to repay a debt built up over a decade. That amount would buy a typical American family of four one ride on the Chicago Transit Authority. It is also important to understand that most of the amount in question is owed by the United Nations to countries which have provided troops to United Nations peacekeeping—most of them poor ones such as Bangladesh, Fiji and Tunisia. We can only reimburse them if countries like the United States pay up. For their sake and the sake of the United Nations, give your Senator and Congressman a call. I hope there are none in the room, for I did not intend to embarrass anyone. The United States has been a leading voice in calling for reform of the United Nations. There are, of course, some detractors of the United Nations whom we can never hope to satisfy; those who seem to have made a career out of United Nations-bashing; those who cry “reform or die” but for whom, one suspects, no reform would suffice. But as the reform package shows, we must, and do, address constructive criticism seriously. Throughout its history, the Organization has prospered most when it has tried new ways forward, whether in the field or at Headquarters, whether in times of peace or times of war. The objective of this reform is to make for a more active, more responsive, more flexible United Nations, in the areas I have outlined tonight and in countless others. In short, a United Nations that delivers in a real and changing world. I would like to conclude by recalling what one of my predecessors said here in Chicago 37 years ago. When Dag Hammarskjold uttered these words at the inauguration of the University of Chicago’s new Law Buildings, the United Nations was less than 15 years old. “Perhaps a future generation,” Hammarskjold mused, “which knows the outcome of our present efforts, will look at them with some irony. They will see where we fumbled and they will find it difficult to understand why we did not see the direction more clearly . . .” We are that future generation. And we can see the direction that Hammarskjold’s United Nations has travelled, and the path that still lies ahead. I pledge to you that we shall step resolutely forward

22 October 1997 • 239 on that path; and I hope that future generations will look back on our efforts without reproach, knowing that what we did was worth doing—and worth doing well. Thank you for your support.

21 October 1997 Secretary-General Urges Action to Reduce Global Hunger by Half by 2015

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6362, OBV/15); famine Speech delivered by the Secretary-General on the occasion of World Food Day (16 October) at a special ceremony at UN headquarters. World Food Day once again serves to remind us that something so basic remains so distant for so many. Eight-hundred million people are chronically hungry. This number represents roughly one out of every seven people on earth and includes more than 200 million children under the age of five. Millions more are plagued by blindness, retarded growth and other ailments related to hunger and malnutrition, and by the debilitating effects of diets lacking in essential vitamins and minerals. Twenty-nine countries, mostly in Africa, are experiencing food emergencies. On the threshold of a new millennium, the ageold problem of hunger is tragically widespread. As long as such suffering is allowed to continue—for it is within our power to stop it—our hopes for an era of enduring peace and sustainable development will go unfulfilled. This year’s World Food Day theme, “Investing in Food Security”, highlights the question of resources. Recent years have seen not only a decline in official development assistance (ODA), but also a drop in agriculture’s share of aid. Moreover, countries most threatened by food insecurity are not investing enough in the agricultural sector or in the rural economy. These are disturbing trends. Investment is not just a question of building irrigation systems, roads and other infrastructure. Investing in human resources, and particularly in the education of women and girls, is just as vital. Women produce up to 80 per cent of the basic foodstuffs in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. In some regions of Africa, 60 per cent of the households are headed by women. Indeed, it is by now common wisdom that investing in the education of women and girls has the highest rate of return of any type of investment in development.

In the past 50 years, modern farming practices, advances in agricultural science and new applications of biotechnology have helped increase world food production at an unprecedented rate—outpacing the doubling of the world population that has taken place over the same period. But if much has been achieved in the fight to eliminate hunger, much more remains to be done. At last November’s World Food Summit in Rome, world leaders pledged to reduce the number of hungry and malnourished people by half by the year 2015. This is a practical, attainable target. I call on Governments to rise to this challenge. The private sector and civil society must be our close partners in this effort. Their resources and expertise are indispensable. The United Nations, for its part, has worked since its inception to help break the vicious circle of hunger, malnutrition and poverty. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), along with the World Food Programme (WFP) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), together with the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), have all been deeply involved. Today, in the spirit of United Nations reform, each has taken steps to improve its effectiveness and coordination. Here, too, we must do more. The world has enough food. What it lacks is the political will to ensure that all people have access to this bounty, that all people enjoy food security. On World Food Day 1997, let us pledge ourselves anew to guaranteeing that no person goes to sleep hungry, that no mother has to starve herself in order to feed her children, that no child need scavenge or beg so as to eat. Let us not allow hunger to undermine every person’s right to be a healthy, productive member of society. Let us not permit hunger to undermine society’s hopes for the future. We must win the battle against hunger.

22 October 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/817); Liberia Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Juan Somavia, and to the president of the General Assembly, Hennadiy Udovenko. Excellency, I have the honour to inform you that on 3

240 • 22 October 1997

October 1997, the fourth Ministerial Meeting of the ad hoc Special Conference on Liberia (previously known as the Special Conference to Support the Peace Process in Liberia) was convened at United Nations Headquarters in New York. The meeting was organized in consultation with the Government of the United States on behalf of the International Contact Group for Liberia, the Government of Nigeria on behalf of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and the Government of the Netherlands. In addition to these Governments, the meeting brought together the members of the International Contact Group on Liberia, the members of the European Union, the members of ECOWAS, the Bretton Woods Institutions, the African Development Bank, and relevant United Nations Organization of African Unity, and the Executive Secretary of ECOWAS also participated in the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to build upon the momentum generated by the successful completion of the Liberia peace process, with a view towards supporting efforts to consolidate the peace in Liberia, including the establishment of a viable framework for the mobilization of resources for reconstruction and development. In this regard, the Government of Liberia prepared for presentation at the Special Conference, a paper outlining its vision for a new Liberia, entitled “An Agenda for Rebuilding Liberia.” In my opening statement to the Special Conference I urged the members of the international community to support peace-building efforts in Liberia and to help ensure that the conditions for conflict did not again materialize in that country. In particular, I noted the difficulties that still remained, including the fact that economic activity remained modest; that much of the population continued to be displaced; that most of the demobilized fighters had yet to be absorbed into reintegration programmes; that basic institutions and services were not yet fully operational; and that the situation in Sierra Leone remained a source of concern. Despite these obstacles however, I noted the very positive steps that President Taylor had taken towards reconciliation and national unity, and noted the formation in Liberia of a broad-based and inclusive Government, together with the President’s expressed commitment to promoting the protection of human rights and respect for the rule of law. I informed participants that the proposed United Nations Peace-building Support Office was soon established in Liberia, and that the

Head of the Office would be the focal point for the Organization’s post-conflict peace-building activities in Liberia and have overall responsibility for harmonizing the efforts of the United Nations system in the country. I called upon the members of the international community to show the same generosity and goodwill in supporting the peacebuilding process as they did in supporting the peace process. I am pleased to report that the meeting successfully accomplished the objectives for which it had been convened. In addition to focusing international attention on the need to provide continued support to Liberia following the successful completion of the peace process, the meeting was notable for: • the strong support expressed by participants for the establishment of a United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office in Liberia; • the broad political support expressed by participants for President Taylor’s efforts to establish an inclusive administration, and for the various actions taken by the new Government to promote reconciliation and national unity (though some participants expressed concern regarding certain recent actions taken by the Liberian police); • the continued assurances given by the Government of Liberia regarding its commitment to reconciliation, national unity, and respect for human rights; • the very positive reaction of participants to the Government’s plans for rebuilding Liberia, as set out in the “Agenda for Rebuilding Liberia,” which was prepared by the Government for the Conference; • the supportive attitude adopted by the Bretton Woods Institutions towards the new Liberian Government’s economic and political initiatives, specifically including the framework outlined in the “Agenda for Rebuilding Liberia,” the economic and customs reforms so far instituted, and the presentation to the Legislature of a balanced cash-based budget; and • the support expressed by participants for a donor’s conference for Liberia, which would most likely take place early next year. In view of the difficult peace consolidation and reconstruction challenges that Liberia continues to confront, it is my intention to continue to move as expeditiously as possible with the establishment of a United Nations Peace-building Support Office in Liberia, as requested by the Government of Liberia. I am encouraged in this undertaking by

22 October 1997 • 241 the very broad support expressed by the international community for this initiative, and by the positive cooperation demonstrated by all parts of the United Nations system, in keeping with the spirit of my reform proposals. The Secretariat will be consulting with the Government of Liberia and the principal bilateral and multilateral donors on the most effective means of following up on the positive outcome of the meeting, including the timing of the anticipated donor’s conference on reconstruction and development. I should be grateful if you would bring this letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

22 October 1997 Secretary-General Presents First Budget Proposal

Presentation to the General Assembly (EOSG, SG/SM/6369, GA/AB/3175); budget Text of the Secretary-General’s statement in presenting his 1998–1999 budget proposal to the 5th Administrative and Budgetary Committee. As Chief Administrative Officer of the Organization, I am here to present to the General Assembly my proposed programme budget for the biennium 1998–1999. This is my first programme budget proposal as Secretary-General. My presentation comes at a time when, as we heard during the general debate, the world is looking to the United Nations to revitalize itself so that it can better serve the needs of the international community in the new century. And it comes at a time when the General Assembly, in informal plenary sessions, is deliberating on the comprehensive and far-reaching measures for organizational reforms that I submitted to Member States on 16 July—a set of measures designed to achieve that revitalization. I firmly believe that the very future of this Organization hangs in the balance. That is why I have urged Member States to move expeditiously to complete their consideration of the reform proposals at this session, and why you will soon be asked to give advice to the General Assembly on the financial implications of my proposed reforms. This is the first programme budget proposal that falls within the medium-term plan for the period 1998–2001. The General Assembly has stipulated, among other things, that it should reflect a real level of resources well below that of the cur-

rent biennium. As we all know, that budget was itself the subject of a significant reduction mandated by the Assembly. The resources requested for the 1998–1999 biennium amount to $2,583 million. While this represents a reduction, in real terms, of $124 million, it has been possible to increase the resources earmarked for economic and social development. Compared with the previous biennium, such allocations have risen by about $56 million. The staffing table of 8,839 posts represents a net reduction of 1,182 posts. This number reflects the abolition of 865 posts, the transfer of posts as a result of net budgeting, conversions from temporary assistance to established posts and the proposed creation of new posts. The distribution of resources has been guided by the priority areas identified in the medium-term plan, and by the level of resources in the budget outline approved by the General Assembly. As decided by the General Assembly, the proposed budget does not include provision for special missions that have no legislative mandates in 1998–1999. In formulating my proposals, efforts have been made to reduce administrative costs, to rationalize work programmes, to reorganize structures and to redistribute responsibilities and functions. Streamlining will continue, aided by automation and other technological innovations. The programmatic and financial implications of the reform proposals appear in document A/52/303; they are primarily of an organizational and managerial nature and do not affect mandated activities. Once the General Assembly is ready to make its decisions on reform, this Committee will have to provide advice and recommendations on the implications of those decisions for the programme budget. Implementation of the proposed programme budget and of the reform plan will not be possible unless the financial soundness of this Organization is restored. The current situation is precarious and debilitating. The United Nations must have the resources it needs to fulfil its potential. This is a joint responsibility. I reiterate my commitment to ensuring that the Secretariat can respond to the challenges and concerns of all Member States. I am also committed to transforming the Organization into a dynamic and responsive instrument that upholds the highest standards of management, cost effectiveness and accountability. Member States, for their part, must deliver on their own obligation to provide continuous, predictable and assured political and financial support.

242 • 22 October 1997

The Organization’s future also depends on the quality and competence of its staff. My proposed human resources programme focuses on improved procedures for recruitment and placement that will provide better support to managers in the management of their staff resources. I am also proposing a 25 per cent increase in the resources for training. Staff development at all levels is an essential investment in the capacity of the Organization to improve, change and adapt. I wish to pause a moment to acknowledge with deep gratitude the dedication of United Nations staff around the world. Many have had to acquire new responsibilities and adapt to unfamiliar tasks, not as a logical step in career development but as a result of budget reductions and reorganization. Many work under difficult conditions in areas of conflict and strife. Many have risked or given their lives. The commitment of staff to the ideals of the Organization has been unwavering and their adjustment to uncertainties and new challenges has been commendable. As both the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) and Committee for Programme and Coordination (CPC) have pointed out, the United Nations in recent years has faced almost constant change. Recurring waves of financial difficulties have been with us since 1987. This has made the entire budget process—from preparation and approval to implementation — much more complex. The application of General Assembly resolution 41/213 and the Financial Regulations has come under severe pressure. The ACABQ, Fifth Committee and Secretariat alike have found it difficult to discharge their respective functions in an orderly fashion. It is my hope that by the time the programme budget for 1998–1999 is approved and the General Assembly decides on the reform proposals, we shall leave the state of flux in which the Organization has been for too long. It is time for stability. It is time to focus on substance, and on achieving our goals. It is time for all Member States to fulfil their legal obligations to the Organization and to one another. With the support of Member States, the changes now taking place within the Organization can succeed in creating an effective, coherent instrument on which Member States can depend; to which the Member States can turn in time of crisis; and of which the Member States can be proud. In that positive spirit, I commend this budget for your approval.

27 October 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/998); Cambodia Letter to the president of the Security Council, Juan Somavía. Following are three letters referenced in the Secretary-General’s letter from Ung Huot, first prime minister, and Samdech Hun Sen, second prime minister, of Cambodia; the permanent representatives of Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand to the UN; and Norodom Ranariddh, first prime minister of Cambodia, regarding UN monitoring of the upcoming Cambodian elections. I wish to inform you of recent developments in relation to Cambodia subsequent to the events of 5 and 6 July 1997, on which the Secretariat briefed the members of the Security Council in informal consultations, and to my meetings with Cambodian leaders and foreign ministers of member countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other interested parties in New York last month. During those discussions, a consensus emerged that it was highly desirable that those political leaders who had remained outside Cambodia following those events, particularly members of the National Assembly, should return as soon as possible in order to participate fully in the political process to draw up legislation to ensure a level playing field for free and fair elections in 1998. Certain practical measures were also discussed to ensure that this would come about in satisfactory conditions. I am now in a position to inform you that I have received a letter from His Excellency Mr. Ung Huot and His Excellency Samdech Hun Sen, providing me with assurances concerning the forthcoming elections and the security and safety of returning political leaders, as well as regarding their participation in political activities, and expressing readiness for the United Nations to monitor implementation. I am attaching a copy of that letter (see annex I), which I am confident provides the necessary guarantees to meet the legitimate concerns expressed by the political leaders. I am also attaching a letter from the Permanent Representatives of Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand to the United Nations (see annex II) containing a request for the assistance and cooperation of the United Nations in monitoring and observing the safe return to Cambodia of all political leaders and other leading personalities of the United National Front for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful and Cooperative Cambodia (FUNCINPEC) as well as of other parties, and the unfettered resumption of their political activities. Assuming

27 October 1997 • 243 such action receives the backing of the Security Council, I would be prepared to provide such cooperation and assistance, while keeping the Council regularly informed. I would do so on the understanding, discussed with the authors of the request, that the role of the Organization would be essentially political in nature, since the actual safety of the returnees as well as their capacity to resume political activities in an unfettered fashion would be the responsibility of the Cambodian authorities—a responsibility which the authorities have undertaken to shoulder in the 22 October letter from His Excellency Mr. Ung Huot and His Excellency Samdech Hun Sen. I am further attaching a letter addressed to me by His Royal Highness Samdech Krom Preah Norodom Ranariddh, received through His Royal Highness Ambassador Sisowath Sirirath (see annex III). I am responding that the guarantees offered by His Excellency Mr. Ung Huot and His Excellency Samdech Hun Sen, combined with the role that the United Nations would play at the request of the Governments of the “ASEAN Troika,” provide an adequate atmosphere for the return of political leaders. I am of the view, after consulting my Legal Counsel, that the guarantees contained in the letter of His Excellency Mr. Ung Huot and His Excellency Samdech Hun Sen apply fully to the Prince, and I am writing to him accordingly. I would be grateful to you, Mr. President, if you could kindly make the text of the present letter and its attachments available to the members of the Security Council. * * *

On behalf of the delegation of the Royal Government of Cambodia, we wish to express our deep appreciation for the precious time you gave us for a direct exchange of views on the current situation in Cambodia, including the issues of the Cambodian seat at the United Nations and the role of the United Nations in the Cambodian election in 1998. May we assure Your Excellency and the States Members of the United Nations that the Royal Government of Cambodia is fully committed to maintaining and improving politico-socio-economic stability and ensuring a peaceful environment conducive to free and fair elections in 1998. Preparations are currently under way for the election to take place as scheduled. As discussed, the Royal Government of Cambodia is determined to organize this election in the most democratic and the fairest manner pos-

sible, with the participation of as many political parties and the observation of as many international observers as possible. The Royal Government of Cambodia wishes to reiterate its readiness to cooperate with Your Excellency in coordinating the dispatch and the work of international observers mandated to observe the whole electoral process. In order to ensure that the elections are held in a democratic, free and fair manner and with the participation of all political parties, the Government undertakes to guarantee the physical security and safety of those members of the National Assembly and other political leaders who wish to return to Cambodia and resume their political activities in connection with the forthcoming elections. The Government also undertakes to maintain and respect the parliamentary immunity of members of the National Assembly and to guarantee all other political leaders’ freedom from arrest and detention in respect of acts done and words spoken prior to their return, and thereafter in respect of acts and words spoken in connection with their electoral activities. The Government shall further ensure that all political leaders enjoy freedom from intimidation and threat in respect of any and all political activities relating to the election and, in particular, freedom of movement, assembly and speech as provided for under the Constitution and the electoral law, without discrimination. The Royal Government wishes to reiterate its readiness for the United Nations to monitor the safe return of members of the National Assembly and other political leaders and their freedom to engage in political activities. We are looking forward to a very close cooperation between the Royal Government and Your Excellency. (Signed) Ung Huot, First Prime Minister (Signed) Hun Sen, Second Prime Minister * * *

With the concurrence of the parties concerned in Cambodia, we the “ASEAN Troika” would like to request your assistance and cooperation in monitoring and observing the safe return to Cambodia of all political leaders and other leading personalities of FUNCINPEC as well as of other parties and their unfettered resumption of their political activities. It is our hope that with such support being extended to them, the sense of personal security of these leaders and of other people can be ensured. (Signed) Makarim Wibisono, Permanent Representative of Indonesia

244 • 27 October 1997

(Signed) Felipe Mabilangan, Permanent Representative of the Philippines (Signed) Asda Jayanama, Permanent Representative of Thailand * * *

I have the honour to inform you that Ambassador Sirirath Sisowath, Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Cambodia to the United Nations, has conveyed to me today a copy of the letter dated Phnom Penh, 22 October 1997, addressed to Your Excellency, in which you have so kindly asked Ambassador Sisowath to keep me informed of the outcome signed by my colleague Second Prime Minister Hun Sen and Foreign Minister Ung Huot on the issue of guaranteeing the safe return and security of the members of Parliament and political leaders to Cambodia. Since my name was not mentioned, I wonder whether this letter of Mr. Hun Sen also applies to me as a member of Parliament and a political leader. As Your Excellency is well aware, I am still being prevented by Mr. Hun Sen from returning home safely and that false charges and accusations made against me still have not been dropped. My immunity as a member of Parliament has already been taken away from me illegally by Mr. Hun Sen. I am still horrified by his action of 5 and 6 July and therefore I must be cautious with regard to his approach. He has deceived the participants in the 1991 Paris Peace Accords on Cambodia by totally violating the agreement as well as dishonouring the efforts and the result of the elections organized and supervised by the United Nations in 1993. I would be deeply grateful to Your Excellency if you would circulate both my letters and that of Mr. Hun Sen as a note from Your Excellency to the members of the Security Council and the General Assembly, without mentioning the title of either Hun Sen or Ung Huot, as no nation on earth at present has recognized the new regime in Cambodia since the violent coup d’état of 5 and 6 July in my country. May I take this wonderful opportunity once again to express my warmest thanks and appreciations to Your Excellency for receiving me last month at the United Nations and for the care and concern that you have always shown in order to bring about a peaceful political solution to Cambodia. Your tireless efforts will no doubt prevail and the Cambodian people will be eternally in debt to you and the United Nations. (Signed) Norodom Ranariddh, First Prime Minister

30 October 1997 UN Observers Invited to Trial of Suspects in Lockerbie Bombing

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6372); Lockerbie bombing By a letter dated 28 October 1997, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom informed the Secretary-General that the United Kingdom would welcome the presence of international observers from the United Nations at the trial of the suspects in the Lockerbie bombing. Such observers would have full access to the suspects before and during the trial (if the suspects agree), would be able to witness all the court proceedings, and would be provided with administrative and reporting facilities. With a view to briefing the United Nations Secretariat on the safeguards to ensure a fair trial and discuss how international observers may best be accommodated in court proceedings, the United Kingdom has invited the Secretary-General to send two representatives to Scotland. They would visit Scottish prison and court facilities and meet United Kingdom representatives to discuss the modalities of a trial in Scotland in the presence of international observers. The Secretary-General considers that the dispatch of two representatives, as suggested by the United Kingdom, and the communication of their findings to the Libyan authorities, could assist in the implementation of resolutions 731 (1992), 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) of the Security Council. He, therefore, welcomes the United Kingdom invitation and has informed the members of the Security Council that he proposes to accept it.

30 October 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretray-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq ... Concerning Iraq, he said that at about 3 a.m. today, New York time, a United Nations aircraft carrying the personnel of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM)—set up under Security Council resolution 687 (1991) in connection with the disposal of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction—and of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from Bahrain to Baghdad had landed at Habbaniyah Airfield, north-west of Baghdad. When Iraqi officials became aware of the nationality of the United Nations staff aboard the aircraft, they advised UNSCOM officials pres-

30 October 1997 • 245 ent at the Airfield that the two UNSCOM officials who were of United States nationality would not be allowed to enter the country. A third American on the plane was with the IAEA. The Executive Chairman of UNSCOM, Ambassador Richard Butler, when informed of that situation, instructed the two Americans on his staff to return with the aircraft to Bahrain. The IAEA official had been instructed by the Agency that in an eventuality such as that one, he was also to leave. Mr. Eckhard said Ambassador Butler had, this morning, informed the President of the Security Council of the incident in writing, and the President had distributed the letter to all Council members. . . . It was the time for the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), Mr. Eckhard declared, announcing the bi-annual meeting of heads of United Nations agencies, who would be flying into New York from around the world today. The meeting would take place all day tomorrow, when they would discuss three items: the relationship between the United Nations system and civil society, including the private sector; integrated and coordinated follow-up to recent global conferences; and administrative questions such as staff security. For the first time, the ACC would go on a “retreat.” Mr. Eckhard said the officials would be taken out of the city by bus tomorrow afternoon to the Pocantico Conference Centre at the Rockefeller Estate in Tarrytown, New York. They would discuss the changing role of the State and its implications for the role and functioning of the United Nations system, on which a discussion paper was available. The officials would have a panel discussion tomorrow evening. Participating would be Wim Kok, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands; Percy Barnevik, Chairman of Asea Brown Boveri; and Enrique Inglesias, President of the Inter-American Development Bank. On Saturday, they would break up into three groups. One would discuss “New approaches to, and new partnerships for, development financing,” to be chaired by James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank. The second would discuss “New emphasis, new approaches, new partnerships in the pursuit of development objectives,” to be chaired by Rubens Ricupero of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The third group would examine “the role of ACC and new arrangements for inter-agency cooperation and the possible need for constitutional changes within the United Nations system,” one

of the reform recommendations of the SecretaryGeneral. The Director-General of the IAEA, Hans Blix, would chair. They would finish their work at about 4 p.m., Mr. Eckhard said. Concerning the Secretary-General’s appointments today, the Spokesman drew attention to a meeting with the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, a group of business leaders from the United Kingdom who had formed a non-governmental organization for the practice of corporate citizenship and sustainable development internationally. In addition, the Secretary-General would host them at a luncheon. . . .

30 October 1997 Secretary-General Appeals to UN Agencies for Coordinated Response in Fight Against HIV/AIDS

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6371); HIV/AIDS Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the 10th annual meeting of the Committee of CoSponsoring Organizations of UNAIDS. HIV/AIDS has touched us all. I have personally witnessed the devastating effects of the epidemic on countries of sub-Saharan Africa: the loss of a young, able-bodied workforce; the pressures on women who care for the sick; and now, infants infected with HIV, children orphaned by AIDS. The implications for development are evermore evident in families, communities and countries. Poverty further increases a family’s vulnerability to HIV infection. With the rapid globalization of markets, countries benefit from new economic and trade opportunities. But as people move faster and more frequently, so does the AIDS virus. There is also mounting evidence of the impact on agriculture and food security, on sustainable livelihoods, on public services and on private companies. We see some hope in new therapies. But due to the exorbitant costs, these are not accessible to most persons in the world—specially in the developing world. The devastating global effects of HIV/AIDS, the potential impact on economic and social life in so many countries, the persistent spread of the virus—all make the fight against HIV and AIDS one of the most important challenges in the world. The fight requires the organizations of the United Nations system to join together and pool their resources for a coordinated response. In establishing the Joint United Nations Programme

246 • 30 October 1997

on HIV/AIDS under its aegis, the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) had two important objectives—to make the best use of United Nations resources through a coordinated response; and to address the many different and multisectoral dimensions of the epidemic. This programme was the first instance of all the relevant organizations in the United Nations system committing themselves to pooling their resources into a fully fledged joint programme and to acting jointly at the country level, at the regional level, at the global level. The Programme has now been in existence for almost two years. I know that there have been important landmarks and successes, to which each of you has contributed. Excellent examples of country-level coordination are beginning to emerge. In China, the United Nations system has cooperated on developing an HIV/AIDS programme framework which reflects national needs. It is used by the Government as a basis for mobilizing resources and coordinating inputs, including from other donors. In Mexico, Pakistan and South Africa, the United Nations organizations have pooled financial resources to support HIV/AIDS-related coordination efforts. There is also evidence of creative partnerships with civil society, including with persons infected and affected by HIV. The private sector is directing its energies towards the fight against HIV/AIDS. Much remains to be done. The Joint Programme is still young. It is not easy for organizations that work largely alone in programming their resources and budgets to adjust to the requirements of operating a truly joint programme. The lessons learned will be vital in our larger effort to achieve greater unity of purpose, coherence of action and flexibility of response within the United Nations system. I expect the UNAIDS experience to show us how to reap the full benefits of a genuinely collective effort which will be greater than the sum of its parts. We cannot afford to fail. The issue addressed by the programme is too crucial, the experiment it represents in inter-agency coordination too important. The serious developmental impact of HIV/AIDS is compelling governments to pay serious attention. Many developing countries, particularly in Africa, accord high priority to the fight against the epidemic. But their national efforts are constrained by lack of adequate resources. This constraint must be addressed. The United Nations

system has a special responsibility to create a greater awareness among all those who can help mobilize resources. This is an issue which is of particular interest to me. Even before the Economic and Social Council asked me to play a greater advocacy role in the fight against HIV/AIDS, I had raised it on various occasions. I will continue to do so. I have also directed the United Nations Secretariat to research and analyse the economic, social and demographic impacts of the epidemic and reflect the results in its reports and studies on a more regular and systematic basis. I shall be pleased to bring to the attention of the ACC tomorrow the Joint Statement on HIV/AIDS that your Committee is expected to adopt. All parts of the United Nations system— beyond the co-sponsors—must be ready to take action. Please consider these words today as a call to arms, directed to us all.

30 October 1997 Letter (EOSG); Lockerbie bombing Letter sent to John Weston, permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the UN. Excellency, Thank you for your letter of 28 October informing me that the United Kingdom would welcome the presence of international observers from the United Nations at the trial of the suspects in the Lockerbie bombing. I have written to the President of the Security Council informing him of your initiative, including your invitation to send two representatives to visit Scottish prison and court facilities and to meet United Kingdom representatives to discuss the modalities of a trial in Scotland in the presence of international observers. As I stated in my letter to the President of the Security Council, I consider that the dispatch of two representatives, as suggested by the United Kingdom, and the communication of their findings to the Libyan authorities, could assist in the implementation of the above-mentioned resolutions of the Security Council. I therefore intend to accept your invitation. I have also informed the SecretariesGeneral of the Organization of African Unity and the League of Arab States of the two invitations and of the steps I am taking to follow-up on them. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

31 October 1997 • 247 30 October 1997 Letter (EOSG); Lockerbie bombing Letter sent to the secretary-general of the Organization of African Unity, Salim Ahmed Salim. Identical letters were sent to the president of the Security Council, Juan Somavia, and the secretary-general of the League of Arab States, Ahmed Esmat Abdel Meguid. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, I am writing in reference to resolutions 731, 748 and 883 of the Security Council. I should like to advise you that, by letter dated 28 October 1997, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom informed me that the United Kingdom would welcome the presence of international observers from the United Nations at the trial of the suspects in the Lockerbie bombing. Such observers would have full access to the suspects before and during the trial (if the suspects agree), will be able to witness all the court proceedings, and will be provided with administrative and reporting facilities. With a view to briefing the United Nations Secretariat on the safeguards to ensure a fair trial and discuss how international observers may best be accommodated in court proceedings, the United Kingdom has invited me to send two representatives to Scotland. They will visit Scottish prison and court facilities and meet United Kingdom representatives to discuss the modalities of a trial in Scotland in the presence of international observers. I consider that the dispatch of two representatives, as suggested by the United Kingdom, and the communication of their findings to the Libyan authorities, could assist in the implementation of the above-mentioned resolutions of the Security Council and I have informed the Security Council that I intend to accept the invitation of the United Kingdom. Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration.

31 October 1997 Secretary-General Welcomes Resumed Peace Talks on Sudan

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6375); Sudan The Secretary-General welcomes the resumption of the peace talks on the Sudan, sponsored by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). He expresses his hopes that the partici-

pants in the talks will find a political solution to this long-standing conflict in the Sudan.

31 October 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/833); Iraq Letter to the president of the Security Council, Juan Somavia, with the following letter from Hans Blix, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, addressed to the SecretaryGeneral. I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of a letter which I have received today from Mr. Hans Blix, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In accordance with the request contained therein, I would be grateful if you could bring the letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. * * *

As you will be aware, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has suspended its monitoring activities in Iraq as of 29 October 1997. This suspension of activities was in immediate response to a letter of the same date addressed to the President of the Security Council by the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. Tariq Aziz (S/1997/829, annex), in which he announced, inter alia, that Iraq would not “deal with Americans working with the Special Commission.” Similar action was taken by the Special Commission. On 30 October 1997, Mr. Garry Dillon, the head of the IAEA Action Team for Iraq, sent notification to Iraq that he considered it to be inappropriate, under the prevailing circumstances, to proceed with his visit to Iraq, planned for 4 to 7 November 1997. Iraq immediately responded that it found the decision not to proceed with the visit surprising and further stated that it should be recognized that “the Government of Iraq wishes IAEA to continue its work normally and to perform all its planned functions.” Iraq’s response further stated that “all IAEA staff, inspectors and experts will be welcomed as usual” and went on to state that “there is no reason whatsoever to suspend any IAEA activities in Iraq.” It remains my view that, in the specific context of the resolutions on Iraq, IAEA and the Special Commission act as organs of the Security Council and, although having distinct technical responsibilities, contribute to a common objective. Under these circumstances it is essential that IAEA and the Special Commission shall have a common

248 • 31 October 1997

approach and for the time being IAEA will continue to suspend the practical implementation of its ongoing monitoring and verification plan. Mr. Dillon’s visit to Iraq is similarly deferred. I request that you bring the foregoing to the attention of the Security Council. (Signed) Hans Blix, Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency

3 November 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, informed correspondents at the start of today’s briefing that the mission appointed by the Secretary-General at the weekend, to travel to Baghdad in an effort to help resolve the situation there concerning the United Nations Special Commission set up under Security Council resolution 687 (1991) in connection with the disposal of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (UNSCOM), would depart New York tonight, and was expected to arrive on Tuesday or latest on Wednesday. In a telephone conversation this morning, he said the Secretary-General had been informed by the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, of the readiness of the Government of Iraq to receive the mission, which was made up of the Under-SecretaryGeneral for Special Assignments in support of the Secretary-General’s preventive and peacemaking efforts, Lakhdar Brahimi (who will head it); the former Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations, Emilio Cardenas; and the Secretary of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Jan Eliasson. Mr. Eckhard said that UNSCOM was sending letters to the Security Council describing the latest incidents in Iraq. Earlier today, the Chairman of UNSCOM, Ambassador Richard Butler, had ordered his inspectors to attempt to get into the field and conduct investigations, following which three teams—a missile team, a chemical weapons team and a biological weapons team—had gone out. The missile team had been the first to reach the inspection site, where they were told that they could proceed with the inspection, but without any members of United States nationality. The leader of the team had then explained to the Iraqis that that was unacceptable, as the skills of the Americans were essential to a full and adequate investigation. The team had then turned around

and returned to its base. By prior agreement, when the other two learned of the experience of the first team, they had also returned to their bases. . . . Mr. Eckhard announced that the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Transition Mission in Haiti (UNTMIH) was out as a Security Council document today. In it, the Secretary-General expressed his concern that Haiti had not had a fully-functioning government for more than four months, and urged the Haitian authorities and political leaders to find a political solution to the crisis in a spirit of tolerance and reconciliation. Mr. Eckhard said that the SecretaryGeneral had also received a letter from President Rene Preval, dated 29 October, in which President Preval indicated the need for “the assistance of a civilian police mission to support the training of police”. That letter was attached to the SecretaryGeneral’s report. In light of that letter, the Secretary-General had already approached several governments for contributions of civilian police, should the Security Council decide to take action on a follow-up mission in Haiti, he added. . . . A correspondent wondered what the point was about the mission of the Secretary-General’s threeman team to Iraq, since they could not negotiate. Was the idea simply to read the “riot act”, in view of the fact that the Iraqi Government had already been made aware that they have to comply with the United Nations resolutions? The Spokesman said there was nothing to negotiate. He stressed that it was a diplomatic effort to defuse a very tense and dangerous situation, adding that a number of governments had conveyed their concern to Iraq. “Any sense that the Security Council is divided on this issue has now been dispelled, and the next step is up to Iraq. This mission is looking to facilitate that next step.” He told another correspondent that there was no fixed duration for the mission. He noted that Mr. Cardenas had arrived in New York this morning; along with Mr. Brahimi who was already here, the two would leave for Geneva tonight, where Mr. Eliasson awaited their arrival. Tomorrow, the three men would leave for Baghdad. The Spokesman refused to discuss “potential responses or options that could be used to force the Iraqis to comply” with the Security Council resolution. Asked whether the ambassadors had had any contact, or would meet with the Security Council before their departure, Mr. Eckhard said that Ambassador Cardenas had met with the SecretaryGeneral this morning, along with Mr. Butler. He said he did not know whether the Council would

248 • 31 October 1997

approach and for the time being IAEA will continue to suspend the practical implementation of its ongoing monitoring and verification plan. Mr. Dillon’s visit to Iraq is similarly deferred. I request that you bring the foregoing to the attention of the Security Council. (Signed) Hans Blix, Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency

3 November 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, informed correspondents at the start of today’s briefing that the mission appointed by the Secretary-General at the weekend, to travel to Baghdad in an effort to help resolve the situation there concerning the United Nations Special Commission set up under Security Council resolution 687 (1991) in connection with the disposal of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (UNSCOM), would depart New York tonight, and was expected to arrive on Tuesday or latest on Wednesday. In a telephone conversation this morning, he said the Secretary-General had been informed by the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, of the readiness of the Government of Iraq to receive the mission, which was made up of the Under-SecretaryGeneral for Special Assignments in support of the Secretary-General’s preventive and peacemaking efforts, Lakhdar Brahimi (who will head it); the former Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations, Emilio Cardenas; and the Secretary of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Jan Eliasson. Mr. Eckhard said that UNSCOM was sending letters to the Security Council describing the latest incidents in Iraq. Earlier today, the Chairman of UNSCOM, Ambassador Richard Butler, had ordered his inspectors to attempt to get into the field and conduct investigations, following which three teams—a missile team, a chemical weapons team and a biological weapons team—had gone out. The missile team had been the first to reach the inspection site, where they were told that they could proceed with the inspection, but without any members of United States nationality. The leader of the team had then explained to the Iraqis that that was unacceptable, as the skills of the Americans were essential to a full and adequate investigation. The team had then turned around

and returned to its base. By prior agreement, when the other two learned of the experience of the first team, they had also returned to their bases. . . . Mr. Eckhard announced that the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Transition Mission in Haiti (UNTMIH) was out as a Security Council document today. In it, the Secretary-General expressed his concern that Haiti had not had a fully-functioning government for more than four months, and urged the Haitian authorities and political leaders to find a political solution to the crisis in a spirit of tolerance and reconciliation. Mr. Eckhard said that the SecretaryGeneral had also received a letter from President Rene Preval, dated 29 October, in which President Preval indicated the need for “the assistance of a civilian police mission to support the training of police”. That letter was attached to the SecretaryGeneral’s report. In light of that letter, the Secretary-General had already approached several governments for contributions of civilian police, should the Security Council decide to take action on a follow-up mission in Haiti, he added. . . . A correspondent wondered what the point was about the mission of the Secretary-General’s threeman team to Iraq, since they could not negotiate. Was the idea simply to read the “riot act”, in view of the fact that the Iraqi Government had already been made aware that they have to comply with the United Nations resolutions? The Spokesman said there was nothing to negotiate. He stressed that it was a diplomatic effort to defuse a very tense and dangerous situation, adding that a number of governments had conveyed their concern to Iraq. “Any sense that the Security Council is divided on this issue has now been dispelled, and the next step is up to Iraq. This mission is looking to facilitate that next step.” He told another correspondent that there was no fixed duration for the mission. He noted that Mr. Cardenas had arrived in New York this morning; along with Mr. Brahimi who was already here, the two would leave for Geneva tonight, where Mr. Eliasson awaited their arrival. Tomorrow, the three men would leave for Baghdad. The Spokesman refused to discuss “potential responses or options that could be used to force the Iraqis to comply” with the Security Council resolution. Asked whether the ambassadors had had any contact, or would meet with the Security Council before their departure, Mr. Eckhard said that Ambassador Cardenas had met with the SecretaryGeneral this morning, along with Mr. Butler. He said he did not know whether the Council would

4 November 1997 • 249 ask to see them, but that there had been active consultation with members of the Council throughout the weekend on the proposed diplomatic mission. Mr. Eckhard was also asked under what Article of the United Nations Charter the current actions were being taken. He drew the correspondent’s attention to the Council’s consultations on Iraq, which were scheduled to begin today at 5 p.m. It would not be appropriate to comment at this time, he added. Recalling that the issue of weapons inspections in Iraq had originally been expected to last for a few months, a correspondent asked Mr. Eckhard to address the relationship between Iraq and the United Nations over the past seven years. He said that while it was true that the Commission initially set up had expected to be in existence for only a matter of months, it had soon become clear that Iraq’s cooperation would only be sporadic. Permanent staff was gradually taken on, and had been at work for six years. Mr. Butler had best summed it up at his press conference last week when he said that Iraq wanted to eat its cake and have it as well, as it seemed to want to hold on to the weapons and yet have the sanctions lifted. “The choice of which it is to be is up to Iraq”, Mr. Eckhard said. To another correspondent interested in UNSCOM personnel statistics, he said there were approximately 100 United Nations staff of UNSCOM, of which about 40 were inspectors, and the rest support or technical staff. American personnel of that 100 in Iraq today were seven. Asked whether Americans taken out since last Wednesday were being replaced by other nationalities, he said he did not know. The idea was that the rotation would continue normally, and the rotating back in of Americans had not been possible; but the rotating out of Americans, along with others, had continued. The Spokesman said he was not aware there was any attempt to replace Americans who were not allowed in with others, but he would double-check. He would also double-check about rotations for next Wednesday. To a correspondent who asked whether there was a scheduled U2 flight on Thursday, he replied: “I don’t think we announce the U2 flights”.

3 November 1997 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter to the president of the Security Council, Qin Huansun. I have the honour to inform you that, in an effort to help to resolve the situation resulting from the

decisions announced by the Government of Iraq on 29 October 1997 in relation to the implementation of Security Council resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions, I have decided to despatch a mission to Baghdad composed as follows: Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi (Algeria), Mr. Emilio Cardenas (Argentina), Mr. Jan Eliasson (Sweden). The Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. Tariq Aziz, confirmed to me this morning the readiness of his Government to receive the mission which will depart from New York this evening. I shall inform the Security Council of the outcome of the mission as soon as possible. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

3 November 1997 Secretary-General’s Mission to Baghdad Leaves Tonight

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6377); Iraq The mission appointed by the Secretary-General to travel to Baghdad will be departing tonight and is expected to arrive in Baghdad on Tuesday, or at the latest on Wednesday. In a telephone conversation this morning, the Secretary-General was informed by the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz, of the readiness of the Government of Iraq to receive the mission. The members are Lakhdar Brahimi (who will lead the mission), Emilio Cardenas and Jan Eliasson.

4 November 1997 Iraq Agrees to Postpone Deadline for Expulsion of Americans

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6379); Iraq The Secretary-General spoke by phone with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz this morning and urged him to postpone the Thursday deadline that Iraq sought to impose for the expulsion of American members of the United Nations inspection team. The purpose of his request was to provide an opportunity for his three envoys to discuss with the Iraqi authorities the importance of Iraq complying with the Security Council resolutions governing the work of the United Nations team. The Secretary-General is pleased to announce that Mr. Aziz has informed him that the Government of Iraq will comply with his request.

250 • 4 November 1997

He has been assured that no members of the team will be expelled from Iraq while his envoys are in the country. The Secretary-General welcomes this action as a positive beginning of the talks that will take place starting tomorrow, when the envoys will meet the Deputy Prime Minister in the afternoon. Their task will be both delicate and difficult. Let’s all wish them success.

4 November 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, said at today’s briefing that in Baghdad this morning, three teams of the United Nations Special Commission set up under Security Council resolution 687 (1991)—one on missiles, another on chemical weapons and the third on biological weapons—had departed the Commission’s Baghdad Monitoring and Verification Centre for their inspection sites. On arrival at those sites, they were told by the Iraqi officials that they could continue their inspections, but not with United States nationals. As the teams could not proceed under those circumstances, they had returned to the Verification Centre. The Executive Chairman of UNSCOM, Richard Butler, had informed the Security Council in writing this morning of that incident and the Council would discuss Iraq today on its agenda under ‘Other Matters’. Meanwhile, Mr. Eckhard continued, the three United Nations envoys, headed by Lakhdar Brahimi, were on their way to Kuwait, travelling via Frankfurt, (not Geneva as the Spokesman had announced yesterday, at an earlier stage in the planning process). The team was expected to arrive in Kuwait shortly. They would spend the night there and leave tomorrow for Habbaniyah Airfield, near Baghdad, on a regularly-scheduled flight of the United Nations IraqKuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM). Their first meeting with the Iraqi delegation, led by Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, was scheduled to start at the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the afternoon. Mr. Eckhard said that the “oil-for-food” programme in Iraq had not been hindered by the current developments and the United Nations had yesterday provided Iraq with Weekly Report No. 37 on the implementation of that programme. Last week, the 661 Committee, which oversees the

sanctions on Iraq, had approved seven humanitarian sales contracts under Phase II, which was the current 180-day period. He recalled that the Committee had also approved 16 sales contracts and put 17 applications on hold, under Phase I, the previous 180-day period. The total oil proceeds in Phase II had reached nearly $1 billion by the end of last week, half the amount authorized by the Security Council. Copies of that Report were available in the Spokesman’s Office. Drawing attention to the Secretary-General’s appointments for today, he noted the meeting with the Permanent Representatives of China, Egypt, France, Poland and Russia, identifying them as members of the Security Council who have embassies in Baghdad. He pointed out that Poland represented the United States in Baghdad, while Russia represented the United Kingdom. The Secretary-General had asked to meet with them because of the mission of the three United Nations envoys. Concerning the Security Council, Mr. Eckhard said that in addition to its discussion of Iraq today, it would also discuss its programme of work, as well as the Secretary-General’s report on the Central African Republic. . . . [Later, Mr. Eckhard issued the following statement, attributable to the Spokesman for the Secretary-General:] “The Secretary-General spoke by phone with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz this morning and urged him to postpone the Thursday deadline that Iraq sought to impose for the expulsion of American members of the United Nations inspection team. The purpose of his request was to provide an opportunity for his three envoys to discuss with the Iraqi authorities the importance of Iraq complying with the Security Council resolutions governing the work of the United Nations team. The SecretaryGeneral is pleased to announce that Mr. Aziz has informed him that the Government of Iraq will comply with his request. He has been assured that no members of the team will be expelled from Iraq while his envoys are in the country. The Secretary-General welcomes this action as a positive beginning of the talks that will take place starting tomorrow, when the envoys will meet with the Deputy Prime Minister in the afternoon. Their task will be both delicate and difficult. Let’s all wish them success.”

6 November 1997 Letter (UN archives); emergency relief coordination

7 November 1997 • 251 Internal note from the under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, Yasushi Akashi, updating the Secretary-General on field coordination for emergency relief situations. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Field Coordination Arrangements in Complex Emergencies

1. Further to my note of 17 September, I wish to keep you up-dated on recent interagency decisions on field coordination arrangements. You may recall that the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), in the context of the review of the capacity of the United Nations system in humanitarian assistance, had previously discussed and agreed on procedures for field coordination arrangements. 2. In the context of your report on reform, which referred to the option of designating a lead agency, and as a follow-up to the IASC deliberations, the Executive Committee on Humanitarian Affairs (ECHA) discussed this issue and has agreed on the following arrangements for field coordination: (a) The IASC under the chairmanship of the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) should decide on the appropriate field coordination mechanism for each complex emergency, on a case by case basis, and based on a “menu approach” drawing from three options: (i) the Resident Coordinator (RC) as Humanitarian Coordinator (HC); (ii) the lead agency; and (iii) in special circumstances, a HC distinct from the office of the RC or lead agency. (b) The criteria for deciding among these options include: (i) the nature of the emergency, for example, a multidimensional complex emergency requiring a relatively comprehensive approach (tending towards the RC-HC model); an emergency dominated by one overriding cause/response requirement (tending towards the lead agency model); a trans-country or regional emergency; (ii) agency capacity for system coordination; (iii) leadership skills of the RC or of the potential lead agency country director/designated person. 3. In all the above cases, the Humanitarian Coordinator will continue to be accountable to the ERC. ECHA also agreed that the evolutionary nature of a complex emergency required the IASC to review coordination arrangements sys-

tematically with a view to changing them as and when appropriate. ECHA further agreed that the management and administration of the field coordination unit was the responsibility of the Humanitar-ian Coordinator and that the unit should benefit from secondees from IASC member organizations. 4. ECHA noted that decision-making on field coordination arrangements is within the purview of the IASC. ECHA recommended, therefore, that any decisions by the Secretary-General concerning field coordination arrangements should be made in consultation with the ERC, in his/her capacity as humanitarian adviser to the Secretary-General and as chairperson of the IASC, who represents the IASC membership, which includes non-UN bodies in the humanitarian field.

7 November 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, noted at the beginning of today’s briefing that the Secretary-General had issued a statement last night from Santiago, Chile, which said that if Iraq did not respond positively to his request that they resume full compliance with Security Council resolutions, he would terminate his diplomatic mission and refer the matter to the Council. The Secretary-General’s three envoys had left Baghdad today, following their press conference, which had been played back at 10 a.m. on the in-house television. They were expected to return to New York over the weekend to finalize their report. In turn, the Secretary-General would shorten his visit to Latin America by one day and return to New York on Sunday. The Security Council was expected to take up Iraq on Monday, he added. He said that the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq’s disposal of weapons of mass destruction, Richard Butler, had again sent out inspection teams today. The scenario of the last four days had been repeated, with the teams being unable to carry out their inspections because of Iraqi opposition to the presence of United States inspectors. Mr. Eckhard told correspondents that in continuation of his Latin American visit, the Secretary-General would be in Venezuela over the weekend for the Seventh Ibero-American Summit. Today was a travel day for him, from Santiago, Chile, to Margarita Island, in Venezuela.

252 • 7 November 1997

Tomorrow, he would attend the Summit, where he would address the group in the afternoon. An embargoed text of that address, in English and Spanish, was available in the Spokesman’s Office (Press Release SG/SM/6385). The Summit would conclude on Sunday afternoon, and the signing of the Margarita Declaration was expected at 3:30 p.m.; the Secretary-General was assumed to be leaving for New York after that. . . . Asked about the Secretary-General’s feelings concerning his mission to Iraq, and whether he felt he had “lost face”, Mr. Eckhard said the SecretaryGeneral had only been doing his job and there was no question of losing face. He had tried to provide a peaceful alternative, but from the comments made by the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, in Baghdad today, it appeared that his offer of an opportunity to climb down had been rejected. The Secretary-General would discuss with the three envoys on Sunday night and Monday morning, their approach to the Security Council on Monday afternoon, as the matter would now go to the Council. Did he have copies of the letter sent to Ambassador Butler threatening to shoot at United States planes? “I don’t have that letter”, Mr. Eckhard said, “and I don’t know if I could give it to you if I had it”. He would, however, look into the issue. He was also asked how the statement made by the Secretary-General in Chile last night “squared with” what Tariq Aziz said this morning, which sounded as if Iraq was not prepared to back down. Would the Secretary-General now terminate his involvement in the issue? Mr. Eckhard said that the Secretary-General wanted first to discuss fully with the three envoys what they had heard in Baghdad, and then prepare with them for the Council on Monday. “But certainly, Mr. Tariq Aziz’s comments today indicate that they are not going to back down, and so, you can assume from that that the direction the SecretaryGeneral is moving is towards what he said: terminate the mission, passing the ball to the Security Council, but that decision would not be made by him until he has had a chance to talk to the envoys.” To a question about the “ground rules” concerning United States visas, and whether the United States might limit visas to Tariq Aziz and those who might wish to travel with him to New York next week, Mr. Eckhard said that under the terms of the Host Country Agreement, the United States agreed not to impede access to United

Nations Headquarters to the representatives of Member States. The United Nations would expect that they would comply and provide those visas. Asked the number of United Nations staff in Iraq, and where they were located, the Spokesman said there were about 100 with UNSCOM. He would find out how many were in the “oil-forfood” and any other programmes of the Organization. [He later made available an accounting, which totalled 503 staff in Iraq.] . . .

7 November 1997 Letter (EOSG); landmines Letter from Lloyd Axworthy, Canadian minister for foreign affairs, inviting the Secretary-General to Canada. See the Secretary-General’s positive response dated 20 November. Excellency: It gives me great pleasure to invite you to Ottawa, from December 2 to 4, 1997, when the global community will join in signing the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of AntiPersonnel Mines and on their Destruction”, recently concluded at Oslo. This achievement would not have been possible without your active personal advocacy. In recognition of your role, and the ongoing part you and the United Nations will play in the implementation of the treaty, I hope that you will be able to address the Conference during the opening plenary on December 3. As part of the Ottawa meeting, we will hold a Mine Action Forum, an extensive series of roundtable discussions with representatives from states, NGOs, international and regional institutions, organizations, and experts. The purpose of these sessions will be to map out a practical strategy and action plan for a strengthened and coordinated international effort to ensure the effective implementation of the convention including: early entry into force, universalization, improved demining efforts, and humanitarian assistance for the care and social and economic reintegration of victims. To this end, I would also invite you to bring accompanying officials who might be able to make a substantive contribution to the Mine Action Forum. I enclose a draft Conference Agenda. I hope that you will join me in December to witness the formal opening for signature of this historic legal document and to continue our coop-

8 November 1997 • 253 erative efforts on this crucial humanitarian issue. Sincerely,

7 November 1997 Letter (EOSG); Tanzania/Burundi Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Qin Huasun. An English version does not exist. Monsieur le Président, La tension monte depuis le mois d’août dernier à la frontière de la Tanzanie et du Burundi. Des incidents ont été signalés aux mois de septembre et octobre provoquant des déplacements de la population civile de part et d’autre de la frontière. Le Gouvernement tanzanien m’avait fait part, dans une note du 22 août 1997, de la détérioration des relations entre le Burundi et la Tanzanie, et m’avait prie d’user de mon influence en vue d’éviter que la tension entre les deux pays ne dégénère en conflit. Le 2 octobre dernier, le Ministre des Affaires étrangères du Burundi m’avait adresse une lettre sollicitant 1’appui des Nations Unies pour le règlement de la situation des réfugiés burundais en général, et en particulier celle des réfugiés burundais installés en Tanzanie. En vue de contribuer à la recherche d’une solution pacifique à la tension qui persiste à la frontière de la Tanzanie et du Burundi, j’ai décidé de dépêcher au Burundi et en Tanzanie et à la frontière des deux pays une mission d’établissement des faits. Les termes de référence de ladite mission comportent les volets suivants: (a) Etablir les faits qui sont à 1’origine des affrontements récents a la frontière tanzanoburundaise. (b) Faire rapport sur les incidences de ces affrontements sur les relations entre les deux pays et sur le processus de paix au Burundi (c) Etablir les faits quart a la présence des réfugiés le long de la frontière et les conséquences éventuelles de cette présence sur la paix et la sécurité dans les deux pays. La mission sera dirigée par 1’Ambassadeur Berhanu Dinka, mon Représentant et Conseiller régional pour les Affaires humanitaires dans la région des Grands Lacs de 1’Afrique centrale. La mission comprendra, par ailleurs, des fonctionnaires du Département des Opérations de maintien de la paix, du Département des Affaires humanitaires, du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les refugiés et un fonctionnaire du Bureau des Nations Unies a Bujumbura.

J’espère que 1’envoi de cette mission souhaité par les Gouvernements burundais et tanzanien contribuera à faire baisser la tension a la frontière tanzano-burundaise et a créer un climat de confiance proprice à la normalisation des relations entre les deux pays. Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le Président, les assurances de ma très haute considération.

8 November 1997 Secretary-General Speaks of Ethical Values of Democracy at Ibero-American Summit

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6385); demorcracy Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the Ibero-American Summit, Margarita Island, Venezuela. The theme of this Ibero-American Summit—the ethical values of democracy—is most appropriate, both as to time and place. Across the world, some 120 countries now hold generally free and fair elections, the highest total in history. And the most recent wave of democratization began in this region, in some cases preceding by a decade the tumultuous events of 1989 in Central and Eastern Europe. Indeed, the Ibero-American contribution to the practice of democracy not only is altering the socio-political and economic landscape of your region; it also serves as an exemplar of democratization in action for nations elsewhere. And it enriches the very discourse of democracy. Prior to the swelling of the most recent wave of democratization, democratic institutions, in many instances, were honoured in form more than in substance. In some cases, democratic rule was seen as a luxury that developing countries, in particular, could not yet afford, or even as an outright impediment to their economic progress. Furthermore, the justifications for democratic rule frequently felt alien to many who had been exploited by the imperialism of those who propagated these values. Your struggle and your experience has helped transform this discourse. You showed that democracy can deliver: in the South no less than the North. You showed that effective, transparent, accountable and participatory government, subject to the rule of law, needs to underpin sustainable economic development, not languish as a distant promise. Your experience has also demonstrated that the process of democratic transition can be difficult. And yet, continued dedication to the goals, as well

254 • 8 November 1997

as patience with the means, remains the only viable course. For there can be no sustained development of the people, for the people and by the people if their governments are not so constituted. We at the United Nations are proud to have been able to assist you in these noble endeavours. Many of our programmes to promote good governance, protect human rights, provide electoral assistance, facilitate post-conflict peace-building and, of course, to foster development, first took root in the Ibero-American world. In addition, our peacekeeping missions in several instances contributed to the stability that made democratic transitions possible. At the same time, we must acknowledge that further challenges lie ahead and devise the means to meet them. Two stand out above all others. The first is to consolidate democratic gains. In many instances, newly democratized political institutions remain fragile, and civil society even more so. Strengthening political institutions involves creating more effective and responsive legislatures, more independent judiciaries, and more accountable bureaucracies. A robust civil society, in turn, requires a culture of participation for all members of society, including women and minorities. And it must represent a civic space, embodying civic values, that can perform a balancing role vis-a-vis the State and private sector alike. Even as many of the new and restored democracies are engaged in the process of democratic consolidation, a very different challenge is emerging for which there is neither historical precedent nor philosophical guidance. It is generated by the forces of globalization. Historically, the locus of democratic theory and practice has been “the people” in a delimited territory. Globalization in some respects renders that locus problematic. What is the meaning of participation and consent when forces beyond borders weigh heavily on internal outcomes? What is the scope of citizenship and of citizenship rights? To whom should transnational forms of socio-economic organization be held accountable? And how should that accountability be structured? I hasten to add that the issue here is not one of world government, which is as impractical as it is undesirable. Rather, the issue is devising more inclusive forms of democratic control, permitting the democratic reach to extend beyond borders in order to supplement its flowering within national political communities. The challenges we face as public servants are

enormous, the obstacles considerable, the criticisms bountiful, the clear-cut successes elusive. Yet, how fortunate we are to serve at this moment in history, for the moment is truly historic. We have the opportunity to reshape not only the entities we lead, but the parts they play in devising the newest institutional forms yet in a quest that goes back through the millennia: giving political expression to the sanctity of human dignity. Permit me to wish you—to wish all of us—the courage and endurance that stems from the knowledge that our cause is just.

10 November 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s press briefing by stating that the Secretary-General had returned from the Ibero-American summit in Venezuela a day early, arriving in New York at about 2 p.m. yesterday. He had met with his three envoys to Baghdad at about 5:30 p.m., and they presented him with their report. At about 6:30 p.m., that meeting had been joined by the Executive Director of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was set up in connection with the disposal of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction; the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Kieran Prendergast; and the UnderSecretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, Hans Corell. They discussed the report which the Secretary-General would present, in summary form, to the Security Council this afternoon. In connection with Iraq, the Secretary-General had met with the President of the Security Council this morning at 10 a.m., Mr. Eckhard said. That had been followed by a meeting with the permanent members of the Security Council at 10:30 a.m. on the same subject. At 11:30 a.m., he had also met with the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz. At the time of the briefing, the Secretary-General was meeting with his three envoys, and would come to room S-226 with them at about 12:20 p.m. to speak to correspondents. Still on Iraq, Mr. Eckhard said that the Secretary-General had this morning received a letter from the Foreign Minister of that country, Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf, on the subject of the U-2 flight that had taken place safely over Iraq today. The Secretary-General was transmitting that

10 November 1997 • 255 letter to the Security Council, which had scheduled closed consultations on Iraq at 3:30 p.m. Drawing attention to the appointments of the Secretary-General for today, he noted that he had also met with the three members of his human rights investigative team for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which would leave for the Congo tonight. They expected the cooperation of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in order to deploy into the field within days. . . . The third round of Indonesian-Portuguese talks on East Timor at the senior officials level had concluded on Friday, he also said. The talks, which had been conducted by the Personal Representative of the Secretary-General, Jamsheed Marker, had lasted three days, and were described as “businesslike and constructive”. Asked about the itinerary of the human rights investigative team to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he said they would depart New York tonight. The correspondent asked if their mandate had changed: was it still the Secretary-General’s mandate, or “Mr. Bill Richardson’s [United States Permanent Representative] communique”. It was still the Secretary-General’s mandate, answered Mr. Eckhard, which was spelled out in the annex to his letter of 15 July.

10 November 1997 Press Conference with the Secretary-General and Members of the Mission to Iraq at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6386); Iraq SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I think you all know the team here and I do not need to introduce Mr. Cárdenas, Mr. Brahimi and Mr. Eliasson, who went to Baghdad and got back here yesterday. I acted last week in support of the Security Council in an attempt to resolve the stalemate on Iraq by sending this special mission to that country. My envoys, Mr. Brahimi, Mr. Cárdenas and Mr. Eliasson, have returned to New York after two days of consultations in Baghdad, and they briefed me last night. I also met Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz today, and he reiterated the position of his Government and raised a number of grievances. I underscored the message my envoys had taken to Baghdad, stressing that all that needed to be done and all that was required was for Iraq to undertake

to comply with its obligations under all relevant Security Council resolutions, but that once that was done, I would expect that the Security Council, in turn, would be prepared to listen to Iraq and to its grievances. I believe that if this were to be done by Iraq, and the Council were to listen to them, they in effect would have obtained what they did ask the mission to do. They wanted a hearing; they have not had a hearing for a long time. I would hope that now that Mr. Tariq Aziz is here—he has just arrived—he did not give me the answer I had hoped for in Baghdad and he has not given it to me yet, but I hope that all is not lost and that there could be some room to manoeuvre and that, down the line, in the next day or so, we will have the right decisions taken. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. Tariq Aziz—is he expected to give you an answer within a certain amount of time before the Council acts on additional sanctions or calling this a breach of the ceasefire? Secondly, if the Iraqis do not comply, do you think that they are in material breach of the ceasefire resolution? S-G: Let me, first of all, say that it is unusual for me to get involved in the operations of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). It is a matter between Iraq and the Security Council. I became involved because I thought I should do whatever I can to try and defuse the situation, to try and de-escalate before things got out of hand. I think down the line Iraq and the Security Council will have to resolve this issue, if my attempts to resolve the issue, my offer of a ladder, my offer to work with all concerned to defuse it, do not work: it will be between Iraq and the Security Council. As I said, Mr. Tariq Aziz is in town. He has not given me a different message yet, and if that were not to come it will now have to be direct dealings between Iraq and the Council. QUESTION: Are you concerned that this could not be resolved, this may not be resolved, and it may result in a violent outcome? S-G: That concern has always been there, and that was one of the reasons we sent the mission. QUESTION: The mission comes back optimistic or pessimistic? MR. BRAHIMI: As I said yesterday, we are diplomats, so as long as it is possible we will go on trying to find solutions. But I think the situation is extremely serious, and, with the SecretaryGeneral’s permission, I think my two colleagues

256 • 10 November 1997

and I told our Iraqi hosts that we very, very much hope that they return to the system, as Ambassador Cárdenas said, and work within the system. They have grievances. These grievances must be listened to and taken into account. But that can be done when they get into the system, not before. QUESTION: Mr. Annan, you are talking about giving Iraq more time. What exactly did Mr. Aziz say to you? Did he indicate that they are still contemplating what to do? And what will your message be to the Security Council—that it should hold off on action? S-G: No. First of all, it is not within my power to give more time or less time. That is a decision for the Security Council. This is a Security Council matter. I, as I said, got into this because I had wanted to defuse the situation. Now, the Council will have to decide what it does. When I say that Mr. Tariq Aziz has just arrived, and that he has not yet given me the answer I had hoped for, I am basically saying that maybe within the next day or so, or the next couple of—I don’t know. Can the Council wait? Will the Council be prepared to wait? I don’t know, and I am not running the Council. I’m sorry. QUESTION: Mr. Brahimi, if I may, what is the ultimate objective of Iraq, from your discussions with them? Do they want to break all relations with the United Nations? It seems as if they are looking for a fight. What is it they want, exactly? MR. BRAHIMI: Tariq Aziz is here, and you know he is a very eloquent man, and I’m sure he will tell you much better than I. But what they insisted on all the time is that they don’t want a fight with the Security Council, they don’t want a fight with the United Nations. They would like to comply. But they have problems. And they have told us what these problems are, and I think you are familiar with them. Mr. Tariq Aziz told this press conference all the problems they have, and that they think that these problems must be taken into consideration. The very big problem, which is very visible to everybody, is, of course, the suffering of the Iraqi people, which is real. I think that has been reported and documented by the United Nations on several occasions. QUESTION: Mr. Brahimi, when Richard Butler took over earlier this year, one of the things he was saying was that he hoped that if he could prove that the Iraqis had complied, all of the sanctions would be lifted and the mother of all resolutions would be voided. But there seem to be persistent whispers and hints and asides from the Administration in Washington that they would not, under any circum-

stances, while Saddam Hussein is in power, consider lifting those. Do you think that this is helpful towards achieving Iraqi cooperation? Did they raise the question of the light at the end of the tunnel? MR. BRAHIMI: Oh yes, they spoke about that a great deal. And I think what they said was that they fear that these sanctions are not going to be lifted. I would not comment on what the Americans say or don’t say. But what the Iraqis told us is that this is one of their major concerns. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, as a matter of principle, can you accept a nation such as Iraq dictating what countries would be members of the inspection group or any United Nations group? S-G: No, definitely not. I think that how United Nations teams are composed is strictly a matter for the United Nations. These teams are composed on the basis of competence, on the needs. And it is the United Nations and UNSCOM that make that determination. And the same goes for the personnel working for us around the world. We determine who does it. QUESTION: I would like to address this to Mr. Brahimi and the other envoys. I’ve been looking through the documents from UNSCOM, and they are very overt in rejecting Iraq’s claims to have gotten rid of its germ warfare, biological warfare capacity. They describe a pattern of evasion, concealment, deception, lying, etc. In your many hours of listening to the Iraqis, did they ever give you anything plausible that you can hang onto, that would explain their position or their justification or their motive for concealing these biological weapons? MR. BRAHIMI: We are not technicians, and the instructions of the Secretary-General were that we would not go into the technical decisions of how the work has proceeded, what has been achieved and what still remains to be achieved. We, the three of us, simply could not go into that. As the Secretary-General said, this is the business of UNSCOM, which is mandated by the Security Council to do that work and to report to the United Nations on it. We simply could not go into it or discuss this problem. QUESTION: From what the accounts were, you were treated to many hours, if not days, of speeches and explanations and lectures, and so on. Did they give any—was there anything in there that explained in a way that we have not heard why they are found not to be complying? Did they say anything? MR. BRAHIMI: They said a lot of things, but we told them that it is not up to us either to agree or disagree with what they said or pass judgement on

10 November 1997 • 257 what they say. Our task in that field was to bring back to the United Nations what they told us. S-G: I think Mr. Brahimi is absolutely correct. The message they took was clear—to seek full compliance by Iraq with all relevant Security Council resolutions and to rescind this decision of 29 October. They were not there to get into negotiations or anything of the kind, but they were also to listen and to bring back what the Iraqis told them. That is exactly what they have done. Perhaps, before we close, I would like to ask the other two envoys if there is anything they would like to say. MR. ELIASSON: We had two tasks. One was to very clearly convey the message from the Secretary-General which you have just heard described. And the other one was to listen to their grievances and concerns. What we spent time with was not only listening to the Iraqi exposés, but also arguing why they should rescind their decision, why it should be in their enlightened self-interest to work inside the system—one of the reasons being that they could indeed have a fairer hearing if they were to comply with the Security Council resolutions. They are outside the system and have grievances. These grievances will not be heard. And that shows them the relationship between our first task and the second task. MR. CARDENAS: Just a footnote. We also told them that the requests they were making were unrealistic. And I only hope that by talking to the Secretary-General, by talking to the P-5, by talking to the Security Council, they will realize that it is unrealistic to request what they are requesting as they are requesting it.

10 November 1997 Secretary-General to Inform Security Council of Outcome of His Initiative on Iraq

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6388, IK/230); Iraq As you know, I acted last week in support of the Security Council to attempt to resolve the stalemate on Iraq by sending a special mission to that country. My envoys, Lakhdar Brahimi, Emilio Cardenas and Jan Eliasson, have returned to New York after two days of consultations in Baghdad. They briefed me last night about the position of the Government of Iraq. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz came today to see me and reiterated this position, raising a number of grievances. I underscored the message my envoys had taken to Baghdad, stressing that all that was required was for Iraq to

undertake to comply fully with its obligations under all relevant Security Council resolutions. Once that was done, I would expect that the Security Council, in turn, would be prepared to listen to the concerns of the Government of Iraq. I will inform the Security Council this afternoon of the nature and outcome of my initiative. My envoys will accompany me to the Council. I regret that the Government of Iraq has not yet seen its way to ending this unfortunate situation by complying with the requirements of the Council.

10 November 1997 Secretary-General Welcomes Breakthrough in Impasse in DRC

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6389); Democratic Republic of Congo The Secretary-General wishes to refer to the joint Press Statement issued by the United States Special Envoy, Bill Richardson, and the Minister for Reconstruction and Emergency Planning of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Etienne Richared Mbaya, in Kinshasa on 25 October, in connection with the Investigative Team appointed under his authority to investigate the serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law alleged to have been committed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since March 1993. At the press conference on the same day, President Laurent-Desire Kabila confirmed the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s commitments contained in that Statement which builds on the Secretary-General’s letter to President Kabila of 15 July setting forth the Team’s mandate. These public statements represent a breakthrough in the impasse which has confronted the Investigative Team in its efforts to fulfil its mandate. The Secretary-General congratulates Ambas-sador Richardson for this significant achievement. On 29 October, Ambassador Richardson met the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, in Geneva. At that meeting, Ambassador Richardson appraised the High Commissioner of the discussions in Kinshasa and other capitals in the region and the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s commitments regarding the implementation of the mandate of the Investigative Team. Ambassador Richardson advised the High Commissioner that his discussions in Kinshasa and the joint Press Statement confirmed the man-

258 • 10 November 1997

date of the Team as set out in the SecretaryGeneral’s letter to President Kabila on 15 July. The Secretary-General wishes also to express his appreciation to President Kabila for his public statement committing his Government to cooperating with the Investigative Team in a way which will allow the Team to carry out the mandate entrusted to it. The members of the Team are currently en route to Kinshasa to pursue their investigation.

13 November 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq ... “The Secretary-General met with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz of Iraq this morning at 10 a.m. “The Deputy Prime Minister had come to say goodbye, and to inform the Secretary-General of Iraq’s decision to expel United States members of the United Nations inspection mission. “The United Nations could continue its normal work, Mr. Aziz said, with personnel of other nationalities. However, U-2 flights must cease, although Iraq hoped to avoid a military confrontation. “Mr. Aziz assured the Secretary-General that Iraq did not want a confrontation with the United Nations, and did not want an escalation of current tensions. He hoped that the United Nations Special Commission would continue its inspections until a diplomatic solution could be found. Iraq wished to continue a dialogue to that end. “The Secretary-General responded that the situation could have been resolved through diplomatic effort, which is why he sent his team to Baghdad and worked with the Security Council to find a solution. It is regrettable, he said, that these strenuous efforts had not been successful. “The matter is now in the hands of the Security Council.” . . . Mr. Eckhard then said that there was as yet no definite time for a Security Council meeting on Iraq, but there were indications that the Council was aiming for consultations sometime in the afternoon. Meanwhile, the new Executive Director of the United Nations-Iraq programme, Benon Sevan, had left for Baghdad and was expected to arrive there tomorrow. Reminding correspondents that Mr. Sevan was also the United Nations Security Coordinator, he pointed out that it would be his first visit to Iraq in his new capacity. The trip was planned

several weeks ago, he added, its objective being for Mr. Sevan to familiarize himself with the operation of the “oil-for-food” programme on the ground, and to prepare for the next 180-day report on the implementation of that programme, which he hoped to finalize and issue by 28 November. The current 180day period comes to an end on 5 December. Mr. Sevan would be meeting with the various heads of United Nations agencies in Baghdad, and was also planning a four-day visit to northern Iraq. He was expected to leave Iraq on 23 November. The Secretary-General was at the time of the briefing attending the tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly, Mr. Eckhard said. Concerning other appointments for today, he said that the Secretary-General had been scheduled to travel to Boston this afternoon to deliver a public lecture at Harvard University; that trip was now cancelled. . . . Following the vote of the United States Congress last night, it seemed that the United Nations would not get its arrears from the United States, a correspondent said. Did the SecretaryGeneral have a comment on that? No, Mr. Eckhard said, remarking that it was somewhat ironic that those events happened on the same day that the General Assembly had approved a substantial portion of the Secretary-General’s reform package. “We understand that ‘it’s not over till it’s over’,” he added. “There might be another day, and we understand that the Administration has not given up trying to get this money from Congress.” . . .

13 November 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/888); Iraq Letter to the president of the Security Council, Qin Huasun. Dear Mr. President, This morning, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. Tariq Aziz saw me prior to his departure. He took the opportunity to convey the position of his Government on the present situation relating to the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which I feel I should convey to you. The position is as follows. The Government of Iraq has taken the decision to expel the US individuals of UNSCOM. In this regard, Mr. Aziz wished the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to be informed that Iraq’s decision had been, and remained, that UNSCOM could continue its normal work with other officials. If UNSCOM wished to send other personnel to conduct its nor-

14 November 1997 • 259 mal work, they would be welcome. If not, and the monitors were withdrawn, the Chairman of UNSCOM would bear the responsibility. Mr. Aziz assured me that he did not want a confrontation with the Security Council or with UNSCOM. If UNSCOM did not want to escalate the present situation he hoped that it would conduct its work until a solution could be found to the problem through diplomatic means and channels. Iraq hoped to avoid a military confrontation and the activities and flights by U-2 aircraft should be ceased. Mr. Aziz reiterated that Iraq wished to continue contacts, and continue a dialogue to find a suitable solution to the situation. You might wish to share this information with the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

13 November 1997 Secretary-General Meets with Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6392); Iraq The Secretary-General met with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz of Iraq this morning at 10 a.m. The Deputy Prime Minister had come to say goodbye and to inform the Secretary-General of Iraq’s decision to expel United States members of the United Nations inspection mission. The United Nations could continue its normal work, Mr. Aziz said, with personnel of other nationalities. However, U-2 flights must cease, although Iraq hoped to avoid a military confrontation. Mr. Aziz assured the Secretary-General that Iraq did not want a confrontation with the United Nations and did not want an escalation of current tensions. He hoped that the United Nations Special Commission would continue its inspections until a diplomatic solution could be found. Iraq wished to continue a dialogue to that end. The Secretary-General responded that the situation could have been resolved through diplomatic effort, which is why he sent his team to Baghdad and worked with the Security Council to find a solution. It is regrettable, he said, that these strenuous efforts had not been successful. The matter is now in the hands of the Security Council.

14 November 1997 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6393); United States SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It’s good to see you again. But first, I have two announcements to make. The first one is really on the financial situation of the Organization. As you know, the United States Congress did not act on proposed legislation that would have taken a significant step towards funding the more than $1 billion in overdue United States payments to the Organization. It is both unreasonable and regrettable that the legislation was held hostage to the entirely unrelated domestic policies of abortion. I am disappointed and concerned. The failure comes during a week when the United Nations Security Council has been seized of the crisis regarding arms inspections in Iraq, in which the United Nations plays a role that is indispensable to international peace and security, as well as to the vital national security interests of the United States. And it comes also on the day after the General Assembly endorsed a major component of my proposals for institutional reforms. I am grateful to all those in the Clinton Administration and the Congress, as well as the public at large, who worked tirelessly to see this happen. And I know that they, like us, are dismayed at the outcome. But the United Nations must move on. We will, of course, continue our efforts to reform the Organization and revitalize it. I have said since I was elected Secretary-General on 17 December 1996 that we must reform for our own sake. We must revitalize this Organization to make it effective and relevant, and not to please any particular constituency. At the same time, we must also take serious stock of our financial vulnerabilities. First of all, we have been borrowing from peacekeeping funds to pay our regular budget bills. This practice is imprudent, at best. Because United States arrears payments have not been legislated in the expected amount, I cannot assure the prospect of repayment to those Member States that have supplied troops and matériel to United Nations peacekeeping missions, many of which are developing countries. Therefore, I would like guidance from the General Assembly on whether and how to continue this practice. Secondly, I am asking the President of the General Assembly to reconvene, as a matter of urgency, the Assembly’s high-level group on finance to explore all possible options for ensuring prompt payment by Member States of their dues,

260 • 14 November 1997

and to report their recommendations before the end of the current session of the General Assembly. The next item on my agenda is a more pleasant one. I want to announce the appointment of Sergio Vieira de Mello as the new Emergency Relief Coordinator in the Department of Humanitarian Affairs. Mr. Vieira de Mello comes to us with years of experience in the humanitarian field, having worked many years in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). He has worked in many parts of the world, from Bosnia to Cambodia to the Great Lakes, where, recently, he acted as a major envoy for Mrs. Ogata on the difficult issue in that region. So he will join us in December. And, ladies and gentlemen, I present Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello. MR. VIERA DE MELLO: Mr. Secretary-General, I am extremely grateful and honoured by your decision. As a career staff member, I am proud to be invited to be part of your team. As you said, I hope to contribute my modest field experience in humanitarian and peacekeeping operations to the strengthening of the Office of the Emergency Relief Coordinator, in a spirit of entire, total loyalty, solidarity and transparency towards those to whom we are accountable, including yourselves. It is essential that the new office be an effective support mechanism to those operational agencies that actually do the work on the ground. And we will try and do that on the basis of the three pillars that you announced in your 16 July reform plan: advocacy; policy development; and cooperation. I know the last word often sounds like a bad word, but we will make it work. We will make it work, I repeat, in a service- and support-oriented manner, with your full backing, which I know I will enjoy. And since solutions to humanitarian problems and to the threat—the challenge—that humanitarian principles and action presently face cannot be humanitarian and can only be found through political and, at times, unfortunately, military, but also human rights and development means, I also pledge to work in very close coordination with other actors in the United Nations system and outside, towards comprehensive solutions to the major humanitarian crises that the Organization presently faces. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, first, thank you very much for sharing time with us. Do you have any plans or any thoughts about the possibility of pulling out of Iraq those involved in the oil-

for-food-and-medicine programme, specifically given that the current atmosphere has moved away from diplomacy? And what would trigger that? And secondly, what do you think of the Iraqis going to the palaces and factories as human shields? What is your opinion of this sort of thing? S-G: First of all, let me say that at this stage we have no plans to stop the oil-for-food scheme. The operations will continue. It was and it is intended to help the Iraqi population—women, children and vulnerable populations. And we have no reason to stop that. That will continue. I would also hope—you all saw Tariq Aziz on television last night still arguing that it will be possible to solve this through diplomatic means. I hope this implies that no one is closed-minded and that it is still possible for some gestures or initiatives to be taken to resolve this in a manner that will avoid the use of force. I have now seen on television the Iraqi populations that have moved into the palaces of President Saddam Hussein, and of course this also reminds me of what happened in the 1990s when the term “human shield” was first coined, if I may say so. I would hope that—no, I shouldn’t say that. No, no. We were shocked by that. I don’t think that women and children should be used in that situation. I mean, in fact the sense here is that they volunteered, but even if they had volunteered and, indeed, the Government felt that there was going to be an attack, you don’t put women and children in those situations. And they should have been prevented from placing themselves in harm’s way, if the Government generally believes there is going to be an attack. QUESTION: Are you not putting the employees of the United Nations in harm’s way by not even considering pulling them out, since there are indications of a military operation? S-G: I am not sure that we have got to that stage yet. We would definitely not put our staff in harm’s way. And the moment we feel their lives are in danger, we will pull them out. We have not made that judgement yet. QUESTION: Though you have handed the diplomatic initiative over to the Council, what have you been personally doing to try and defuse the situation? Have you been in contact with the leaders of the major Powers, talking with Albright or other leaders? Have you been in contact with the Iraqi leadership? Can you describe some of those contacts and communications you’ve been having and what you are trying to accomplish? S-G: I’ve been doing nothing but that for the

14 November 1997 • 261 past 10 days or more, in fact, talking to other actors in this capital, in other capitals, including the Middle East. I’ve spoken to several of them: President Mubarak, King Hussein. I’ve spoken to others in the region, and of course I’ve been in touch with Mrs. Albright and others, and yesterday morning I also spoke to Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, before his departure this morning. So I think the efforts should continue. Yes, I have handed over the problem to the Security Council, but it doesn’t mean that I sit and fold my hands, and I will do whatever I can to help resolve the crisis. QUESTION: When Mr. Connor was in Washington last week, he seemed to hold out the prospect that the United Nations could collapse financially in pretty short order. There wouldn’t be a lot of lead time. What kind of contingency plans are you making if this should in fact turn out to be true? S-G: I think in the statement I made just a few minutes ago, we are reconvening the high-level group of the General Assembly to really look into this and come up with very urgent recommendations before the end of the year. And I think Mr. Connor was right in raising the issue that in the past we have relied on peacekeeping funds. Peacekeeping operations have been reduced considerably, so that facility is not going to be there for us to keep tapping into. We’ve also raised the question of whether the practice itself is prudent. If we do not have the facility to borrow from peacekeeping money, and peacekeeping money is diminishing, and we can’t borrow from the banks, and the Member States are not meeting their obligations in full and on time, the Organization will face a serious solvency problem. QUESTION: On what order of collapse? S-G: Well, that is your phrase. I wouldn’t put it that way. I don’t put together a committee to discuss or advise me on collapse. How to avoid collapse would be their responsibility. QUESTION: Congress’s action or inaction came in a week when the Security Council is dealing with an issue that the United States cares about a great deal. Can you assess more broadly the political implications of this for the United States? Specifically, there is the issue of the United States request for a reduction in the dues assessment. How do you think other Member States are going to look on that? S-G: I don’t think this decision is going to facilitate negotiations or transactions here. The President himself earlier this year saw the problem in very clear terms, and made the statement that if

the United States expects to continue to lead in the United Nations and to play a constructive part, it has to pay its way. I think that statement was valid then and is perhaps more valid today. QUESTION: Back on Iraq, it seems that in the years since resolution 687 (1991) was passed, through a combination of parts of it being ignored, other parts being violated, other parts being undermined, it hasn’t worked. Do you think it’s time to reopen the diplomacy much more widely, and say that it’s time to redraft an approach to dealing with the possible creation of weapons of mass destruction from a whole different angle than we have used so far, which hasn’t worked in six years? S-G: Let me say that a great deal has been accomplished during the past six years. In fact, when you read the UNSCOM reports, quite a lot of weapons have been destroyed. I think it was someone in Washington who assessed that more weapons have been destroyed by UNSCOM than by the Desert Storm coalition. If that statement is a fact, then UNSCOM has achieved a lot. The import of your question is, shouldn’t we be reassessing the approach? Are we on the right track? This is something I’m sure the Council members are thinking about and looking at. It is really a matter for the Council and UNSCOM. Hopefully, as we go through this whole process and the discussions which have taken place this week, when the Commission meets it will reassess what has been achieved and what needs to be done. QUESTION: Do you support sending another diplomatic mission to Baghdad, perhaps Mr. Primakov, going to try again to convince the Iraqis? S-G: I would support it, if it would help. I don’t think we should leave any stone unturned, and if Mr. Primakov’s involvement or any other involvement would help I would encourage it, yes. QUESTION: Are you working towards that in any way? S-G: I’m constantly working towards peaceful solutions. And this is one of those situations. QUESTION: To go back to some earlier questions, do you personally favour lifting sanctions against Iraq, or modifying the approach in some way, to something that might or might not be more effective? S-G: I think the Security Council has passed many resolutions on sanctions, on disarmament, and I think we have a clear agenda and a clear programme of action. What is important is that everyone cooperate and we get the job done and have the sanctions lifted. Considerable progress has

262 • 14 November 1997

been made, as was indicated in the last report of the Chairman of UNSCOM, and with cooperation from Iraq we can perhaps someday see a light at the end of the tunnel. But it can only happen with the cooperation of Iraq. QUESTION: A short while ago, the Iraqi Foreign Minister was highly critical of the recent United Nations decisions regarding Iraq, to pull out the inspectors, and also the statement that was made last night. He went so far as to call the British stooges of the United States and Mr. Butler a puppet of the United Nations. You were hopeful that the Iraqis might be conciliatory, but that sounds rather inflammatory. Do you have any response to those comments? S-G: I don’t have to respond. But the only thing I will say is that it’s not unusual for governments and people to take a very belligerent position and make very belligerent statements when they are ready to change their position. So it wouldn’t surprise me if, even after those statements, there is a shift in their policy. QUESTION: Two questions. The first, do you feel betrayed by the United States Congress after one year of showing them the way to manage this house? And also, press reports have linked one of the top guys you chose to draw up the reform here, Maurice Strong, with illegal financial activities. Can you address that as well? S-G: First of all, I don’t feel betrayed. Betrayal is a strong word. If there is betrayal, it’s a betrayal of the international community and the United Nations system, not of me personally. On the question of the other issue you raise about Mr. Strong, I have nothing to say about that. Mr. Strong has told me that there is nothing to it, and the evidence in the case is before the court, as far as I gather, so I would not want to comment on that. And I don’t think it would be appropriate in any event, and I’m surprised you asked that. QUESTION: You said that people make belligerent comments when they might be about to change their position. Do you have any indications from any sources that Iraq is about to reverse its decision? S-G: No, I cannot say I have any indications from any sources that Iraq is about to reverse its position, but I would also not exclude it.

17 November 1997 Secretary-General Condemns Terrorist Attack in Egypt

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6396); Egypt

The Secretary-General is shocked and appalled at the news of today’s terrorist attack in Luxor, Egypt, resulting in the death of numerous civilians. The Secretary-General condemns in the strongest terms this senseless act. He wishes to convey his deepest sympathy and condolences to the Government of Egypt and to the bereaved families.

17 November 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/902); Iraq Letter to the president of the Security Council, Qin Huasun. Attached is a letter dated 14 November 1997 to the Secretary-General from Hans Blix, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to convey the attached communication, dated 14 November 1997, which I have received from the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I should be grateful if you would bring the Director General’s letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. * * * Dear Secretary-General, I wish to bring to your attention that notification was sent to the Iraqi authorities on the evening of 13 November 1997 advising them that, under the prevailing circumstances, it had been decided to withdraw the personnel of the IAEA Nuclear Monitoring Group from Iraq, until further notice. The IAEA personnel departed from Iraq’s Habbaniya airport at 08:00 on 14 November 1997. They will remain in Bahrain while steps are taken to attempt to resolve the immediate situation. I would ask you to bring this letter to the attention of the Security Council. Yours sincerely, Hans Blix

19 November 1997 Letter (UN archives); nonpayment of assessed contributions To: Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko, President of the UN General Assembly New York From: The Secretary-General Dear Mr. President, Member States are already aware that the question of non-payment of arrears by some

20 November 1997 • 263 Governments of their assessed contributions to the United Nations budget issues has become an increasingly serious matter. The issue recently has become more acute since, contrary to expectations, the United States Congress was not able to reach a positive decision in regard to the payment of United States arrears. Member States also are aware that, in the past few years, shortfalls in the regular budget have been met through borrowing from peace-keeping funds. I consider that this practice cannot become a regular recourse for overcoming budgetary difficulties caused by non-payment of arrears. I believe that Member States should fully consider the implications of the current situation for the Organization. I therefore would be grateful if the High-Level Working Group on the Financial Situation of the United Nations could be convened by you for this purpose and to explore options for ensuring timely payment by Member States of their assessments. The Group might report on its recommendations before the end of the current session of the Assembly. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

20 November 1997 Letter (EOSG); landmines Letter to Lloyd Axworthy, minister for foreign affairs, Canada. See also the 7 November letter from the Secretary-General to Lloyd Axworthy. Excellency, I am writing in reply to your letter of 7 November inviting me to attend the signing ceremony of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of AntiPersonnel Mines. It gives me great pleasure to accept your invitation and I look forward to the opportunity to address the opening plenary of the Conference on 3 December. I also look forward with great anticipation to my official visit to Canada at the time. It shall be an opportune moment for us to exchange views not only on the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention but also on a wide range of matters of mutual concern. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

20 November 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s press briefing by reading the following statement: “The Secretary-General was pleased to hear the outcome of the diplomatic efforts on Iraq announced in Geneva this morning. “He is grateful to all those who worked to manage this crisis and arrive at a political solution, especially Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov of the Russian Federation. “He is hopeful that the United Nations inspectors can return to Iraq as soon as possible to resume their important work. He expects the Iraqi authorities to cooperate fully.” The Office of the Spokesman had made available this morning the Joint Statement on Iraq that had come out of Geneva, delivered by the British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, who was joined by the Foreign Ministers of France, Russian Federation and the United States, and the representative of the Foreign Minister of China, Mr. Eckhard said. That statement underscored the efforts of the five permanent members of the Security Council, acting in solidarity, aimed at the complete fulfilment by Iraq of all of the relevant resolutions of the Council. They expressed appreciation to the Russian Federation for their diplomatic initiative, and said that it would “lead to the unconditional decision by the leadership of Iraq to accept the return of personnel of the Special Commission of the United Nations Security Council (UNSCOM) in its previous composition, for work as stipulated in Security Council resolution 1137.” The Secretary-General had met with the Executive Chairman of the UNSCOM, Richard Butler, at 11:30 a.m., the Spokesman continued. Also today, the Permanent Representative of Iraq, Nizar Hamdoon, had transmitted to the President of the Security Council a letter from the Government of Iraq on the matter. The contents of that letter were as yet unknown, but the Security Council had called for consultations on Iraq at 3 p.m. Mr. Eckhard said that approximately 77 UNSCOM personnel could return to Iraq from Bahrain on an UNSCOM flight tomorrow morning, all of the arrangements had been made pending official notification by the Government of Iraq that they accepted the return of the inspectors unconditionally. The agreement would essentially restore UNSCOM to previous strength levels prior to the crisis, he added. Looking ahead, he reminded correspondents

264 • 20 November 1997

that the Special Commissioners (UNSCOM’s advisory body), had been called to an emergency session tomorrow. That meeting would start at 10 a.m. in Conference Room 7, and could go on into the afternoon. Following their meeting, Mr. Butler and several of the commissioners were expected to brief the Security Council. Mr. Eckhard said that the General Assembly was today recognizing African Industrialization Day. The Secretary-General had made a statement, now available in the Spokesman’s Office, in which he said that despite progress, Africa’s performance in industry had been weak, but that with industrial development the continent could take decisive steps towards full-throttle competition in the globalized marketplace. The Special Representative of the United Nations/Organization of African Unity (OAU) to the Great Lakes Region, Mohamed Sahnoun, on behalf of the Secretary-General, was attending a ministerial meeting of the Central Organ of the OAU Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution, the Spokesman said. That meeting had opened in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, today, and it would be addressing a number of conflict situations which included those in Burundi, the Comoros, Congo-Brazzaville and Somalia. They would also be looking at ways to enhance Africa’s capacity to undertake peace-support operations. The meeting would continue through tomorrow. . . . Asked whether there was a document that UNSCOM was waiting for from Baghdad before its inspectors could return, he said the United Nations would be awaiting “some kind of formal notification from Iraq that the arrangements announced in Geneva in the early hours of the morning are, in fact, acceptable to them.” Mr. Eckhard said he realized that Ambassador Hamdoon had told the press a few minutes before the briefing that all of UNSCOM, including the Americans, had been invited back. He stressed, however, “we would need something official from Iraq on that”. . . . Did the Secretary-General have an opinion on what the threat of military action (by the United States) meant in the resolution of the crisis? a correspondent asked. “I wouldn’t address that question”, replied the Spokesman, “I’m sorry.” Also asked for information on “the future of the International Civilian Mission to Haiti (MICIVIH)”, in the light of the SecretaryGeneral’s statement that he would present a plan to the Security Council on the issue, Mr. Eckhard

said the Council had not taken final action on it; he would not, therefore, anticipate what they might approve. To a question on the purpose of the meeting between the United States’ Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, and the Secretary-General this afternoon, and at whose request it was taking place, the Spokesman said it was at the request of the Secretary of Defense. “Apparently, he’s never met the Secretary-General; he was in New York on another business and he asked to see the SecretaryGeneral.” With Ministers of Defence, the Secretary-General usually discusses peacekeeping matters, Mr. Eckhard noted, so he was assuming that that would be on the agenda, as would anything else either man wished to bring up in their first meeting. Mr. Eckhard was also asked if the SecretaryGeneral had met with Tim Wirth [the appointee of Ted Turner as Chief Executive Officer-Designate to the Turner Foundation, in connection with the billion-dollar gift to the United Nations] this morning. Yes, answered Mr. Eckhard, adding that he did not know if there had been an official announcement of the appointment, but the SecretaryGeneral knew Mr. Wirth well and considered him an excellent choice. . . . Asked to clarify if Ambassador Hamdoon’s notification to the President of the Security Council was not sufficiently official for the inspectors to return to Iraq, Mr. Eckhard replied: “We do not know what is in this letter.” He pointed out that if, upon translation it turned out to be the official acceptance by Iraq of the announcement in Geneva last night, “then that’s a go”. . . .

21 November 1997 Letter (EOSG); Georgia Letter to the president of the Security Council, Qin Huasun. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to your Statement (S/PRST/1997/50) which you made on 6 November 1997 following the Security Council’s consideration of the item entitled “The situation in Georgia”. As you and your colleagues are aware, my Special Representative reconvened the highlevel meeting of the Georgian and Abkhaz parties. This meeting took place from 17 to 19 November 1997 at Geneva. For information of the Council, I enclose the text of the concluding statement on the outcome of this meeting. I shall continue to keep the Council informed.

24 November 1997 • 265 Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

24 November 1997 Letter (EOSG); financial crisis Letter to Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Union. Following is a declaration by the presidency dated 19 November 1997. Dear Mr. President, I wish to convey my sincere thanks to the Presidency of the European Union, and to you personally for the Declaration issued in Brussels on 19 November 1997 regarding the financial crisis confronting the United Nations. The failure of the Congress to let the United States fulfill its lawful obligations toward the United Nations poses a threat to the continued effectiveness of the Organization and indeed to its ability to fulfill its important mandates. Unless this trend is reversed, it is bound to undermine the structure of multilateral cooperation that the international community has developed over the past half century in order to maintain peace and security. It is regrettable that the absence of action by the United States Congress comes at a time when concerted international efforts are urgently needed to uphold the peace and well-being of humanity. Moreover, the financial crisis may well jeopardize the current large-scale effort undertaken by the United Nations. In this connection, I wish to thank the European Union, its Presidency and its members for their support of the United Nations during this difficult time. I also wish to express my appreciation for the admirable record of the European Union members in honouring their obligations toward the United Nations promptly, in full and unconditionally. They are fully justified in expecting all other United Nations Member States to act likewise. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. * * * Declaration by the Presidency on Behalf of the European Union Regarding the Financial Situation of the UN

The European Union strongly deplores the fact that the US Congress has suspended its autumn session proceedings without adopting any legislation concerning the payment of the arrears due to the UN, and that the USA—which is the largest contributor to the Organization but primarily its

largest debtor—is not signifying any Intention to start settling its debts. It is very worrying that one of the major Member States continues not to fulfil its responsibilities under the UN Charter, which fall within its commitments under international law. The absence of any decision by the US Congress on the payment of arrears comes at a time when the UN is making an unprecedented effort to reform its structures and methods of operation. The fact that the USA is continuing not to pay the arrears in contributions it owes the Organization perpetuates the serious financial crisis with which the UN is struggling, and seriously affects the climate of trust with the Organization. The European Union is counting on all UN member states to honour their obligations vis-à-vis the UN promptly, in full and unconditionally, in accordance with the scale of quotas adopted by the General Assembly. That is the approach taken by the Member States of the European Union, whose combined contributions account for 35,4% of the Organization’s regular budget and 37,9% of its budget for peace-keeping operations. They act in this way because they are convinced of the need to preserve the irreplaceable role of the UN as the only international organization of a universal character which takes global action in the cause of peace, social equality and justice.

24 November 1997 Secretary-General Speaks of Failure of US Congress to Act on Payment of Arrears

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6404); US arrears Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University. It is truly a pleasure to join you here today at this great centre of higher learning. Our respective institutions are already engaged in a spirited dialogue. Just last week, Dean Rothschild joined other deans of schools of international affairs for breakfast at the United Nations. We discussed ways of reaching and educating the next generation of world leaders and citizens, and I am grateful for their advice and support. Princeton has produced an impressive number of Nobel prize winners over the years—physicists, molecular biologists, mathematicians and others. They and their fellow laureates around the world are among our most valuable intellectual resources. Several of them, I should add, particu-

266 • 24 November 1997

larly in the field of economics, have worked for the United Nations in the course of their careers. Recently I wrote to all living Nobel laureates, asking whether I might look to them from time to time for advice and ideas. I hope I will not embarrass Princeton’s own Professor Philip Anderson of the physics department by revealing that he was one of the quickest to reply. He expressed his willingness to be of service. He also offered an amusing comparison between our respective lines of work. Scientists, he noted, often turn out to be correct, but only in the long run; whereas the art of politics is being right only at the right time! As Secretary-General, timing is always very much on my mind, especially now, as I approach the end of my first year in office. I began my tenure as Secretary-General with a vision of tomorrow’s United Nations: a revitalized Organization, a transformed instrument of service to humankind. I knew the Organization had to question longheld assumptions, update outmoded practices and readjust its priorities for the changing needs of a new global era. At the same time, I was proud of the Organization’s many achievements. I knew we needed to build on that record. Throughout 1997, as in previous years, the international community has looked again and again to the United Nations for action on a wide range of global concerns. As rebellion engulfed the former Zaire, United Nations relief workers provided emergency assistance to refugees and displaced persons; United Nations envoys helped negotiate a peaceful transfer of power; and United Nations human rights experts were called into action in an attempt to investigate allegations of atrocities and other violations. As conflict continued to plague an already devastated Afghanistan, the United Nations was asked to help mitigate suffering and to protect the rights of women and girls facing strictures and harassment solely because of their gender. We also embarked on a new effort to rid the country of drug crops. And when Iraq again placed obstacles in the way of United Nations arms inspectors, the United Nations was the centre of multilateral efforts to secure Iraq’s compliance with Security Council mandates. Let me remind you that more arms have been destroyed by the United Nations Special Commission than during the Gulf war itself. Only the United Nations could have had the legitimacy and the authority to accomplish this. Such crises and conflicts are perennial features

of the United Nations calendar. They demonstrate the ongoing utility of the Organization even as they offer a sad commentary on the human proclivity for conflict and bloodshed. But the past year also witnessed something entirely new at the United Nations: a robust, goodfaith effort at reforming the Organization. This reflects a counter-phenomenon, if you will: the human capacity for hope. The reform effort now under way is premised on the belief that the United Nations needs to be more coherent, more agile and more unified in responding to the increasingly complex tasks placed before it by the Member States. As the world changes, so must the world Organization. At the very outset of my administration, I initiated a thorough review of our activities. I began introducing changes in the way our work was organized, and in how that business was carried out. In July, I submitted to the General Assembly a programme for reform and renewal containing the most extensive and far-reaching reforms in the 52year history of the Organization. Member States have since discussed the plan in great detail. Just 12 days ago, little noticed amid the confrontation between Iraq and the Security Council, the General Assembly adopted a resolution endorsing the first part of my plan—those measures within my authority—in its entirety. That was an important moment in the history of the United Nations, not least because it showed that the Organization can reform itself. I am pleased to recall that the United Nations will have, with the new year, continued zero growth in its budget. The number of staff will be 25 per cent smaller than 13 years ago. Departments with overlapping work and mandates have been merged. Administrative costs are being reduced by one third. But reform is far more than the sum of its cuts. Administrative savings are to become a dividend for development activities. We are beefing up our fight against drug traffickers, money launderers, criminals and terrorists—the insidious forces of what I call “uncivil society”. A code of conduct has been drawn up to hold the staff to the highest standards of professional ethics. A focal point for our expanded dealings with the private sector will be established so that the vast power of business and industry can be better harnessed for the common good. I have put in place a new leadership and management structure, with a senior management group that meets weekly to improve coordination

24 November 1997 • 267 and consultation. Our embrace of new technologies enables colleagues from Geneva, Vienna and elsewhere to participate in these meetings by teleconference. Member States are now discussing a range of additional measures that require their approval. I have proposed creating the post of Deputy Secretary-General. I have called for there to be sunset provisions for all new mandates. I have recommended a shift to results-based budgeting, which will be an antidote to micromanagement, while sacrificing nothing in terms of performance and accountability. And I have suggested that a commission examine ways to achieve greater coherence among the wider system of specialized agencies—each of which answers to its own governing body. This commission would report to a special “Millennium Assembly” in the year 2000, at which world leaders would articulate a vision of prospects and challenges for the new century and beyond. To underscore my commitment to popular participation, I have proposed that a “Millennium Forum” of non-governmental and civil society organizations be held concurrently. These are just some of the measures that are propelling the United Nations forward. Taken together, they compare favourably with any such reforms yet undertaken by any public sector organization, anywhere. They are advancing the interests of people everywhere—including in the United States. The benefits of the United Nations for the United States have always been clear. But do not just take my word for it. In August 1996, a distinguished panel reflecting a broad spectrum of American political opinion, sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the financier-philanthropist George Soros, concluded that the United Nations had served United States interests well when United States presidents had a clear and firm position. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright herself told the Senate Appropriations Sub-Committee that the United Nations and international organizations “contribute in varied and cost-effective ways to our security, prosperity and safety”. But beyond pragmatic notions such as burdensharing and legitimacy, there is an affinity of basic values—a fundamental bond that stretches back to the very origins of the Organization in President Roosevelt’s inspired summons to form a global instrument of common progress.

That is one of the main reasons I was so dismayed by the recent failure by Congress to enact legislation on the payment of United States arrears to the United Nations. The vote was of course on the unrelated domestic issue of abortion, meaning that the legislation concerning the United Nations was not considered on its own merits. Instead, we became a bargaining chip in a high-stakes game. That status is not worthy of this great Organization at any time, but especially not now. At a time when the United Nations is rising to the challenge of reform, and at a time when it is proving its mettle yet again in coping with the Iraqi threat to international peace and security, the troubling asymmetry between what the Member States want of the Organization and what they actually allow it to be is especially stark. Indeed, although the legislation concerned money, the message sent by Congress was unreservedly political. But that message was not about United States confidence in the United Nations; by now, that is well-trodden terrain. Rather, the message concerns the United States itself: for troubling questions are being raised by such an action. Is Washington’s will to lead diminishing even as many around the globe look to it for leadership? Is it no longer convinced of the myriad benefits to be had from multilateral cooperation even as it seeks multilateral cooperation in Iraq? Is it prepared to step away from the world of expanding freedom, democracy, growth and opportunity that it did so much to bring about? In an age of globalization, the United States needs the United Nations, and the United Nations needs the United States. This is one of the pivotal relationships of our day. I know that President Clinton and his Administration, for their part, are committed to supporting the Organization and the reforms I have undertaken. I have every expectation that this situation will soon turn for the better. In the meantime, the Organization faces perhaps the most serious cash crisis in its history. Ted Turner’s gift of $1 billion was a wonderful boost. But his generosity will not alter the cash crisis and in no way substitutes for the responsibility of Member States to meet their financial obligations. That is why I have asked the General Assembly to provide urgent advice on two fronts: how to ensure prompt payment of Member States’ dues, and whether to continue borrowing from peacekeeping cash for regular budget purposes. Our options for speeding up our cash flow

268 • 24 November 1997

include a number of possible incentives and disincentives. These are not my recommendations, but ideas being considered by Member States. For example, countries paying in full and on time could receive discounts on their dues. Some think disincentives would have more bite. There could be stricter implementation of the Charter provision under which Member States lose voting rights in the General Assembly if they fall two years behind in their payments. We could also consider charging interest on debts. Recruitment of nationals from debtor countries could be suspended. So could procurement in those countries. Some say the United Nations should be able to borrow from the World Bank or from commercial lenders. My reform plan proposes a revolving credit fund, financed from voluntary contributions or other means, to draw on in time of need. Such measures are all controversial; a few raise legal questions, are possibly inconsistent with the Charter and might even be counter-productive. I mention them only to give you a taste of the debate. Currently, we are borrowing from peacekeeping to cover our regular budget costs. This is imprudent at best, and inhibits our ability to reimburse troop-contributing countries. It is in fact the forbearance of this group—many of them poor developing nations—that is helping us to survive the cash shortages caused by late payments by major contributors. It is ironic that, in effect, Bangladesh, Fiji, Ghana and Nepal are advancing interest-free loans to the United States. But with the reduced level of United Nations peacekeeping even this source of funds is being depleted. Something, somewhere, has to give. The United Nations needs both the support and the constructive criticism of its Member States. My reform plan has been drawn up in that spirit; a spirit of honest partnership and shared commitment to a truly global mission. I have described the process as a quiet revolution, but it is also time to make a little noise. About our long record of achievement. About our efforts for development, environmental protection, human rights and the rest of the humanitarian agenda, which comprises 80 per cent of our work. And, in the broadest sense, about our determination to take full advantage of this extraordinary moment of promise in world affairs. Another Princeton Nobel laureate, Albert Einstein, once suggested that fear of atomic ener-

gy could have the beneficial effect of intimidating the human race into bringing order into its international affairs. However, while fear of atomic energy is still with us, so is disorder. Allow me to suggest that tomorrow’s United Nations, though lacking both the desire and the power to intimidate, could well be the vehicle through which humankind realizes its highest aspirations for peace, justice and well-being. I am dedicated to this cause. I know I can count on you to help.

25 November 1997 Secretary-General Postpones Decision on Withdrawal of DRC Investigative Team

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6406, AFR/32); Democratic Republic of Congo I can confirm that this morning the SecretaryGeneral was on the verge of pulling out his human rights investigative team from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He had sent the team to Kinshasa on 24 August, but they were not allowed to deploy into the field. He recalled them to New York for consultations. He sent them back to Kinshasa on 11 November, following an agreement with the Government brokered by United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson. There was no movement. He received a report from the team yesterday indicating there was still no progress, which triggered his decision to withdraw. He was informed today by the United Nations Ambassador of the Democratic Republic of the Congo that a meeting had been set between the team and President Laurent Kabila tomorrow in Kinshasa, as well as with Etienne-Richard Mbaya, the head of the Liaison Committee that is to facilitate the work of the team. After consulting several Member States, he agreed to postpone his decision for 48 hours, to see if the obstacles raised by the Government would finally be lifted. The Secretary-General feels he cannot justify much longer retaining the team in Kinshasa, if it cannot move into the field immediately to conduct the investigations it was sent there to carry out.

27 November 1997 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Letter to the president of the Security Council, Qin Huasun, transmitting the Secretary-General’s letter to President Kabila of 27 November 1997.

28 November 1997 • 269 Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of a letter which I have sent today to His Excellency Mr. Laurent-Desire Kabila, President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, regarding the Investigative Team which I had dispatched to his country. You may wish to bring this letter to the attention of the members of the Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

27 November 1997 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Letter to Laurent-Désiré Kabila, president of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Excellency, The Investigative Team I dispatched to the Democratic Republic of Congo has informed me of the positive and constructive outcome of the meetings they had with you and Minister EtienneRichard Mbaya and other officials. I appreciate your receiving the Team and your willingness to cooperate with the Team in order for it to carry out its mandate as you have always assured me. I must stress that the recurring difficulties encountered by the Team brought me two days ago to the point of withdrawing it from Kinshasa. I have no doubt that following your personal intervention in this matter the Team will no longer encounter any further obstacles in the course of their deployment and investigation, and that your Government will fully ensure the security of its personnel. The Team will now proceed with its work on the basis of the mandate I established for them in my 15 July 1997 letter addressed to you. This will be facilitated by the removal of the impediments they had encountered, which were resolved by Ambassador Bill Richardson of the United States following his meeting with you on 25 October 1997. I have instructed the Team to expedite the investigation with a view to completing it within the six-month period earlier envisaged. However, with the loss of three months since their arrival in Kinshasa, they may require more time, possibly extending to 31 May 1998.

28 November 1997 Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragrapgh 3 of Resolution 1111 (1997)

Report to the Security Council (SC, S/1997/935); Iraq/oil-for-food program

Excerpts from a report by the Secretary-General on the progress of the oil-for-food program, which was established under Resolution 986 (1995). ... I. Introduction

2. The present report provides information up to 15 November 1997 on the distribution of humanitarian supplies throughout Iraq, including the implementation of the United Nations Inter-Agency Humanitarian Programme in the three northern governorates of Dahuk, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah. The distribution of inputs under resolution 986 (1995) provided under Phase I and implementation of the humanitarian programme continues in all sectors. Since 2 November 1997, foodstuffs have begun to arrive under Phase II. The present report describes implementation of the programme since my previous report, as well as preparatory work in those sectors which have not yet received inputs authorized under the resolution. . . . 4. Effective 15 October 1997, I established the office of the Iraq Programme in order to consolidate and manage the activities of the Secretariat pursuant to Security Council resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990 and 986 (1995) and subsequent resolutions. I also appointed Mr. Benon Sevan as Executive Director of the Office of the Iraq Programme, who will report directly to me. Senior Secretariat officials have continued to brief the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) on a regular basis in addition to written reports that have been submitted to the Committee on all aspects of the implementation of resolutions 986 (1995) and 1111 (1997). . . . V. Implementation of the Distribution Plan

20. As at 15 November 1997 (the cut-off date for all relevant data), an estimated cumulative total of 2.69 million tons of food and related items had arrived incountry, accounting for 92 per cent of the approved contracts, and a cumulative total of 286 tons had reached the warehouses under Phase II, accounting for 0.015 per cent of total contracts approved. The Ministry of Trade expects the remaining commodities under Phase I to arrive by January 1998. Applications for foodstuffs totalling $910,138,000 had been approved, which exceeded the sectoral allocation of $810 million; part of the difference was paid from the interest on revenues in the 53 per cent account. A cumulative total of 2.52 million tons had been distributed to governorates. . . .

270 • 28 November 1997

23. Medicines and medical appliances received are 42.6 per cent of the total allocation of $210 million ($181 million for 15 governorates and $29 million for the 3 northern governorates). This represents 51 per cent of the approved contracts. During the period under review, the rate of arrivals has noticeably increased, with some 33 per cent of goods authorized under this sector arriving in Iraq, compared with 9.6 per cent for the period from May to September. Annex II shows the arrivals of medical supplies by category and value. . . . VI. Observation Mechanism and Activities

53. In general, United Nations observers report that they continue to be granted ready access to facilities and records on request. They have enjoyed full freedom of movement throughout the country. However, United Nations observers continue to report frustration expressed by beneficiaries owing to the late and erratic arrival of foodstuffs as well as complaints about the low quality and quantity of some foodstuffs, and the continuing shortage of medicines, education supplies and electricity. Some beneficiaries have declined to be interviewed in protest at the perceived responsibility of the United Nations for their difficulties. ... VII. Findings on Effectiveness, Equitability and Adequacy Adequacy

70. The current food ration of 2,030 kilocalories and, in particular, its composition fall far short of meeting the nutritional needs of the Iraqi population. This is particularly valid since nutritional security is contingent upon a host of interrelated factors, such as safe water and available medicine, which are grossly inadequate at the moment. The current ration, even if it is distributed completely and in a timely manner, cannot address the chronic malnutrition and energy deficiency in adults. In order to improve the current serious situation, an enhanced ration is required. . . . VIII. Observations and Recommendations

83. In my previous reports I have drawn attention to the exceptional and unprecedented complexity of the programme. While the United Nations has long experience in implementing humanitarian programmes during periods of peace, conflict and post-conflict situations, it should be emphasized that the humanitarian programme pursuant to resolution 986 (1995) is unique and is being implemented within the context of a sanctions regime with all its attendant political and commercial

dimensions. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind the human dimension in implementing the programme to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. 84. I regret to report that, despite the ongoing implementation of resolutions 986 (1995) and 1111 (1997), the population of Iraq continues to face a serious nutritional and health situation and there is an urgent need to contain the risk of a further deterioration, as indicated in the present report. The slow and erratic pace at which humanitarian inputs arrive in Iraq has been very unsatisfactory. At the close of Phase II, there are still outstanding deliveries under Phase I, and the overwhelming majority of Phase II inputs have yet to be submitted, processed and/or approved. Although I welcome the considerable improvements made in the approval process under Phase II, much remains to be done to ensure that this results in an overall increase in the speed of implementation of the programme. . . . 89. In order to ensure that authorized supplies are received in a timely manner, I have also directed the Office of the Iraq Programme to formulate recommendations that identify and address concerns over processing and supply issues, in particular to devise a system that ensures that interrelated applications are clearly identified as such and brought to the attention of the Security Council Committee. . . . 92. I take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the dedication and commitment of all staff members of the United Nations system involved in the implementation of the programme, under complex and, at times, difficult conditions. I also wish to express my appreciation to the Government of Iraq for its continued cooperation. 93. In view of continuing humanitarian needs, I recommend that the Security Council extend the provisions of resolution 986 (1995) for a further six-month period.

28 November 1997 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, at today’s briefing drew the attention of correspondents to the text of the SecretaryGeneral’s letter to President Laurent-Desire Kabila [sic] of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

28 November 1997 • 271 concerning the human rights investigative team, which had been transmitted to the President of the Security Council yesterday. The team had met with President Kabila yesterday and received assurances from him that it could begin its work, and in his letter, the Secretary-General acknowledged that. The team announced in Kinshasa today that it had informed the Government of its intention to go first to Mbadanka in Equateur province in the north. If all went well, the team would leave for Mbadanka as early as tomorrow. Arrangements were now being made for transportation for the team using a United Nations aircraft that had been borrowed from the mission in Angola, Mr. Eckhard went on. A few elements still needed to be provided by the Government to make the trip possible, including assigning a liaison officer to the mission; travel authorization; and official documentation introducing the members to local authorities. The team’s intention was to spend approximately one week in Mbadanka doing preparatory work for a more in-depth investigation. . . . Concerning Afghanistan, the SecretaryGeneral’s three-monthly report on developments in that country was on the racks today, Mr. Eckhard said. In it, the Secretary-General observed that “a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan remained elusive, in spite of the untiring efforts of the United Nations to broker peace among the warring factions”. It went on to say that “what we are witnessing is a seemingly endless tragedy of epic proportions”. It was clear, the Secretary-General had concluded, that as long as those governments inside and outside the region with influence on Afghanistan chose not to exercise such influence with the parties, the efforts of the United Nations would not suffice to bring peace in the country. In that connection, Mr. Eckhard continued, there would be a meeting of the Afghan Support Group here in New York next Wednesday, 3 December. It was being organized by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Government of Norway. Mr. Eckhard drew attention to the announcement late on Wednesday that the SecretaryGeneral had appointed Elizabeth Rehn of Finland as his Special Representative and Coordinator of United Nations Operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina with effect from 16 January. She was only the second woman to be appointed Special Representative in any peacemaking or peacekeeping context, he pointed out, her one predecessor being Dame Margaret Joan Anstee of the United

Kingdom who had served as Special Representative in Angola from February 1992 to June 1993. Ms. Rehn would replace Kai Eide of Norway who had been in that post since February; she had served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights for the situation of human rights in Bosnia, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since 1995, he added. . . . The Spokesman also reminded correspondents that tomorrow was the fiftieth anniversary of the General Assembly’s action on the partition of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State. That was resisted on the part of the Arabs, he noted, resulting in several wars and ongoing hostility and suffering in the area. However, Vladimir Petrovsky, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, who was representing the SecretaryGeneral in Tel Aviv tomorrow, would deliver a message on his behalf. The text of that statement was available in the Spokesman’s Office, Mr. Eckhard said, embargoed until delivery. . . . Concerning the human rights investigations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a correspondent said that his understanding from the intervention of the Permanent Representative of the United States, Ambassador Bill Richardson, had been that separate teams of investigators would go to eastern and northern locations simultaneously. Had that changed? Mr. Eckhard said the United Nations team thought that it would not be possible to go into the east right now. The idea seemed to have been accepted that the investigators would go to the north now and to the east as soon as was possible. In the week since the return of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to Iraq, another correspondent asked if there was a general impression at the United Nations about how their work was going. The Spokesman said that what the inspectors had been doing almost exclusively throughout this week was restoring their remote monitoring, trying to account for anything that might have been removed at the time those systems were tampered with. There was no “bottom line” assessment that he was aware of, he noted, but if they found anything serious that was missing, he was sure that it would be reported to the Security Council. The correspondent further asked if the Secretary-General was concerned about the current back-and-forth between Iraq and “certain members of the Security Council” over “Presidential palaces and sensitive sites”. “No,”

272 • 28 November 1997

answered Mr. Eckhard, because the Security Council resolutions required Iraq to allow the inspectors to go wherever they needed to go, anytime they felt they needed to go there for the purpose of eliminating Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. “Any change in that regime would be a matter for the Security Council to consider”, he stressed. . . .

1 December 1997 Letter (EOSG); human rights Letter sent to all heads of state of the UN. On Human Rights Day, 10 December 1997, we launch a year in which the rights guaranteed to every member of our human family will be a central theme for the United Nations and the international community. The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Five-Year Implementation Review of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action from the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 challenge us to renew and strengthen our commitment to human rights. The cause of human rights is at the core of the mission of the United Nations. I should like to call on you to support the global effort to reinvigorate the international system for the promotion and protection of human rights, which has developed over the past fifty years. The endeavour of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to mainstream human rights into United Nations activities system-wide will be an important part of our contribution to the anniversary year. Much remains to be done to ensure that the goals of the Universal Declaration are realized for every individual, but I am confident that the international community will respond to this challenge in a spirit of mutual respect and solidarity. We need greater efforts at the international and national levels to prevent conflicts, eradicate poverty, and empower people through human rights, democracy, and development. I call on Governments to take appropriate measures to turn solemn commitments into concrete actions for the betterment of all people. I encourage Governments that have not done so to sign and ratify outstanding human rights treaties, and to develop national plans of action to promote greater respect for human rights. Let us complete universal ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and work with determination for universal ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

Against Women by the year 2000, as was called for by the World Conference. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Yours Sincerely,

2 December 1997 Letter (EOSG); International Chamber of Commerce Letter to Maria Livanos Cattaui, secretary-general of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. Attached is the agenda for a meeting that was scheduled for 9 February 1998. Dear Ms. Cattaui, I should like to thank you for your letter of 18 November. I am pleased to confirm the date of 9 February 1998, from 9.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m., for our meeting at United Nations Headquarters. As discussed, this first meeting should serve to set the stage for the establishment of a more systematic programmatic relationship between the United Nations and the ICC, based on practical collaboration. The meeting’s focus on investment promotion and on building institutional capacities in African and least developed countries should provide a solid basis for such future collaboration. I am confident that we will be able to demonstrate in a visible, practical manner that close cooperation between the UN and the ICC can be instrumental to advance the development objectives we share, particularly the development prospects of less advanced countries. I also hope that this first encounter will lay the foundation for an ongoing dialogue by identifying themes for future meetings and by launching other cooperative arrangements and specific joint initiatives. You may, in this context, wish to give consideration to possible modalities of ICC support in the setting up of an Enterprise Liaison Service, which I proposed in my reform programme of 14 July. I attach an agenda for our meeting. A background note on Investment Guides for least developed countries will be sent to you separately. I would be grateful if you would inform Mr. Patrizio Civili of the names of the ICC business leaders who will attend. We will, in turn, inform you as soon as possible of the UN officials who will participate with me in the meeting. Yours Sincerely, Agenda for UN/ICC Meeting

New York, 9 February 1998 (9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.)

272 • 28 November 1997

answered Mr. Eckhard, because the Security Council resolutions required Iraq to allow the inspectors to go wherever they needed to go, anytime they felt they needed to go there for the purpose of eliminating Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. “Any change in that regime would be a matter for the Security Council to consider”, he stressed. . . .

1 December 1997 Letter (EOSG); human rights Letter sent to all heads of state of the UN. On Human Rights Day, 10 December 1997, we launch a year in which the rights guaranteed to every member of our human family will be a central theme for the United Nations and the international community. The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Five-Year Implementation Review of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action from the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 challenge us to renew and strengthen our commitment to human rights. The cause of human rights is at the core of the mission of the United Nations. I should like to call on you to support the global effort to reinvigorate the international system for the promotion and protection of human rights, which has developed over the past fifty years. The endeavour of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to mainstream human rights into United Nations activities system-wide will be an important part of our contribution to the anniversary year. Much remains to be done to ensure that the goals of the Universal Declaration are realized for every individual, but I am confident that the international community will respond to this challenge in a spirit of mutual respect and solidarity. We need greater efforts at the international and national levels to prevent conflicts, eradicate poverty, and empower people through human rights, democracy, and development. I call on Governments to take appropriate measures to turn solemn commitments into concrete actions for the betterment of all people. I encourage Governments that have not done so to sign and ratify outstanding human rights treaties, and to develop national plans of action to promote greater respect for human rights. Let us complete universal ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and work with determination for universal ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

Against Women by the year 2000, as was called for by the World Conference. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Yours Sincerely,

2 December 1997 Letter (EOSG); International Chamber of Commerce Letter to Maria Livanos Cattaui, secretary-general of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. Attached is the agenda for a meeting that was scheduled for 9 February 1998. Dear Ms. Cattaui, I should like to thank you for your letter of 18 November. I am pleased to confirm the date of 9 February 1998, from 9.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m., for our meeting at United Nations Headquarters. As discussed, this first meeting should serve to set the stage for the establishment of a more systematic programmatic relationship between the United Nations and the ICC, based on practical collaboration. The meeting’s focus on investment promotion and on building institutional capacities in African and least developed countries should provide a solid basis for such future collaboration. I am confident that we will be able to demonstrate in a visible, practical manner that close cooperation between the UN and the ICC can be instrumental to advance the development objectives we share, particularly the development prospects of less advanced countries. I also hope that this first encounter will lay the foundation for an ongoing dialogue by identifying themes for future meetings and by launching other cooperative arrangements and specific joint initiatives. You may, in this context, wish to give consideration to possible modalities of ICC support in the setting up of an Enterprise Liaison Service, which I proposed in my reform programme of 14 July. I attach an agenda for our meeting. A background note on Investment Guides for least developed countries will be sent to you separately. I would be grateful if you would inform Mr. Patrizio Civili of the names of the ICC business leaders who will attend. We will, in turn, inform you as soon as possible of the UN officials who will participate with me in the meeting. Yours Sincerely, Agenda for UN/ICC Meeting

New York, 9 February 1998 (9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.)

8 December 1997 • 273 1. Opening remarks by the Secretary-General and the President of ICC. 2. Identifying common interests between the UN and the business community (ICC), with particular emphasis on development of African and least developed countries. 3. Joint partnership projects for development. (a) Promoting investment in African and least developed countries (investment guides). (b) Strengthening entrepreneurship capacities (ICC/UNDP proposal). (c) Others. 4. How to continue and strengthen the dialogue. (a) Secretary-General’s proposal to establish an Enterprise Liaison Service. (b) Future meetings.

3 December 1997 Letter (EOSG, S/1997/960); Iraq Letter to the president of the Security Council, Fernando Berrocal-Soto, with following letter from Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I have the honour to convey the attached communication, dated 3 December 1997, concerning the return of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to Baghdad, which I have received from the Director General of IAEA. I should be grateful if you would bring the Director General’s letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. * * *

Letter dated 3 December 1997 from the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency addressed to the Secretary-General. I refer to the Acting Director General’s letter of 21 November 1997 (S/1997/920, annex), which reported that IAEA inspectors had returned to Baghdad on 21 November and had resumed inspections the following day. On 25 November 1997, the IAEA team was temporarily increased to 12 persons in order to restore the technical basis of the IAEA’s ongoing monitoring and verification activities as quickly as possible. Since that time, the Nuclear Monitoring Group has carried out more than 42 inspections at 40 locations, some of which have been inspected more than once. The IAEA has directed its resources towards verification of the status of critical dual-use equipment. All such equipment which was known to

have been serviceable prior to 29 October 1997 has been verified and accounted for. There are no indications that any such equipment was used for proscribed nuclear activities in the 23-day period during which monitoring activities were suspended. In this context, it is also highly unlikely that any proscribed nuclear activities could have occurred during that period. In accordance with its notification to IAEA, Iraq removed IAEA seals from five of the six highexplosive bunkers at the Al Qa Qaa facility and dispersed approximately 50 tons out of the total of 228 tons of high explosives (HMX) stored in the bunkers to other locations at Al Qaida. IAEA inspectors have witnessed the return of this material to its original storage location and have taken measures to account for the original inventory. There are no indications that any of this material has been diverted. In addition to these activities, other IAEA personnel and Member State experts have implemented previously planned tasks to service and upgrade the video surveillance systems at two facilities and to carry out an extensive campaign for the collection of environmental samples. I would be grateful if you could bring this information to the attention of the Security Council. (Signed) Mohamed ElBaradei

8 December 1997 Letter (EOSG); International Criminal Court Letter to the president of the General Assembly, Hennadiy Udovenko. Dear Mr. President, I am hereby transmitting to you an International Appeal for the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 1998, submitted to me on 1 December 1997 by Ms. Emma Bonino of the European Commission on behalf of No Peace Without Justice and the Transnational Radical Party, together with a letter showing the number of and listing the individual signatures by members of the European Parliament and of national parliaments and a chart showing the signatures by a number of other public personalities. Their signed appeals and the chart can be examined in the Office of Legal Affairs. In their Appeal, the undersigned call on Members of the General Assembly to do everything in their power to ensure that persons pursued for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda are arrested and brought to justice, to renew the mandate of the Preparatory Committee on the

274 • 8 December 1997

Establishment of an International Criminal Court and to convene, in 1998 in Rome, a Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries charged with establishing at that occasion the International Criminal Court. The International Appeal reflects the wish of parliamentarians and private individuals from around the world to see the establishment of an objective, effective and operational International Criminal Court. It would, therefore, be appropriate for this Appeal to be before the General Assembly when it considers the question of the establishment of an International Criminal Court. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

9 December 1997 Secretary-General Stresses Partnership of UN and Islamic Conference

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6418/Rev.1); Organization of the Islamic Conference Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the 8th summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), in Tehran, Iran. I am honoured and very pleased to join you in the capital of this ancient land for the eighth Summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. I would like to pay special tribute to His Excellency President Khatami and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for hosting this important conference. President Khatami, I would also like to congratulate you on your recent election as President and on your assumption of the Chairmanship of the OIC Summit. Your visionary leadership holds great promise for your nation, and for the Islamic world at large. The United Nations looks forward to an even closer and deeper cooperation with you and with the OIC under your leadership. We meet in Tehran at a time of great ferment and change in the relations between States and peoples throughout the world. As the contours of a new international order emerge, we can be certain of one thing: that cooperation and communication between countries, continents and cultures will become ever more vital to our survival and success. A new equilibrium is emerging from new centres of power and influence that must be harmonized with the old, if the new international order is to forge peace and worldwide progress. The OIC has a critical role to play in the management of this monumental change. Since its inception, the OIC

has been an influential fount of principle and advocacy on behalf of the Islamic world and its peoples. It promotes the goal of universal peace and advances the kind of understanding between cultures that is a condition for international cooperation and stability. The OIC enjoys an almost unique breadth and depth of membership, drawing on the wisdom of the oldest of civilizations and gaining from the experience of some of the wealthiest, most rapidly developing countries in the world. Through you, the world understands the desires and demands of over one-fifth of the world’s population, from all continents. That is why the partnership between the OIC and the United Nations is so important. That is why it holds such promise for all the peoples of the United Nations. The OIC and the United Nations have already joined forces in a number of areas: advancing social and economic development; increasing peace and security; and promoting fundamental human rights, all called for by General Assembly resolutions. We have forged new bonds in our peace-making efforts, including in Afghanistan, Somalia and Tajikistan. In these efforts, I am pleased to say that we have achieved some progress in bringing the parties together to try and emerge from their cycles of violence. As we meet today, the tensions between the Government of Iraq and the United Nations appear to have been defused. As you know, I intervened early in the crisis and sent a high-level mission to Baghdad to listen to Iraq’s views and to convey to the Government the will of the United Nations. I am pleased to say that diplomacy has made it possible for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to return and continue with its work. I would like to express my appreciation for the efforts of all those governments and individuals who contributed to the peaceful resolution of the crisis. And I trust we can continue to count on their wisdom and support as we move forward. In Somalia, since the early stages of the crisis, the United Nations has enjoyed the support of the OIC, together with the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Arab League. Our common aim is a broad-based political solution that would allow the people of Somalia to look to a more stable and prosperous future. It is heartening that reports from the recent talks in Cairo indicate that a consensus between the various factions may be emerging. Let us hope that this can lead to the

9 December 1997 • 275 establishment of a transitional or provisional government. Then, the daunting task of rebuilding the Somali State and society can begin and, I hope, allow Somalia to join us at the next conference of the OIC. As regards Tajikistan, we recently witnessed the signing of the Final Peace Accords in Moscow, an agreement to which we jointly made a significant contribution. It is now the responsibility of the various parties within Tajikistan to establish and consolidate stability to move toward a durable peace. In Afghanistan, however, success has been elusive. Despite painstaking and persistent efforts by the OIC, the United Nations Special Mission and my Special Envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, a lasting peace seems a distant prospect. Why? Because the Afghan leaders refuse to rise above their narrow factional interests and start working together for national reconciliation. Because too many groups in Afghanistan—war lords, terrorists, drug dealers and others—appear to have too much to gain from war and too much to lose from peace and the rule of law. Because foreign military, material and financial support continues unabated, fuelling this conflict and depriving the warring factions of a genuine interest in making peace. The continued support by these outside forces, combined with the apathy of others not directly involved, is, I regret to say, rendering diplomatic initiatives almost irrelevant. The result is a prolongation of years of human suffering by: indiscriminate shelling and bombardment of civilian areas; the large-scale material destruction of infrastructure; measures that are depriving women and girls of their most basic rights; and a climate of instability that already has spread beyond Afghanistan’s borders, causing large refugee flows, the spread of guns and drugs, as well ethnic and sectarian strife. Any genuine peace process must begin with a complete ceasefire and an effective arms embargo. Then an international framework, including all the interested and involved parties, can form the basis of lasting settlement. This settlement, in turn, would open the path toward the establishment of a genuinely broad-based government, reflecting the interests of all political and religious groups. It would finally deliver the Afghan people from their agony and bring closer the prospects for a lasting peace. Another issue of common concern to the United Nations and the OIC is the situation in the Middle East. The international community cannot

but view with deep dismay the continuing stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. In order for the peace process to move forward, it is essential that the terms of the Oslo accords are respected. Effective measures also need to be adopted in order to curb the violence that has arisen over the past several months. We must urge both sides to fulfil their commitments. In the Balkans, we cannot forget the horrifying atrocities inflicted upon the population, particularly the Muslims of Bosnia. It is the duty of the international community to ensure that those responsible for such genocidal policies are brought to justice at The Hague Tribunal. In such situations, peace and justice are indivisible. And justice will enhance the prospects for the successful implementation of the Dayton Agreement. Some progress has been made since the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement, but the extension of the international military presence in Bosnia is still crucial. It will ensure that the fragile process of reconstruction and reconciliation is sustained. This brief review underlines the fact that we all face challenges whose solutions so evidently are international in nature and scope. The OIC and the United Nations are natural partners in meeting the challenges of the new era and promoting peace and prosperity throughout the world. The United Nations cannot do it alone. We must do it with partners such as the OIC and other international, regional organizations and arrangements whose experience and knowledge complement the resources and legitimacy of the United Nations. The United Nations, in spirit and in reality, is committed to that vision. A vision of a world of concert. A world where tolerance and mutual respect among and within all nations is the basis for global progress. In closing, allow me to pay tribute to the great faith and civilization of Islam. It has ennobled and enriched humanity throughout its history. Today, it inspires the belief of almost one billion men and women, and is a universal spiritual force for mankind. This fact makes it all the more distressing to witness the increasing resort to violence and terror by extremist groups in the name of Islam. They are sullying the image of a religion whose very name signifies peace and whose Almighty is the compassionate, the merciful. I am privileged and grateful to join you today for a milestone in our common journey of peace and progress. I wish you all success in your deliberations.

276 • 10 December 1997

10 December 1997 Secretary-General Speaks on Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6419, OBV/34); human rights Speech delivered by the Secretary-General on the 50th anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, at the University of Tehran. It is a special pleasure for me to address you today, at this distinguished university, in the heart of your great and ancient land. I have long looked forward to visiting Iran, and I am grateful for the generous welcome I have received. Iran is living through a time of great promise and change. The eyes of the world are upon you. With vision, pride and compassion, you are renewing your nation. I congratulate you on your success. I speak to you on a worldwide day of celebration. December tenth marks the beginning of the fiftieth anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It gives me a special pleasure, therefore, to speak to you and through you to the rest of the world today. You, the students and leaders of tomorrow— here in Iran and in every nation—are the guardians of these human rights. Their fate and future is in your hands. Today, in every part of the world, men, women and children of all faiths and tongues, of every colour and creed, will gather to embrace our common human rights. They will do so in the knowledge that human rights are the foundation of human existence and coexistence; that human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent; and that human rights lie at the heart of all that the United Nations aspires to achieve in peace and development. Human rights are what make us human. They are the principles by which we create the sacred home for human dignity. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and shall act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Human rights are what reason requires and conscience commands. They are us and we are them. Human rights are rights that any person has as a human being. We are all human beings; we are all deserving of human rights. One cannot be true without the other. Who can deny that we all share the same hor-

ror of violence? Who can deny that we all seek lives free of fear, torture and discrimination? Who can deny that we all seek to express ourselves freely and pursue our aims in life? When have you heard a free voice demand an end to freedom? Where have you heard a slave argue for slavery? When have you heard a victim of torture endorse the ways of the torturer? Where have you heard the tolerant cry out for intolerance? The absence of tolerance and human rights is not only a denial of human dignity. It is also the root of the suffering and hatred that breeds political violence and inhibits economic development. If this century’s bloody history has taught us one lesson, it is this. When we speak of the right to life, or development, or to dissent and diversity, we are speaking of tolerance. Tolerance promoted, protected and enshrined will ensure all freedoms. Without it, we can be certain of none. In the words of one wise man: “Faith elicits respect, and fanaticism provokes hate.” Human rights are the expression of those traditions of tolerance in all cultures that are the basis of peace and progress. Human rights, properly understood and justly interpreted, are foreign to no culture and native to all nations. It is the universality of human rights that gives them their strength and endows them with the power to cross any border, climb any wall, defy any force. Human rights are universal not only because their roots exist in all cultures and traditions. Their modern universality is founded on their endorsement by all 185 Members of the United Nations. The Declaration itself was the product of debates between a uniquely representative group of scholars, a majority of whom came from the nonWestern world. They brought to this historic assignment the recent memories of world war and the ancient teachings of universal peace. The principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are deeply rooted in the history of humankind. They can be found in the teachings of all the world’s great cultural and religious traditions. Imam Ali, the fourth Khalifa after Prophet Muhammed, instructed the governor of Egypt to rule with mercy and tolerance towards all his subjects: “. . . Let the dearest of your treasuries be the treasury of righteous action . . . Infuse your heart

10 December 1997 • 277 with mercy, love and kindness for your subjects. Be not in the face of them a voracious animal, counting them as easy prey, for they are of two kinds: either they are your brothers in religion or your equals in creation.” Sa’adi, the great thirteenth century Persian poet, also offered a moving tribute to the values of tolerance and equality among all peoples and nations: “The children of Adam are limbs of one another / And in their creation come from one substance. When the world gives pain to one member, / The other members find no rest. / Thou who are indifferent to the sufferings of others / Do not deserve to be called a man.” Almost 2,000 years earlier, Confucius spoke of the dignity of the individual and the tolerance of the State towards the freedom of expression of all its citizens: “When the good way prevails in the State, speak boldly and act boldly. When the State has lost the way, act boldly and speak softly.” Finally, and much closer to our time, Thomas Jefferson framed human rights as universal rights to freedom and dignity in the American Declaration of Independence of 1776. He wrote: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” I have recounted these examples from all times and far-flung lands because they testify to a lasting and deeply inspiring truth about the human condition. Tolerance and mercy have always and in all cultures been ideals of government rule and human behaviour. Today, we call these values human rights. The growth in support for the Declaration of Human Rights over the past 50 years has given it new life and reaffirmed its universality. The basic principles of the Declaration have been incorporated into national laws of countries from all cultural traditions. There is no single model of democracy, or of human rights, or of cultural expression for all the world. But for all the world, there must be democracy, human rights, and free cultural expression. Human ingenuity will ensure that each society, within its own traditions and history, will enshrine and promote these values. I am convinced of that. That is why I speak in Africa of human rights as “African Rights,” as rights that must find

expression in the language of the people they protect. That is what gives me confidence that one day, these rights will prevail. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, far from insisting on uniformity, is the basic condition for global diversity. That is its great power. That is its lasting value. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines and illuminates global pluralism and diversity. It is the standard for an emerging era in which communication and collaboration between States and peoples will determine their success and survival. The struggle for universal human rights has always and everywhere been the struggle against all forms of tyranny and injustice: against slavery, against colonialism, against apartheid. It is nothing less and nothing different today. In every part of the world, the United Nations is engaged in securing the basic conditions for human existence: peace, development, a safe environment, food, adequate shelter, enhanced opportunities. We seek to provide these goods not because we believe all humans are the same, but because we know that all humans need food, need freedom, need a sustainable future. They are human rights. The history of human rights is the history of the United Nations. The principles and precepts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guide and inform every act of the United Nations. They inspire us to do more for greater numbers. They embolden us to believe that our cause is just and its fate the measure of man. The very First United Nations World Conference on Human Rights took place 30 years ago right here in Tehran. That Conference endorsed the basic principles of the Universal Declaration and set the agenda that we seek to meet today. It called for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. It emphasized the indivisibility of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. It insisted that the full realization of civil and political rights was not possible without the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. The United Nations’ work in peace and development has increasingly placed human rights at the forefront. That includes all human rights, from civil and political rights to social and economic rights. The right to development is a universal and inalienable right, and it is inseparable from all other rights.

278 • 10 December 1997

Indeed, it remains the measure of the respect of all other human rights. One cannot pick and choose among human rights, ignoring some while insisting on others. Only as rights equally applied can they be rights universally accepted. Nor can they be applied selectively or relatively, or as a weapon with which to punish others. Their purity is their eternal strength. If, as some suggest, this has been the most terrible century in human history, it has also been the most hopeful. The essential dignity of every human being is not in doubt as we enter a new millennium. We celebrate today the anniversary of a testament to that dignity. We celebrate a victory for tolerance, diversity and pluralism. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a global bulwark against all systems and all ideologies that would suppress our distinctness and our humanity. Diversity no less than dignity is essential to the human condition. My dear young friends, here in this hall and all over the world, The ideals of human rights are the ideals of hope and humanity. Your idealism inspires your faith in our common future, and your determination to make it more just and more merciful than the past. It is for you to realize these rights, now and for all time. Human rights are your rights. Seize them. Defend them. Promote them. Understand them and insist on them. Nourish and enrich them. They are the true reflection of humanity’s highest aspirations. They are the best in us. Give them life.

10 December 1997 Letter (EOSG); fight against drugs Letter to Enrique Iglesias, president of the InterAmerican Development Bank. The letter was also sent to a wide array of persons, including nonprofits and former heads of state (a list of recipients was not included). Dear Mr. Iglesias, I write to share with you my concern about one of the most vexing problems confronting the international community: the illicit production, trafficking and consumption of drugs. Drugs destroy lives, shatter families and undermine societies. No coun-

try is safe from their effects. Yet few other global challenges offer greater potential for reaping immediate benefits from international cooperation. Over the years, the United Nations has accumulated a vast amount of expertise in the fight against drugs. I am determined to give these efforts even higher priority. Some of the most far-reaching reforms I have introduced since taking office as Secretary-General have been aimed at enhancing our work in this area. The United Nations is preparing a global plan of action to eliminate the illicit cultivation of coca and opium poppy, the plants which provide the raw materials for cocaine and heroin. The plan will be implemented through a partnership involving national governments and multilateral agencies. I also intend to launch a campaign to create greater public awareness of the staggering costs involved in dealing with the social and health consequences of drug abuse, so as to encourage governments and civil society groups to redouble their efforts to reduce demand for drugs. These are bold initiatives, and important steps forward. They will be presented to the General Assembly Special Session on Drugs to be held next June at United Nations Headquarters in New York. If we are to make decisive progress, the political will of the world leaders is essential. The Special Session offers a unique opportunity to generate that momentum. The fight against drugs requires vision and perseverance. In order to secure the necessary guidance and inspiration, I have decided to establish a Comite des Sages, composed of leading personalities committed to this cause. It is my honour to invite you to become a member of this eminent group. The Comite is to consist of roughly ten members, to ensure focus and dynamism. Its deliberations will be assisted by experts specializing in the various aspects of the drug issue. It is expected that the Comite will meet twice in 1998, with the first meeting to take place during the early part of the year in order to consider an outline of the global initiative well in advance of the Special Session. The substantive work related to this initiative is being carried out under the leadership of UnderSecretary-General Pino Arlacchi, Executive Director of the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, based in Vienna. I have asked Mr. Arlacchi to follow up as soon as possible on this letter to provide whatever further information you may require. It is my sincere hope that it will be possible for

12 December 1997 • 279 you to join me in this vital undertaking, which has the potential to contribute significantly to the improvement of people’s lives and the advancement of United Nations ideals. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Yours sincerely,

12 December 1997 Report of the Secretary-General on His Mission of Good Offices in Cyprus

Report to the Security Council (SC, S/1997/973); Cyprus This report is included as an example of the continued efforts by the Secretary-General to use his good offices to resolve the ongoing tension in Cyprus. 1. The present report is submitted pursuant to the Security Council’s request in paragraph 16 of its resolution 1117 (1997) of 27 June 1997. My report on those aspects of the resolution that relate to the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) was submitted to the Council on 8 December (S/1997/962). The present report refers to my good offices mission. 2. In a communication dated 17 April 1997 addressed to the President of the Council (S/1997/320), I stated my determination to pursue intensified efforts to bring about a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem and my hope that it would be possible to convene direct talks between the two community leaders. In the same communication I informed the Council that I had decided to appoint Mr. Diego Cordovez as my Special Adviser on Cyprus with effect from 28 April. 3. In the most recent communication on my good offices mission, dated 20 June 1997 (S/1997/480), I informed the Council that earlier that month I had written to the two leaders inviting them to a session of face-to-face discussions in July. I envisaged that the first session would be followed by another one in August and by a third one, if necessary. 4. The first round of talks was held at Troutbeck, Dutchess County, New York, from 9 to 12 July. In my opening statement at the talks I stated that for 29 years the leaders of the two communities had engaged in discussions about issues that had been identified as the most crucial. These discussions were based on concepts and approaches that successive Secretaries-General had put forward in accordance with Security Council resolutions. I stressed that the search for peace in Cyprus

should therefore continue and noted that international backing for a negotiated solution was firmer than ever. The support of the Security Council had been consistently unequivocal and the presence at the talks of special envoys from a large number of countries was proof of the high priority that the international community attached to a viable and comprehensive solution. 5. The Troutbeck round of talks was held in a constructive and friendly atmosphere. The two leaders initiated the consideration of a draft statement intended to launch the process of negotiations that I had suggested, to set out the principles and objectives of the settlement and to establish the modalities for future negotiations. The two leaders affirmed throughout the talks their determination to reach a settlement. They subsequently met in Nicosia with my Deputy Special Representative, Mr. Gustave Feissel, to consider humanitarian matters. An agreement to achieve progress on the issue of missing persons was concluded on 31 July. 6. The second round of talks was held at Glion-sur-Montreux, Switzerland, from 11 to 15 August. At the opening, the Turkish Cypriot leader informed my Special Adviser that, in the light of the publication by the European Union of a document entitled “Agenda 2000,” and pending clarification of some of the statements contained in that document, he would participate in further discussions with the Greek Cypriot leader and with my Special Adviser but would not be able to adopt any formal understandings or agreements. Two further versions of the draft statement were considered but the talks ended inconclusively. In the circumstances, an early third round of talks would have been unproductive. 7. In discussions I had in New York with the leaders of the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot communities, on 6 October and 3 November, respectively, I urged both leaders to show their political will to reach a settlement and to make a special effort to see recent developments in a positive light. I also informed them that I had instructed Mr. Cordovez to travel to Nicosia in response to the invitations that the two leaders had extended to him at Glion. 8. My Special Adviser visited Nicosia from 18 to 21 November for consultations with the leaders of the two communities. He also met with the political party leaders of the two communities and was briefed by my Deputy Special Representative and Chief of Mission on the overall situation and by the Force Commander and senior officers of

280 • 12 December 1997

UNFICYP on the operation of the Force. Mr. Cordovez subsequently visited Athens, Ankara and London, the capitals of the three Guarantor Powers, and Brussels. At the request of the special representatives on Cyprus, on 27 November Mr. Cordovez participated in a meeting held in Paris. On 2 December Mr. Cordovez briefed the members of the Security Council on all the discussions held during his trip and explained the new factors and circumstances, which will undoubtedly have a bearing on my good offices mission in the months ahead. 9. The message that I asked Mr. Cordovez to convey to the two community leaders, and to the Governments of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was that I remained committed to continue my good offices mission at the earliest appropriate time, bearing in mind that the electoral process is now quite naturally engaging the priority attention of the Greek Cypriot leader and his community. Heads of Government and high-level officials of many interested Member States, who are thoughtfully following my endeavours in this context, have urged me to do so, and I continue to feel that to allow the present status quo, which is precarious, to continue would entail serious danger. 10. During the consultations in Cyprus Mr. Cordovez proposed, and the two community leaders agreed, that he should return to Nicosia in March 1998 in order to discuss the detailed modalities of a continuing process of negotiations and hopefully set it in motion. The Turkish Cypriot leader raised with Mr. Cordovez questions regarding the status of the interlocutors at future talks. My Special Adviser noted that, in accordance with the mandate given to the Secretary-General by the Security Council, the mission of good offices on Cyprus was with the two communities, on an equal footing, and that the Secretary-General and all his representatives had been scrupulous in observing the political equality of the two communities and their leaders. 11. I remain convinced that it is essential to adopt new approaches and to ensure that the two community leaders will enter upon, as soon as possible, a continuing and sustained process of negotiations that will focus on the preparation of the actual legal instruments that will constitute the settlement. 12. I should like to place on record my appreciation to all those Governments that, given their interest in and concern about the Cyprus problem, have appointed special envoys in order to assist,

and be kept informed of, my good offices mission. They have provided invaluable assistance and advice to my Special Adviser, who meets regularly with all of them for purposes of consultation and cooperation.

15 December 1997 Letter (EOSG); El Salvador Letter to the president of the General Assembly, Hennadiy Udovenko. Excellency, I am writing to inform you of progress in the implementation of the peace accords in El Salvador during the period 1 July–10 December 1997, in accordance with the request by the General Assembly contained in resolution 51/199B of 31 July 1997 that I keep it informed of further developments in the implementation of the peace process, as I deem appropriate. You will recall that, in the evaluation of the peace process I submitted to the General Assembly on 1 July 1997 (A/51/1997), I proposed that, in view of the fact that there remained a number of accords, particularly in the socio-economic area, in which implementation had yet to be completed, two international professionals and two local consultants should be inserted as a unit under the administrative umbrella of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). This unit was to follow up on the outstanding elements of the peace accords for a period of six months, and would be funded by existing monies within the Trust Fund for the Mission of the United Nations in El Salvador. This proposal was welcomed by the General Assembly in the abovementioned resolution. While the verification and good offices functions of the Organization have continued to be carried out from Headquarters, the unit in El Salvador has made every effort to assist the Government of El Salvador and the Frente Farabundo Marti para la Liberacion Nacional (FMLN) with the implementation of the outstanding elements of the peace accords in the socio-economic area. This has not been an easy task. The accords in which aspects remained outstanding, in particular the land transfer programme (PTT), the programme to transfer rural human settlements to their current occupants, the Fund for the Protection of the Wounded and War-Disabled, and the transfer of lands in excess of the constitutional limits of 245 hectares, are inherently complex, and the elements still in need of implementation are especially difficult.

16 December 1997 • 281 Moreover, it has not always been possible to attain the cooperation necessary from the agencies responsible for the accords’ implementation to ensure that solutions are found in the most expeditious manner possible. Still, modest advances continue to be made. Although progress in the land transfer programme has been painstaking, a solution has been found for a third of the 900 beneficiaries whose cases were outstanding on 1 July. All efforts should be made to ensure that similar solutions are found for the remaining 611 beneficiaries. Of greater concern is the rural human settlements programme, in which substantial advances have been made only in negotiations with the properties’ owners. Implementation of the other stages of the programme has been unjustifiably slow. In order to achieve the maximum progress in the months ahead, agreement should be reached between the Lands Bank and the National Registry Centre to establish mechanisms to facilitate the inscription of titles and purchase of properties. A high level of implementation of the programme during 1998 would then be possible. The possibility of extending the benefits of the Fund for the War-Wounded and Disabled to the total universe of potential beneficiaries included in the 1993 census as family members of dead combatants remains obstructed by the short-comings of legislative decree 1040, as I pointed out in my report of 1 July 1997 (A/51/1997). It is hoped that the appropriate adjustments can be made promptly in order to afford this needy population the benefits to which they are rightfully entitled. There has been some reluctance on the part of the Salvadorian Institute for Agrarian Transformation (ISTA) to accept the findings of the UNsponsored investigation into properties alleged by campesino organizations to have lands in excess of the constitutional limit of 245 hectares, in accordance with the agreement reached by the Joint Group working on the issue in December 1996. While the United Nations will honour the commitment it made to investigate the 42 remaining properties of those assigned to it by this agreement, it is to be hoped that the political will required to address the delicate issue of the transfer of the properties identified as being in excess of 245 hectares will be forthcoming. Considering that aspects of the peace accords remain pending and that further modest progress in the areas in which the unit in El Salvador has been concentrating its work is still possible, I am proposing to maintain the presence of the unit [in El

Salvador] for a further six months, but in the reduced form of one international staff member and one local consultant. The verification and good offices functions of the Organization will, as in the current period, continue to be carried out from Headquarters. Increased coordination with UNDP will be imperative to the success with which such a minimal presence is able to carry out the tasks assigned to it, as well as prepare for its eventual departure. Thanks to the generosity of voluntary contributions made by the Netherlands and Spain in recent months, the costs of the unit would be covered by existing monies within the Trust Fund for the Mission of the United Nations in El Salvador. I would be grateful if you could bring this letter to the attention of the members of the General Assembly. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

16 December 1997 Secretary-General Calls for Strengthened Multilateralism to Avoid a “Clash of Civilizations”

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6425); Malaysia Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the Institute for Diplomacy and Foreign Relations, in Kuala Lumpur. It gives me great pleasure to be with you this evening and to be visiting Malaysia as it hosts the thirtieth anniversary celebration of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Malaysia is a good friend and partner of the United Nations: active in its debates, a generous contributor to peacekeeping, committed to its objectives and universal ideals. As one of the most advanced economies in the developing world, Malaysia has unique stature and a singular voice. It is the voice of an outward-looking country, engaged not only in the international trading system, but also in the wider, multilateral quest for global peace, development and human rights. It is the voice of a multiracial society that seeks for all its people a culture of tolerance, inclusion and social cohesion. It is, simultaneously, a voice of the South and a voice of the future for all nations. Malaysia has also been a strong advocate of regional and international cooperation. “Prosper thy neighbour” is a term used often by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in arguing for global and regional policies that give greater consider-

282 • 16 December 1997

ation to the needs and vulnerabilities of developing nations. These countries merit our support and solidarity, both in finding their footing at home and in becoming better integrated into the global economy. “Prosper thy neighbour” is more than a slogan. It is a practical approach that reflects an understanding that more and more aspects of contemporary life transcend borders. Today’s problems are too complex and interdependent for any single nation, no matter how powerful or rich in resources, to address on its own. In a world of global threats and global opportunities, all countries stand to benefit from international cooperation. And no country is exempt from the risks of doing without it. Intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations and ASEAN, were founded with just these principles in mind. The ASEAN has become one of the world’s most successful regional groupings. It is today the cornerstone of regionalism in Asia. I am pleased to note that ASEAN is close to realizing the vision of its founders: building a community comprising all 10 countries in the South-East Asian region. ASEAN’s most notable success has been its remarkable progress in economic and social development. Per capita gross domestic product has nearly doubled since 1980, even though population increased by more than a third over the same period. But this is just one measure of the region’s well-being. Another is trade, in which ASEAN has been particularly dynamic. While world trade has been growing at a rate of 7.4 per cent per year, trade within ASEAN and between ASEAN and other developing countries has been growing at roughly 19 per cent annually. Intra-ASEAN trade, valued at $3.7 billion when trade preferences were put in place in 1976, reached $53 billion in 1994: more than one fifth of the region’s total trade. This rapid growth is being complemented by similarly impressive gains in investment and industrial collaboration. Indeed, the developing countries are becoming the global economy’s new frontier for expanding trade, investment, production and finance. The ASEAN has also served as an important forum for reducing regional tensions and resolving intra-regional differences. It is a highly diverse grouping of nearly 500 million people, but its members face common challenges: ensuring economic development while preserving the natural environment; encouraging greater enjoyment of

individual rights; sustaining traditional values in the midst of rapid modernization; and promoting good governance, transparent administration and the development of civil society. These and other “quality of life” issues have arisen as a result of the dramatic transition the region has undergone in a relatively short time. The ASEAN is by no means alone in confronting such questions. They are on the agenda of other regions and of the United Nations itself. Today, regionalism and globalization coexist in welcome harmony. Once, it was feared that regional groups would tend to be inward-looking rather than globally engaged. It was thought that, in matters such as trade, regional groups would resort to protectionism instead of maintaining a commitment to open markets. The experience of recent years shows that this need not be the case. Almost all members of the World Trade Organization now participate in one or more of the 88 regional agreements that are currently in force. Regionalism is enabling developing countries to improve their competitiveness and their ability to navigate in the global economy. The open regionalism which characterizes Malaysia’s and other developing countries’ cooperation is in fact strengthening the global system, enhancing that system’s links and helping spread more equitably the benefits of globalization. The issue today is no longer globalization versus regionalism. Rather, it is how to maximize the benefits of regional cooperation while minimizing any possibility that it might undermine multilateral principles. Regionalism, instead of detracting from multilateral action, is fast becoming one of its main pillars. The United Nations has both a global and a regional perspective. The globalization of the policy-making process on major issues of concern to humankind—such as the environment, population, human rights, trade and development—is reflected in United Nations conferences held throughout the 1990s. As a global institution, the United Nations possesses the credibility, expertise and network needed to address these and other issues in a comprehensive manner. Throughout the world, our services in the fields of peacekeeping, conflict resolution, development and democratization remain in great demand. But implementation depends greatly on regional, national and local bodies. Thus, the United Nations needs to develop strategic alliances with regional organizations such as ASEAN. Along with non-governmental organiza-

16 December 1997 • 283 tions, the private sector, academic institutions and other civil society groups, regional groups are increasingly influential and effective. The international community, in its pursuit of the common good, must harness the myriad contributions that they are uniquely placed to make. Even in 1945, when none of the regional organizations we know today were yet in existence, the drafters of the Charter of the United Nations were aware of the importance of cooperation with “regional arrangements.” They devoted an entire chapter to the subject: Chapter VIII, which provides for regional approaches to the maintenance of international peace and security. But primarily because of the cold war, the involvement of regional organizations in United Nations preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peacekeeping and post-conflict peace-building is relatively recent vintage. Cooperation between the United Nations and ASEAN in Cambodia was among the earliest such examples. During the period of the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) and since, we have devoted great energy and resources to the cause of Cambodian peace, development and democracy. I regret that peace and democracy have proven so fragile in Cambodia, and that those developments have led to the postponement of Cambodia’s entry into ASEAN. It is my hope that our ongoing efforts will help improve the current situation, for the sake of all Cambodians and so that the country can be admitted in due course. The United Nations is also working closely with other regional organizations. With the Organization of American States (OAS), we are fielding a mission in Haiti for institution-building and human rights monitoring. A joint United Nations-Organization of African Unity (OAU) envoy continues to work for lasting peace in the Great Lakes region of Central Africa. We are cooperating with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in Georgia and Tajikistan, and with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Georgia. There has been an enormous amount of fruitful cooperation in the Balkans over the past five years with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, the OSCE and the Western European Union. In recognition of the growing importance of such cooperation, the United Nations convened, in 1994 and again last year, meetings of the heads of a number of regional organizations to discuss ways of working together more effectively. The ASEAN

was present in 1996, and I look forward to its involvement when the third such meeting is held next year. For the moment, I am well aware that the people of South-East Asia are intently focused on their prospects for economic and social security. Recent developments, especially in the financial markets, have shaken the region’s confidence. People are concerned about looming job losses, rising prices, austerity measures and a less favourable shortterm economic outlook. Nonetheless, most observers expect the region to overcome its immediate difficulties, regain its path of vigorous growth and fulfil its proven potential. The prosperity of ASEAN is founded on a solid basis: industrial capacity, manpower skills, entrepreneurship and sound policies. With these fundamentals in place, with courage to carry out necessary reforms and with the help of the international community, I am sure that this region will revive its determination and dynamism. South-South cooperation offers one formidable way to sustain the gains of recent years. Much of the dramatic growth the world has seen in recent years was led by countries from the South. “No one can do for us what we do not do for ourselves”, says the San Jose Declaration on this subject. The ASEAN has taken the sentiment to heart, and as a group has been a leading exponent of South-South dialogue, exchanges, technical support and more. It is worth noting that the “Group of 15”, of which Malaysia and Indonesia are members, is one of the few economic groupings of developing countries that is transregional in scope. The United Nations, for its part, promotes South-South cooperation and is particularly well placed to serve as a forum in which countries and regions struggling to find the path to prosperity can share experiences and lessons learned. The private sector offers another solid path to continued prosperity. Private businesses, corporations and entrepreneurs are the dominant engine of growth, the principal creator of value and wealth, the source of the largest financial, technological and managerial resources. This region has benefited greatly from private sector investment and activity. Given increasing constraints on official development assistance to members of ASEAN, more effective use of private capital becomes even more important. Here, too, the United Nations can help. Since taking office, I have made constant overtures to the

284 • 16 December 1997

private sector, seeking to show them that there is a clear and demonstrable link between profitability and raising living standards for the world’s poorest people. Profitability and equity are not mutually exclusive goals. Quite the reverse. At the fifth ASEAN Summit, held in Bangkok in 1995, ASEAN leaders declared that ASEAN would explore ways to enhance cooperation with the United Nations, with a view to promoting peace and stability in the region. For my part, I am eager to explore how the United Nations and ASEAN can broaden and deepen the scope of our relations. The long presence in the region of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Labour Organization (ILO) and others at work in the economic and social realms provides a solid foundation on which to build. Let us seize this opportunity. In doing so we can strengthen multilateralism in an age which demands it in ever greater measure and force. We can buttress the principles of tolerance and cooperation in a world in which intolerance and unilateralism have all too many adherents. We can, by our example, provide a resounding answer to those who say a “clash of civilizations” is inevitable. To some, multilateralism is an encroachment upon national sovereignty. I say without reservation that it is an asset: a way of sharing burdens, political and financial; of profiting from shared experience; and perhaps, most importantly, of expressing shared values that form a strong moral foundation amid the hatred and brutality which all too frequently run rampant in our world. By working together in this spirit, ASEAN can realize its long-cherished dream of making South-East Asia a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality. And by working with the United Nations—a reformed and revitalized instrument of service to humankind—ASEAN can uphold these important, universal values while securing for itself and all of Asia an even greater voice in world affairs. I look forward to continuing this valuable, constructive partnership.

19 December 1997 Secretary-General Welcomes Adoption of Resolution on Proposed UN Reforms

Presentation to the General Assembly (EOSG, SG/SM/6428, ORG/1258); UN reform Text of the Secretary-General’s statement to the General Assembly anticipating the Assembly’s adoption of a further resolution on measures and proposals for UN reform. On 12 November, the General Assembly adopted a consensus resolution welcoming those elements of my reform package that fell within my jurisdiction as Secretary-General. Today, you are about to adopt a second resolution, this time endorsing many of my proposed reforms concerning elements that are within the domain of Member States. Together, we have taken major strides to initiate the process of revitalization that we all agree is necessary if the United Nations is to thrive in the twenty-first century. Together, we are making this the Reform Assembly. Your adoption of this resolution will establish the post of Deputy Secretary-General, which I view as indispensable to the new leadership and management structure of the Secretariat. I will move immediately to appoint a Deputy, following consultations with Member States, and very much hope that she will join us early in the new year. In the area of peace and security, the resolution contains provisions that will improve the ability of the Organization to detect potential threats to international peace and security, with the objective of supporting efforts by the Security Council and the Secretary-General to prevent conflicts. It also endorses steps to enhance the rapid deployment capacity of the Organization. This resolution accepts my proposal to establish a Development Dividend, funded by administrative savings, thereby reaffirming our collective commitment to the instrumental objective of efficiency as well as the substantive priority of economic and social development. By adopting this resolution you are expressing your willingness to further rationalize intergovernmental machinery in the United Nations, including the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and several of its subsidiary organs. The same is true of the regional commissions. Finally, the resolution authorizes improvements in several other substantive areas of our work, including disarmament, development cooperation, and humanitarian affairs. We have every right to take great pride in these achievements. They speak well of the capacity of the United Nations to reform itself, where reform means embracing fundamental measures that

31 December 1997 • 285 strengthen the Organization and augment its efficacy. Moreover, the process whereby the two reform resolutions came to be adopted reflect the General Assembly at its best: innovative, pragmatic, and concerned with the greater good of the United Nations itself. I thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership and your fair but firm hand in reaching these achievements. I want also to express our collective gratitude to your two friends, the outstanding Permanent Representatives of Botswana and Ireland, whose effective diplomatic skills helped produce today’s consensus resolution. Mr. President, allow me also to thank the members of my own team who have assisted me throughout the process of initiating and coordinating the reform effort, drafting my report, and presenting its measures and proposals to this Assembly. Above all, I am indebted to Mr. Maurice Strong, the Executive Coordinator for Reform, a man of enormous energy, creativity, and dedication to the Organization we all serve. I am also grateful to Mr. Joseph Connor, UnderSecretary-General for Management, who has worked tirelessly in a quest for administrative efficiencies and other managerial improvements. We would not be where we are today were it not for their efforts, and those of the rest of our team. Lack of time did not permit you to consider, in depth, the measures of a longer-term nature within the framework of my reform report. I look forward to presenting more detailed proposals before the end of March, as you have requested. I will present to you the outlines of a resultsbased budgeting system together with illustrations of how it would function in the context of the United Nations. As parliaments from New Zealand to Singapore have discovered, such a budgeting system increases the ability of legislatures to hold administrative entities accountable. But it does so in a manner that stimulates administrative efficiencies, encourages coherence of efforts, and promotes agility. More effective results are achieved, typically at lower costs. Similarly, in any organization, public or private, a rational process is required to routinely update its work. The idea of sunset provisions is intended to provide a specific time horizon for mandates, whereupon their continuation would require explicit renewal by the General Assembly. As you requested, I shall propose concrete measures to this effect. I consider the Millennium Assembly to be of utmost importance. As we enter the new century

and the new millennium, we must do for the Organization what has not been done since its founding conference in San Francisco. We must articulate clearly a compelling epochal vision for the United Nations, reaffirming its place in the system of international organizations, and its role in the international community as a whole. In my judgement, the Millennium Assembly should review and reassess what the United Nations has endeavoured to achieve as well as the means by which it has sought to achieve its ends, with an eye on how further to close the gap between aspiration and accomplishment. It should identify promising opportunities as well as significant shortcomings. It should re-examine the continued viability of the juridically-based fragmentation that exists within the United Nations family as a whole. And it should provide focused strategic guidance for the United Nations in the era ahead. You have heard me say before that reform is not an event, but a process. Today marks an exceedingly important event, to be sure, but the process must continue. And why must it continue? Because we are not engaged in reform for its own sake. We undertake it so that a more vital and more effective United Nations can make the contributions to its Member States, indeed, to men, women and children throughout the world, that our historic mission calls upon us to make. The Charter, as is so often the case, puts it best: to maintain international peace and security, to cooperate in achieving economic and social progress, to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The twentieth century has exhibited unprecedented outbursts of inhumanity. But it has also planted the seeds for greater human solidarity to come. Chief among them is the United Nations. Let us nourish this unique and precious expression of what unites us, and by virtue of enacting a selffulfilling prophecy, the nations of the world will become ever more united.

31 December 1997 Letter (EOSG); UN Conference on Trade and Development Letter to Rubens Ricupero, secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in Geneva. Dear Mr. Ricupero, I should like to thank you for your letter of 11 December concerning the resolution adopted by

286 • 31 December 1997

the General Assembly on international trade and development. The resolution is indeed an important confirmation that political support for the work of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development is both broadening and deepening. The central role entrusted to UNCTAD by the General Assembly in the process of monitoring the evolution of the multi-lateral trading system is especially significant in this regard. I was also pleased to note that the resolution encourages a further strengthening of practical cooperation between UNCTAD and the World Trade Organization and the Bretton Woods institutions. UNCTAD’s recent experience in pursuing well defined, common goals with these institutions in support of African and other least developed countries is particularly promising and should be built upon by the Organization as a whole. I should add that I have appreciated the increasingly valuable contribution that UNCTAD is making to New York-based debates on globalization, finance and investment. I trust that, as we implement the reform programme, opportunities for such contributions, and for close collaboration among all United Nations entities concerned with economic and social issues, will continue to increase. With my very best wishes for the New Year, Yours sincerely,

1998 6 January 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Asked about the release date for the SecretaryGeneral’s final report on the oil-for-food programme, Mr. Brandt said the report would probably be released before the end of January. A correspondent asked if Ms. Ogata had mentioned any UNHCR programme in Italy to aid Kurdish asylum-seekers from Turkey and Iraq. Mr. Brandt said the press release dealt with the treatment received by those asylum-seekers at the hands of people who wanted “to make a quick buck at their expense”, as well as with Italy’s response to the situation. The Deputy Spokesman said he would check on any UNHCR programmes for the asylum-seekers in Italy.

Noon briefing (OSSG); oil-for-food program Juan Carlos Brandt, Deputy Spokesman for the Secretary-General, began today’s briefing by reminding correspondents of an earlier announcement that the Secretary-General had approved the draft distribution plan for phase III of the Iraq oilfor-food programme. After approving the plan last evening, the Secretary-General had informed the President of the Security Council and the Government of Iraq. Weekly Report No. 46 on the implementation of the oil-for-food programme was available in the Spokesman’s office, he said. It states that the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990), which oversees the sanctions against Iraq, last week approved 44 humanitarian sales contracts, blocked none, and put 15 applications on hold—all under phase II. So far, 280 sales applications had been submitted to the Committee under phase II of the programme, of which 230 had been approved, Mr. Brandt said. The contracts approved under phase II were valued at $940 million, so there was still a way to go under that phase II. The total oil proceeds under phase II had reached $1.979 billion, against a ceiling of $2 billion. Mr. Brandt said copies of the letters from the Secretary-General to Council President Alain Dejammet (France), and from the Executive Director of the Iraq programme, Benon Sevan, to the Permanent Representative of Iraq, were available in the Spokesman’s office. The Security Council had adopted its programme of work for January, under the Presidency of France, Mr. Brandt said. The President of the Council had also convened a meeting of its Sanctions Committees, which were composed of all Council members, to elect their respective bureaux for 1998. . . .

12 January 1998 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6433); deputy secretary-general/Iraq SPOKESMAN: Ladies and Gentlemen, the SecretaryGeneral would like to introduce you to the firstever Deputy Secretary-General. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good morning. Let me begin by wishing all of you a happy New Year, because this is the first time I’ve seen most of you. I am very pleased this morning to introduce the first Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, Louise Fréchette. Some of you knew her when she was here with us at the United Nations. I also know that some of you said I was looking for the most qualified woman to take this job. There you are wrong. I was looking for the best person to take the job, and she happens to be a woman. And I am very happy that we have someone who comes to us with the qualifications of Ms. Fréchette. She has had a varied career in the Canadian Foreign Ministry. She started here in New York about 25 years ago, so in a way it is homecoming for her. She has had stints at the Canadian Mission in Geneva, as Ambassador to Argentina and Ambassador to the United Nations here in New York. She has also had experience in economic policy and has served as Associate Deputy Minister of Finance and Deputy Minister of Defence. And of course she comes with all the linguistic skills: speaking English, French and Spanish. For those who often worry about linguistic balance, you don’t need to worry this time. Let me present Louise Fréchette. And Louise, you may want to say a few words and maybe take some questions. MS. FRÉCHETTE: Yes, I will say a few words if you don’t mind. First of all to thank you very

287

288 • 12 January 1998

much, Mr. Secretary-General, for offering me this wonderful opportunity, and to say that I consider it a great honour to have been chosen for this job. I accepted without any hesitation, frankly, for two reasons. First, because I’m a great believer in the United Nations. As the Secretary-General has indicated, my career in the foreign service brought me in contact with the United Nations many times in the course of my 25 years. And I have no difficulty affirming that I think that the United Nations is an indispensable organization, and therefore it’s a great honour to be here. But I have a second reason for accepting with pleasure, and it is the great admiration and respect I have for you, Mr. Secretary-General, and for the people who work in the United Nations. I have come across a large number of extremely competent and dedicated people who do a lot of very good work for the Organization, and I am very proud to join with what I consider to be a very good team. As usual, the United Nations has a great challenge, and its biggest challenge is to keep up with the times, to be ready for the problems of tomorrow rather than to look backwards. And I must say I’m struck by the amount of change that has taken place in the three years that I’ve been away from New York. So I’ve been very much looking forward to joining the team and working together with Mr. Annan on this job. With your permission, Mr. Secretary-General, I would like to repeat in French what I have just said. I don’t think I should be so bold as to do the same thing in Spanish, but I would like to say it in French. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, I should like to reciprocate, on behalf of the United Nations correspondents, your best wishes for the new year, challenging as it is going to be. I should like to mention that we are getting off to a flying start as far as news is concerned. Your first presentation is producing considerable news, as you can tell from the audience, which is considerably higher than it normally is. Ms. Fréchette, best wishes to you. I hope that you will follow the Secretary-General’s trail, meeting with the press as often as possible and being quite forthcoming. My first question is: you mentioned the challenge of the times; in the context of your new duties, what do you consider the greatest challenge facing you now? DEPUTY SECRETARY-GENERAL: As you know, the resolution that the General Assembly adopted

creating this job makes a special reference to areas of development and economic issues in general. I think there is great challenge for the United Nations in defining its role in the future on these issues of development. There is no doubt that there is a crying need for greater attention to be paid to developmental issues, as well as to those crosscutting issues that affect all countries—the socalled global issues. I think the real challenge for the United Nations, among many, and certainly for myself, given the fact that I will pay special attention to these areas, is to help define the proper role for the United Nations on these kinds of issues. QUESTION: I break in on news that is happening. I must ask the Secretary-General, if I may, his opinion on what is going on today in Iraq, where Baghdad once again says it will determine whether a weapons inspection team is acceptable or not. And they are saying they are going to stop a team led by Scott Ritter, the American. They say the team is unbalanced: too many British, too many Americans. S-G: Let’s see if there are others who have questions for Ms. Fréchette, and then I will come back to your question, if you don’t mind. I am not ducking it—I will come back to you. QUESTION: Your job has been pretty clearly defined in the language that creates the post. But I wonder in what ways you might define it personally. What will you bring to the job, as the first person ever to hold such a position, that will be sort of your own personal lasting legacy for those who follow? DEPUTY S-G: I think what I bring to the job is, first, a fairly good knowledge of the United Nations, although I think I have a lot of catching up to do, a lot has happened since I left. I have been involved at various stages in my career with many aspects of economic policy: trade policy in the Foreign Ministry and a relationship with the international financial institutions when I was in the Department of Finance. I bring a fairly broad background on economic issues, generally speaking. And I think I have in the last few years learned a great deal about the management of large organizations, which I am sure will be relevant to my job in the United Nations Secretariat [Statement Repeated in French]. QUESTION: Mine is a bit of a light question. With the $15,000 a year, you will be paid less than your secretary. How will you survive in New York? DEPUTY S-G: I beg your pardon. QUESTION: Fifteen-thousand dollars is your

12 January 1998 • 289 allowance for a whole year, annually. Your secretary will be paid more than that. How will you survive in New York? DEPUTY S-G: I think $15,000 is an allowance for hospitality, which I think is quite generous. QUESTION: That was your own figuring here, in regard to [inaudible]? DEPUTY S-G: I think there is some information available about the composition of my office. I will have a small number of people that will be assigned to me personally. But, at the same time, I think the Secretary-General has made it clear that we will be working as a team with his team on the thirty-eighth floor. So I think the arrangements, as they are being foreseen, are more than adequate to support me in my job. S-G: But I am happy that you were worried about her conditions. We believe we are overworked and underpaid, and thank you for making that point. QUESTION: Yes, I am afraid I also have an Iraqirelated question. How do you see this new post defining or redefining the post of Chef du cabinet? S-G: First of all, let me say that when you have somebody like Ms. Fréchette joining a unit, and this is often something we do not often realize— when one person comes in everybody’s job changes, including mine. I have had to decide what functions, what authority, I will give her to make her job meaningful. And that, of course, would also affect the work of the other people in the office. And so, the work of the Chef du cabinet will change somewhat, but not that drastically. The coordination of the office when I am away, of overseeing the activities of the Organization, will fall to Ms. Fréchette. In the past, in the absence of a deputy, the Chef du cabinet had to do quite a lot of juggling and had to make sure that the place runs and that things were coordinated. That, for example, will go to Ms. Fréchette, and there will be other adjustments to be made. And my own functions would also change. QUESTION: Ms. Fréchette, one of the things that has changed in the years you have been away from here is, of course, the reduction in the number of peacekeeping operations and, in general, the appetite for peacekeeping, if one is to judge. Would you welcome a discussion about where peacekeeping is going or what other kind of tools the United Nations might use? DEPUTY S-G: I think it has to be part of the— the word that comes to mind in French is réflexion—thinking about the experience gained with peacekeeping in the early nineties. When is this the

most appropriate tool? What are the tools that we need to manage and to respond to crises and, more importantly, to anticipate and prevent crises? And, yes, I think there has to be continuing dialogue. And perhaps this is the best time to do it, while the demand is not so high as it was some years ago when I was here. S-G: I would want to add that there have been a couple of very interesting reports on the role of peacekeeping and the role of the Council. Lord Carrington led a group that did a report recently, and also the Carnegie Foundation has come up with its report on preventive action in deadly conflict, and I think there will be an event here on 5 February to discuss it. I hope one can encourage the Council to take advantage of those two reports as a basis for all of us to discuss and review where we are, where we go and what changes and adjustments can be made. So I do agree with Ms. Fréchette that the kind of reflection that we need to do really should cover the points you raised in your question. Richard [of CNN], you asked about Iraq. Let me say that I have also followed the news. I am going to be meeting with Richard Butler later on in the day. And, as you know, he is due in Baghdad on 19 January to discuss with the Iraqi authorities the question of access. I hope that the Iraqi authorities will not do anything precipitous and will wait for Mr. Butler to get there to raise whatever issues they have with him. We have been engaged in dialogue. Mr. Butler is going there, and my advice to them would be to wait and discuss these issues with him and not take any precipitous action. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, you just said that you hoped that Iraq would not take any precipitous action. Right now, Iraq says the team cannot pursue its inspections tomorrow with Scott Ritter leading it. So has the United Nations decided to halt any inspections until Butler gets there? S-G: No, we have not decided to halt any inspections. The teams are on the ground, and as you know, they have been able to continue with their work, with the cooperation of the Iraqis, since November. This is the first hiccup we have confronted since then, and, as I said, I am going to be discussing with Mr. Butler to say no decision has been taken to halt, and I hope that this can be worked out in an acceptable manner. But in any event, Mr. Butler will be going there, and after I have spoken to him today, first of all to get a full report on the exact composition of the team in place and the nature of the Iraqi complaint and its validity. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, I was wondering when we can expect a decision from you

290 • 12 January 1998

about General Dallaire appearing before the Arusha Tribunal. S-G: The Legal Office has reviewed it, and I think we have had correspondence with the court, and I do expect my decision to be coming fairly shortly. Unfortunately, I just came back from leave today, and it is one of the issues that I will be looking at. But it should not take too long. We should be making that decision within that period. Thank you very much.

12 January 1998 Secretary-General Urges Iraq Not to Take Action Prior to Visit by UNSCOM Executive Chairman

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6436, IK/236); UN Special Commission The Secretary-General was briefed this afternoon by the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission set up under Security Council resolution 687 (1991) in connection with the disposal of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (UNSCOM), Richard Butler, on the circumstances relating to the statement by an official spokesman for Iraq with respect to UNSCOM inspections currently under way in Iraq. He has also seen the letter by the Executive Chairman to the President of the Security Council today, a copy of which was passed to the Permanent Representative of Iraq with the request that it be transmitted immediately to Baghdad. As indicated in that letter, the inspection team, which in fact conducted inspections of seven sites with the full participation of the Iraqi side, comprised 44 inspectors of 17 nationalities, not only the 16 inspectors to whom Iraq has expressed objection. The Secretary-General hopes that this clarification could contribute to a solution to the present difficulty and that a problem will no longer exist. He reiterates his call on Iraq not to take precipitous action prior to the visit of the Executive Chairman, to Baghdad, next week. The Secretary-General has also spoken to the Permanent Representative of Iraq, Ambassador Nizar Hamdoon, who agreed to the SecretaryGeneral’s request that he express to Baghdad the Secretary-General’s concerns.

14 January 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); UN Special Commission

Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s noon briefing by informing correspondents that in Iraq the inspection team of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) led by Scott Ritter was again unable to undertake its inspection mission of today. As had happened yesterday, the Iraqi officials did not turn up to escort the team. Today’s team consisted of 41 persons from 14 countries. Again, several other teams had gone out successfully on inspections. Richard Butler, Executive Chairman of UNSCOM, was expected to leave New York tomorrow evening, Mr. Eckhard said. He was planning to hold talks with First Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz on 19 and 20 January in Iraq. At 11:30 this morning the Security Council resumed its consultations on Iraq, Mr. Eckhard said. It heard UNSCOM Executive Chairman, Richard Butler, who had answered questions by Member States. The Council had then considered the letters of 12 January from the Executive Chairman and of 13 January from the Permanent Representative of Iraq, Nizar Hamdoon, addressed to the President of the Council. The Council was considering a draft presidential statement with a view to adopting it later today at a formal meeting. The United Nations oil overseers had now approved 15 out of 25 contracts they had received so far, Mr. Eckhard continued. This was under the third phase of the “oil for food” programme for Iraq. The total amount of oil approved was 79.5 million barrels. In other business, Mr. Eckhard said that last night the Secretary-General had agreed to waive the immunity of General Dallaire—who had headed the United Nations Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) in 1994—for the purpose of giving testimony at the Arusha Tribunal in the case of Jean-Paul Akayesu. The waiver was limited to General Dallaire’s appearance as a witness before the tribunal in that case and to matters of direct relevance to the charges made against the accused. The waiver did not relate to the release of confidential documents of the United Nations which were subject to the authorization of the SecretaryGeneral. The immunity concerned only the case of Jean-Paul Akayesu, the Spokesman reiterated. Mr. Akayesu had been the Burgermeister of the Taba commune from 1993 to 1994. From April to June 1994, while he was still in power, there had been some 2,000 Tutsis killed in his commune. That

16 January 1998 • 291 was the case that was being tried. General Dallaire would offer testimony just in relation to that case. There had been an effort by the Belgian Parliament to get General Dallaire to testify which had been denied. The difference was that one was a national legislative body, the other was a tribunal created by the Security Council to which the United Nations was obliged to respond. As a matter of policy, any efforts by Member States to call United Nations personnel before them to testify was resisted. The Senior Management Group, which was sometimes called “the Cabinet”, had had its weekly meeting this morning, Mr. Eckhard said. They had discussed the Turner Fund and the SecretaryGeneral’s visit last December to Iran, Kuwait and Malaysia. They had also had an extended discussion of the continued killings in Algeria, expressing their distress at the ongoing massacres there, as well as their support for the Secretary-General’s statement of Monday on the desperate situation in that country. Participating in that meeting by teleconference from Geneva were, Mary Robinson and Sadako Ogata—High Commissioners for Human Rights and Refugees, respectively—as well as Vladimir Petrovsky, Under-SecretaryGeneral and Executive Director of the United Nations Office at Geneva. . . . A correspondent asked if it was correct that the matter of landmines was being moved to the Department of Disarmament. Mr. Eckhard said that Mr. Dhanapala had mentioned that landmines were one of the priorities. Mr. Eckhard then referred correspondents with technical questions about disarmament to Sophie Sebirot in the Spokesman’s office. Another correspondent, referring to the fact that Scott Ritter had served in the Gulf War, asked whether it was normal that he was now part of the UNSCOM investigation team. Mr. Eckhard said, “What is normal? He did his military service, he had a career in the Marines, and he was a disarmament specialist. What we are interested in is that he knows about disarmament and weapons of mass destruction.” Asked whether Mr. Ritter could be neutral, Mr. Eckhard said, “I certainly hope so, yes, I don’t see why his military service would bias his judgement as a disarmament expert.” . . . The same correspondent then asked what was on the agenda for tonight’s meeting between Mrs. Albright and the Secretary-General. She was expected to brief the Secretary-General on her recent visit to Africa, Mr. Eckhard said. The

Secretary-General would be discussing with her some of the ideas he had for his report on Africa which had been mandated by the ministerial level meeting of the Security Council that Mrs. Albright had chaired, and which had called on the Secretary-General to submit a report in February.

16 January 1998 Letter (EOSG); Liberia Letter to the president of the Security Council, Alain Dejammet. The letter was only written in French. Monsieur le Président, J’ai 1’honneur de me référer aux consultations officieuses du Conseil de sécurité du 15 décembre 1997 sur le Libéria, au cours desquelles les membres du Conseil ont pris note de la requête du Représentant permanent du Liberia visant a ce que soit levé 1’embargo sur les livraisons d’armes a destination de ce pays et ont demande au Secrétariat de fournir au Conseil une évaluation de l’impact de cet embargo. Je voudrais tout d’abord faire remarquer qu’avec la fin du mandat de la Mission d’Observation des Nations Unies au Libéria à la fin de septembre 1997 et le retrait consécutif de tous les observateurs militaires des Nations Unies, le Secrétariat n’est guerre en mesure d’évaluer de première main a quel degré 1’embargo est présentement applique ou respecte. Je pourrais être mieux a même d’en informer le Conseil une fois que mon Représentant au Libéria, M. Felix Downes-Thomas, que je viens de nommer, sera arrivé à Monrovia et que son bureau sera devenu opérationnel. Le nouveau Governement libérien, quant à lui, a confirmé aux représentants des Nations Unies que, s’il a bien reçu des dons d’uniformes et de brodequins militaires, il n’a pas cherché à importer d’armes. De plus, et alors que doivent encore s’effectuer la mise à niveau et la restructuration des Forces Armées du Libéria, le Gouvernement a réitéré qu’il ne voyait toujours aucune urgence à les réarmer. Par contre, il s’est montré particulièrement inquiet de ce que le maintien de l’embargo pourrait compromettre ses projets d’acquisition de patrouilleurs et de petits avions de reconnaissance pour surveiller les frontières terrestres et maritimes du pays, projets que le Gouvernement considère comme une priorité. Le Gouvernement a également réitéré son point de vue selon lequel le maintien de l’embargo est incompatible avec son statut de Gouvernement

292 • 16 January 1998

démocratiquement élu et internationalement reconnu, ainsi qu’avec les prérogatives et responsabilités du Libéria en tant qu’Etat souverain. A cet égard, le Gouvernement libérien m’a informé de son intention de remplacer, a 1’expiration du mandat du Groupe de surveillance du cessez-le-feu institué par la Communauté Economique des Etats d’Afrique de 1’Ouest (ECOMOG) le 2 février 1998, les présents arrangements de sécurité avec 1’ECOMOG par une série d’accords bilatéraux avec certains des pays contribuant des troupes à 1’ECOMOG. Ces accords pourraient soulever un certain nombre de questions ayant trait a l’importation de matériel militaire au Liberia. En ce qui concerne 1’impact que la levée de 1’embargo pourrait avoir sur les relations entre le Gouvernement libérien et 1’ECOMOG, je voudrais rappeler que les Chefs d’Etat de la Communauté Economique des Etats d’Afrique de 1’Ouest, lors de leur réunion des 28 et 29 août 1997 à Abuja, avaient demandé la levée de toutes les sanctions internationales visant le Libéria, y compris 1’embargo sur les armes. Je note avec satisfaction le fait que le Conseil est en train de procéder à un examen de cette question et j’espère que l’information ainsi fournie lui sera utile dans ses délibérations. Je vous serais reconnaissant, Monsieur le Président, de bien vouloir communiquer cette lettre aux membres du Conseil de sécurité. Je vous prie d’agréer, Monsieur le Président, 1’expression de ma très haute considération.

26 January 1998 Letter (EOSG); Rwanda Letter to the president of the Security Council, Alain Dejammet. The original was written in French, and appears here translated into English. I have the honour to refer to Security Council resolutions 1013 (1995) of 7 September 1995 and 1053 (1996) of 23 April 1996, in which the Council authorized the establishment of an International Commission of Inquiry with the mandate to collect information on the sale or supply of arms and related matériel to former Rwandan government forces in the Great Lakes region in violation of Council resolutions 918 (1994) of 17 May 1994, 997 (1995) of 9 June 1995 and 1011 (1995) of 16 August 1995. I refer also to the third report of the International Commission of Inquiry annexed to my letter to the President of the

Security Council dated 1 November 1996 (S/1997/ 1010). In its report, the Commission indicates investigations to a successful conclusion. At the time of the preparation of the report in October 1996, several of the Governments concerned had not been in a position to reply to the Commission. Since then, certain Governments have furnished additional information to the Commission. This information is contained in the present addendum (see annex), which also contains the conclusions of the Commission as to the manner in which it should proceed with its work if the Security Council decides to renew its mandate. I should like to point out that if voluntary contributions are not made to the Commission’s budget, as called for in paragraph 8 of Security Council resolution 1013 (1995), the Commission’s work would continue to be financed by the Organization. Thus, if the Council decides to pursue its investigations, it will be necessary to appropriate the funds required under the Organization’s regular budget.

27 January 1998 Letter (EOSG); Japan Letter to Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto of Japan. Excellency, I should like to thank you most warmly for the leadership that you and your Government have exercised in ensuring a successful outcome of the recent Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Your personal participation at the Conference contributed greatly to heightening political awareness and achieving a new momentum in the negotiations. Through you, I would like to thank the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Environment and International Trade and Industry for their respective contributions to the Kyoto process and in particular Minister Hiroshi Ohki for his conduct of the Presidency of the Conference. Mr. Michael Zammit Cutajar, the Executive Secretary of the Convention secretariat, joins me in this expression of thanks. The Kyoto Protocol is a significant achievement for the United Nations, proving that it can respond effectively to the needs of Member States to extend international cooperation into new areas. I am convinced that the Protocol, and successive steps to strengthen action to address climate

31 January 1998 • 293 change by limiting emissions of greenhouse gases, will make a mark on the world economy of the 21st century. This effort will require not only the commitment of governments, but also the full support and engagement of the business community and civil society. I hope that your country will now take steps to sign the Protocol, which will be open for signature at the United Nations headquarters on 16 March 1998, and will ratify it as soon as possible thereafter. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

31 January 1998 Secretary-General Speaks at World Economic Forum

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6448); development Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland, titled “Markets for a Better World.” I am pleased to be back in Davos and to be here again amongst all of you. I would like to extend my thanks to my good friend Klaus Schwab. It has been said that the job of SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations is very much akin to that of a company’s chief executive officer. This is true, to some extent. The Member States can be thought of as the board of directors. The world’s people are the shareholders. Development programmes and peacekeeping operations are our main stock in trade, though we have many other less well-known products. But the comparison stops there. How would you react if your board members—all 185 of them—micro-managed your business, gave you conflicting mandates and denied you the resources needed to do your job? What would you do as head of a club whose leading members do not pay their dues? What would you think of corporate governance that does not permit borrowing to offset this funding crisis? So if you think of me as a chief executive officer, remember that I am also equal parts juggler and mendicant. Despite all these built-in problems, the United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a “quiet revolution”. We are becoming better equipped to face the challenges of a new global era. And we are in a stronger position to work with business and industry. If reform was the dominant theme of my first

year in office, the role of the private sector in economic development was a strong sub-theme. A fundamental shift has occurred. The United Nations once dealt only with governments. By now we know that peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partnerships involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society. In today’s world, we depend on each other. The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world. The United Nations system brings to this relationship three distinct advantages: universal values; a global perspective; and concrete programmes. I will turn first to our day-to-day operations. That work—the work of the Secretariat, its funds and programmes, and the specialized agencies around the world—contributes quietly but significantly to the smooth functioning of the global economy. Economic interdependence among nations places a premium on frameworks and institutions. I am sure we would all prefer the rule of law over the law of the jungle. I am confident that we would choose sustainable gains, within a stable and predictable system, over an unstructured and unregulated global environment. We need rules of the road and norms to guide relations between individuals and communities. This is as true of the global village as it is of the village each of us may have come from. Technical standard-setting, for example, in areas such as aviation, shipping and telecommunication, provides the very foundation for international transactions: the system’s “soft infrastructure”. Our advocacy of human rights nurtures democracy and good governance, two essential weapons in the fight for human freedom and the battle against corruption. Our efforts to eradicate poverty bring hope to those in despair and create new markets and new opportunities for growth. Our peacekeeping and emergency relief operations in war-torn nations bring the stability needed to regain the path to long-term development. Our untiring efforts to codify international law, and build societies based on the rule of law, also promote regulatory consistency and peaceful change. International law also has a strong preventive aspect: the Law of the Sea, for example, was put in place before the unbridled exploitation of the world’s marine resources could occur. We also promote private sector development and foreign direct investment.

294 • 31 January 1998

We help countries to join the international trading system and enact business-friendly legislation. And we promote microfinance for women, small traders and entrepreneurs. Business has a compelling interest in the success of this work. Creating wealth, which is your expertise, and promoting human security in the broadest sense, the United Nations main concern, are mutually reinforcing goals. Thriving markets and human security go hand in hand; without one, we will not have the other. A world of hunger, poverty and injustice is one in which markets, peace and freedom will never take root. A second contribution of the United Nations is that it approaches the challenges and problems of an interdependent world from a global perspective. Globalization has knitted us together and helped generate a sustained period of economic expansion. But is economic integration enough to alleviate poverty and narrow the widening gap between rich and poor? How can we best integrate developing nations into the global economy and ensure that they participate as full partners? What attraction can markets hold for those who cannot afford to enter the marketplace? Can markets solve the problems facing the environment? Can markets deal with the negative side effects of globalization: “problems without passports” such as increased trafficking in drugs, arms and people? Can we find ways to cope with the kind of volatility we have seen in Asia and elsewhere, and minimize its impact on ordinary people? The poor and vulnerable are already suffering disproportionately. Could such turmoil spark social unrest or even threaten peace and stability? Some of these dilemmas have been with us for several years now. Others are as new as this morning’s headlines. All must be addressed on a global scale. Interdependence is a two-way process. What happens in developing countries affects the developed nations, and vice versa. There are winners and losers; victims and beneficiaries. There are people who have lifted themselves out of poverty, and others who remain mired in deprivation. In short, as globalization advances, it is clear that a global marketplace can only work effectively if it is able to address its inherent shortcomings and contradictions. As I said here last year: “Today, market capitalism has no major ideological rival. Its biggest threat is from within itself. If it cannot promote both prosperity and justice, it will not have succeeded.”

This brings me to values. It is here that the United Nations is best known and most important. Every society, from Asia to the Americas, is the product of values, of shared bonds and ideals. Global society, if it is to flourish, must also work from shared norms and objectives. Fortunately, the basis of that common understanding already exists; it is found in the United Nations Charter. Freedom, justice and the peaceful resolution of disputes; social progress and better standards of living; equality, tolerance and dignity; these are the universal values set out in the Charter. They define the true human interest. They are also a pillar of the global economy. That is because markets are also a reflection of values. Markets do not function in a vacuum. Rather, they arise from a framework of rules and laws, and they respond to signals set by governments and other institutions. Indeed, without rules governing property rights and contracts, without confidence based on the rule of law, without an overall sense of direction and a fair degree of equity and transparency, there could be no well-functioning markets, domestic or global. The United Nations system provides such a global framework—an agreed set of standards and objectives that enjoy worldwide acceptance, and within which markets are able to function. For all these reasons: because we work to fulfil a broad vision of human security; because of the assistance that we—and sometimes only we—provide; and because we promote a value system of time-tested legitimacy, I have no hesitation in declaring that a strong United Nations is good for business. We help create the environment within which you can function and succeed. Ours is an era of internationalism, not isolationism. But not everyone realizes this. I need you, national leaders and innovators in your fields, to bring this message back home to your governments, your colleagues, your customers. Your voices can be especially influential among those who might still be looking inward. The United Nations and the private sector have distinct strengths and roles, and we are still overcoming a legacy of suspicion. But if we are bold, we can bridge those differences and turn what have been fledgling arrangements of cooperation into an even stronger force. Already we can boast of many examples of successful cooperation. The world’s Rotary clubs, for example, backed strongly by the business community, have given more than $400 million to the

2 February 1998 • 295 World Health Organization’s efforts to eradicate polio. We are defining collaborative projects with the International Chamber of Commerce. My good friend Ted Turner is placing vast resources behind an array of vital United Nations programmes. And here in Davos, a new Business Consultative Group has been meeting to bring CEOs and international institutions together around one table with one purpose: to work together and to work cooperatively. I can hardly imagine a corporation in the world today that cannot find some connection to the United Nations diverse agenda. That is particularly true of those that are represented here in Davos. I have the highest regard for your abilities, your power and your concern for human well-being. I know how much you have to offer. The advent of a global economy may seem irresistible and inevitable. To many it has brought great riches and heralded a new age of possibility. To others it seems exclusionary, exploitative, intrusive and even destructive. What we must remember is that globalization has not just happened; it has been the result of deliberate policy choices, many of them made in your own boardrooms, in conference halls such as this and through international cooperation at the United Nations. Leaders of government and business continue to have choices. So let us choose to unite the power of markets with the authority of universal ideals. Let us choose to reconcile the creative forces of private entrepreneurship with the needs of the disadvantaged and the requirements of future generations. Let us ensure that prosperity reaches the poor. Let us choose an enlightened way forward towards our ultimate, shared goal: a global marketplace that is open to all and benefits all.

2 February 1998 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6451); oil-for-food program Secretary-General: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I’ve just briefed the Council on my report on the oil-for-food scheme. Obviously, the report is going to generate quite a lot of discussion, not only because of its importance, but also the timing and the projected expansion of the programme. I was able to explain to the members of the Council why we have recommended such an expansion. I

also pleaded with them that there should be no linkage between the discussion of humanitarian issues and the crisis that we are trying to contain, caused by Iraq’s refusal to implement Security Council resolutions. And I am confident that the Council will review this report on its merits, and that the Council’s concern will be whether it is adequate and whether it can be implemented effectively, and that it will not be influenced by what is happening today. You will also notice in the report that, even though we are more than doubling the programme, we have maintained the breakdown in the humanitarian area. Basically, what we are trying to do is to improve the calorie intake for the Iraqi population from about 2,000 to 2,450 kilocalories per person per day. We are increasing the amount of medicine we are sending in, and we are also trying to work with them to improve their agricultural output, particularly in the area of poultry and production of eggs, to give them better food content. In addition to that, we are improving their schools for young people. You will notice in the report that there’s considerable emphasis on children at risk. We have also proposed a one-time expenditure to refurbish the infrastructure, which is in a terrible state of disrepair. We believe that if we do not repair these infrastructural facilities, the impact will be to undermine all the good we are trying to do by bringing in additional supplies. If they don’t have clean water to drink, it will lead to diseases, and more medicine will be required. If you don’t have electricity for refrigeration, for hospital operations and other things, you undermine the effectiveness of these hospitals. So, there are proposals for improving the water system, sanitation, electricity and these kinds of infrastructures. But those will be a one-time payment. In other words, if after these first six months we were to come up with another six-month [inaudible], it could be reduced by the expenditures currently proposed for the one-time expenditure on infrastructure. The other issue I think I should share with you is that we did not get the kind of cooperation we had expected from the Iraqi authorities in the preparation of the plans. I have had the chance to talk to them at the highest levels and stressed the need for them to cooperate with us. But now that the report is out and is before the Council, I am going to engage them immediately to get their reactions to the report. We did get lots of informal inputs and have had informal contacts, but no formal reaction from the authorities.

2 February 1998 • 295 World Health Organization’s efforts to eradicate polio. We are defining collaborative projects with the International Chamber of Commerce. My good friend Ted Turner is placing vast resources behind an array of vital United Nations programmes. And here in Davos, a new Business Consultative Group has been meeting to bring CEOs and international institutions together around one table with one purpose: to work together and to work cooperatively. I can hardly imagine a corporation in the world today that cannot find some connection to the United Nations diverse agenda. That is particularly true of those that are represented here in Davos. I have the highest regard for your abilities, your power and your concern for human well-being. I know how much you have to offer. The advent of a global economy may seem irresistible and inevitable. To many it has brought great riches and heralded a new age of possibility. To others it seems exclusionary, exploitative, intrusive and even destructive. What we must remember is that globalization has not just happened; it has been the result of deliberate policy choices, many of them made in your own boardrooms, in conference halls such as this and through international cooperation at the United Nations. Leaders of government and business continue to have choices. So let us choose to unite the power of markets with the authority of universal ideals. Let us choose to reconcile the creative forces of private entrepreneurship with the needs of the disadvantaged and the requirements of future generations. Let us ensure that prosperity reaches the poor. Let us choose an enlightened way forward towards our ultimate, shared goal: a global marketplace that is open to all and benefits all.

2 February 1998 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6451); oil-for-food program Secretary-General: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I’ve just briefed the Council on my report on the oil-for-food scheme. Obviously, the report is going to generate quite a lot of discussion, not only because of its importance, but also the timing and the projected expansion of the programme. I was able to explain to the members of the Council why we have recommended such an expansion. I

also pleaded with them that there should be no linkage between the discussion of humanitarian issues and the crisis that we are trying to contain, caused by Iraq’s refusal to implement Security Council resolutions. And I am confident that the Council will review this report on its merits, and that the Council’s concern will be whether it is adequate and whether it can be implemented effectively, and that it will not be influenced by what is happening today. You will also notice in the report that, even though we are more than doubling the programme, we have maintained the breakdown in the humanitarian area. Basically, what we are trying to do is to improve the calorie intake for the Iraqi population from about 2,000 to 2,450 kilocalories per person per day. We are increasing the amount of medicine we are sending in, and we are also trying to work with them to improve their agricultural output, particularly in the area of poultry and production of eggs, to give them better food content. In addition to that, we are improving their schools for young people. You will notice in the report that there’s considerable emphasis on children at risk. We have also proposed a one-time expenditure to refurbish the infrastructure, which is in a terrible state of disrepair. We believe that if we do not repair these infrastructural facilities, the impact will be to undermine all the good we are trying to do by bringing in additional supplies. If they don’t have clean water to drink, it will lead to diseases, and more medicine will be required. If you don’t have electricity for refrigeration, for hospital operations and other things, you undermine the effectiveness of these hospitals. So, there are proposals for improving the water system, sanitation, electricity and these kinds of infrastructures. But those will be a one-time payment. In other words, if after these first six months we were to come up with another six-month [inaudible], it could be reduced by the expenditures currently proposed for the one-time expenditure on infrastructure. The other issue I think I should share with you is that we did not get the kind of cooperation we had expected from the Iraqi authorities in the preparation of the plans. I have had the chance to talk to them at the highest levels and stressed the need for them to cooperate with us. But now that the report is out and is before the Council, I am going to engage them immediately to get their reactions to the report. We did get lots of informal inputs and have had informal contacts, but no formal reaction from the authorities.

296 • 2 February 1998

The other question that will be raised is, would Iraq be in a position to export that quantity of oil? The proposal calls for $5.2 billion and currently it is exporting $2 billion. That we are also going to take up with the Iraqi authorities, who, in the past, have indicated they have far greater capacity than they are allowed to export. Other experts tend to agree with that, but, of course, we won’t know until we sit with them. So, we are working on the assumption that they have the capacity to export, and we will find out when we sit with them. Finally, in my discussions with the Council, I did stress my own grave concern, which I know most members of the Council also share, about the increasing tension caused by Iraq’s refusal to comply with resolution 687 (1991). I indicated that I felt the Iraqi leadership must understand that if sanctions were to be ended, and if it wants sanctions to be ended and to see light at the end of the tunnel, Iraq must comply fully. It is my sincere hope that diplomatic efforts to this end will succeed; failure risks another round of devastating military action, which may have unpredictable consequences. The Charter requires both Governments and the Secretary-General to exhaust all peaceful means before undertaking any military action. I have indicated to the Council that I stand ready to offer my good offices for whatever purposes the Council may deem helpful. I will now take your questions. QUESTION: Did you, either directly or by body language, get a sense of how your proposal is accepted by the delegates you talked with? S-G: I think my sense was that, generally, it was welcomed and there was support and understanding of the need to improve the basket and improve the situation of the Iraqi population. No one in the Council wants to hurt innocent civilians, and so there is support for it. There may be some disagreements when they get into the details of it, but as of this morning, I walked away confident that there was broad support for the proposals. QUESTION: You just said that you told the Council that you offered your good offices. Are you considering going to Iraq, for example, particularly since you will be in the region rather shortly? And if not, why not? S-G: Let me say that lots of efforts are being made in the search for diplomatic efforts. During my trip in Europe last week, I had very important discussions with leaders in France at the highest levels; with the Foreign Minister in London; and also with the Turkish Foreign Minister in Davos,

who also had an interesting approach. He had hoped to convince all the neighbours—Iran, Jordan, Syria—to go together to try to plead with Iraq to back down and work with the United Nations in order to avoid another military escalation in their region. I did encourage him to do it. We are encouraging all these efforts. My own involvement, if it becomes necessary in the future, will be determined by what developments or successes come out of these current efforts and what we collectively think we should further do. I am in touch with those who are absent in voice and I am also in touch with the Council, and in the next few days, [inaudible] make a judgement. QUESTION: Regarding this current crisis, have you had contact with Iraqi officials? Have you spoken to them about their intransigence about the United Nations inspectors? S-G: I have been in contact with the Iraqi authorities quite often on these issues, not just with Tariq Aziz. I also had a chance to talk with Mr. Yassin Ramadan, the Deputy Prime Minister, when we met in Tehran, and I am constantly in touch also with the Ambassador here. I intend to talk to him again this afternoon. QUESTION: This would be about, not oil for food, but about . . . S-G: I have talked to them on the broader issues, on the other issues as well. QUESTION: The bombing seems almost imminent; that it will happen in a day or so. Do you think the danger of Mr. Saddam’s refusal of the United Nations people to investigate justifies the bombing? S-G: You know, we are dealing with a Chapter VII resolution, and the Council and the Member States have been quite determined to see disarmament proceed. This is a decision for the Member States and the Council, of course, but I think, from the point of view of the Council, and maybe of the international community, compliance with this Chapter VII resolution is something that we would all seek. I think no one in the Council is pushing for the use of force in the first instance. All those who are talking about it are looking at it as a last resort. We hope that President Saddam Hussein, for the sake of the Iraqi people, who have suffered so much, will listen to the messages that are being taken to him by these senior envoys from Russia, from France, from people in the region, leaders in the region and elsewhere, and really avoid taking his people through another confrontation. They don’t

2 February 1998 • 297 need it; the region doesn’t need it; and the world certainly can do without it. And so, hopefully, the leadership will have the courage, the wisdom and the concern for its own people to take us back from the brink. QUESTION: There’s sort of an ongoing debate over whether the United States, if it elected to launch a military attack, would have authorization without further action by the Council. I’ve been looking back at the history of it, and one of your predecessors in 1993 was either forced or somehow voluntarily opined that there was pre-existing authorization for that specific time. Could we ask you to express your opinion, whether there would have to be further action or whether [inaudible]? S-G: I think the international community has acted in unison on Iraq in the past, and I think everyone would want to maintain that unity. There have been statements that the United States does not require a Council decision to undertake air strikes against Iraq. Despite that, there are intensive consultations between Council members both here and in capitals. And so consultations are going on, and I think everyone would agree that it would be preferable to get Council authorization before one engages in a military action. And as I said, consultations are going on, and I would not want to prejudge the outcome. QUESTION: If there is to be military action, would you evacuate all United Nations personnel, would they be notified before? S-G: Obviously, we would not want to place our staff at risk. We have about 475 international personnel in Iraq who are doing courageous and credible work, and I would hope that they would be able to continue their humanitarian work, as well as the inspections, at the end of this crisis. But your point is valid; I mean, the question has arisen. If we believe they are going to be in danger, we would not keep them in harm’s way. QUESTION: Aren’t you sending mixed signals here in calling for rehabilitating or propping up the infrastructure, the power grid and such, which had been weakened by sanctions, and at the same time saying that Iraq must comply in order to see the light at the end of the tunnel when sanctions will be lifted? I think a lot of people may read it this way. S-G: I hope they do not. As I indicated, we are dealing with two issues: the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and the pressure the international community is putting on the Iraqi Government to comply with Security Council resolution 687 (1991) and to work with the United Nations

Special Commission (UNSCOM). We have determined that we should try to refurbish these infrastructures if our objective is really to ensure that the Iraqis have a certain minimum standard of health. And if we do not do it, as I have indicated, there are very serious implications and repercussions. We cannot also assume that Iraq is going to be bombed. We have been there before, and Iraq has turned back from the precipice. It may change its mind, and we may not need to go forward. So in the meantime, I think we should go ahead with our plans, deal with the humanitarian issues to try to help the Iraqi population, and, as I said earlier, I hope President Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi leadership will share the concern I am displaying today for the Iraqi population and have the wisdom to take the right decisions. QUESTION: From your comments just now, it sounds as though the United States does not have Security Council authorization to act militarily in the region. I am wondering, without that authorization, is the United States justified in starting this kind of action to achieve Security Council compliance? S-G: I have not said that. I think I gave the indication that although the statement has been made that the United States does not need specific Council authorization to go, we should look at the facts. The United States is talking to Council members, both here and in capitals, on this particular issue. I don’t think the United States itself has taken the position that it doesn’t matter what the Council thinks and we are going ahead, because there are very serious consultations going on. And I have indicated that everybody, including the United States, I am sure, would agree that it would be preferable to hold everyone together. You are not quite satisfied, but anyway, we will talk later. QUESTION: Can you just make it clear to us— does the Security Council have authorization to act now in case Iraq still shows this unwillingness to cooperate, or not? S-G: The Security Council is the master of its own decisions, and it could decide to do what it thinks is appropriate. And if they want to take a different direction, they can decide that too. And so the Security Council can either decide to act on a certain resolution, if it chose to interpret it that way, or take additional specific decisions. QUESTION: What justification have the Iraqis given you for not complying fully in the implementation of the oil-for-food programme? S-G: They haven’t given us any specific expla-

298 • 2 February 1998

nations, but I think that when a country is going through this sort of crisis, when you want to deal with sensitive issues, which takes courage and commits the officials concerned, you often do not find them when you need them. And incidentally, that also happens in this Building. On sensitive issues, sometimes people vanish. And I have a feeling we saw a bit of that in Iraq, but now that the proposal has been put forward and the Council is seized of it, I think they will react to the proposal and we will be able to engage them seriously. QUESTION: A highly hypothetical question: if a United Nations Member country attacks another United Nations Member country without the approval of the Security Council, would that country be subject to sanctions? S-G: If it is an attack like the one Iraq undertook in Kuwait, you saw what the international community did. But if my understanding of your question is right, you are working on the assumption that the United States does not have the authority to hit Iraq alone, and that a fresh Council resolution will be required. I think I have answered that by telling you about the sort of discussions that are going on, and I refuse to be drawn further. QUESTION: Still, if there is an attack without Security Council approval, how would the United Nations react? S-G: I think first that it is an issue the Security Council is very much engaged in. They are in close touch with the United States, they are seized of the problem, and if at any stage they have problems with what is happening on the ground with any development, we will hear from them. QUESTION: What about your visit to the Middle East? Are you still going to go ahead with it, or do you want to change the situation? Are there any changes in your plans? S-G: At this stage, it still stands. QUESTION: I was wondering, considering some of the comments made by Mr. [Richard] Butler [UNSCOM executive chairman] last week, how seriously do you view the potential threat that Iraq poses in terms of biological or chemical weapon threats to its neighbours? Is there in fact a clear and present threat right now? S-G: I think Mr. Butler clarified what he meant to say, and also we have a group of technical experts in Iraq now making certain assessments. And I think I prefer to wait for their report to comment on the capacity of Iraq. QUESTION: Since President Saddam Hussein has all the strength, why don’t you pick up the

phone and talk to him directly and bring up the whole picture to the Council? S-G: I tried once, but it is not easy to get him at the other end of the line. But maybe I should take your advice and try again. QUESTION: There have been reports today that Saddam Hussein—this is coming supposedly through the Russians—has offered to make eight presidential sites available for inspection, with the inspectors being accompanied by ambassadors from various countries. This comes at the same time that your proposal has gone before the Security Council. Some might say that this may be taking shape as a compromise—[between] what is happening here on the humanitarian end [and] his attempt on the other. Would you see this as a move towards compromise on his part? S-G: Well, I think he has to allow free and unfettered access to these sites. And if he does, then he will be in full compliance. I don’t think the objective is to let the President decide which palaces the inspectors and the diplomats can go to. You talk of eight palaces. We hear reports of as many as 60 palaces. Why those eight and not the others? So, the problem is really still there. I hope that the discussions that are going on will clarify this. But, as I said—this question was put to me also in Europe, if this oil-for-food scheme would be seen as a carrot to get the Iraqis to agree. We do not see it as a carrot. We have always maintained that we should try to assist the Iraqi population. The Council introduced the oilfor-food scheme right from the beginning, six or seven years ago, and we could have implemented it if we had had the agreement of the Iraqi Government. And most Council members recognize that sanctions are a blunt instrument, and you have to take measures to protect vulnerable populations. QUESTION: Although there are a lot of discussions going on, and one hopes for a compromise, is there any kind of timeframe of how long Iraq will be allowed to keep non-cooperating before some action will be taken? S-G: I think in these sorts of situations it is always very awkward to come up with a very tight and rigid timeframe. Lots of things are happening, lots of irons are in the fire. And there can be very rapid developments one way or the other. But I am not in a position to talk of timeframes. Besides . . . I think that’s enough. QUESTION: Aren’t you concerned about the counter-productive use of force? Let’s say there is

3 February 1998 • 299 a military strike and the United Nations is thrown out of the country, and then the point of the United Nations being there, which is to inspect the weapons programmes, goes right out the window. S-G: I have no disagreement with that. But let me say that quite a few people are concerned. This is why we want to maintain the inspectors. And even those who are recommending military action are still hoping that, after the action, inspection can continue. That happened in the past. Would it happen this time? I don’t know. But our main objective, the focus, is the disarmament of Iraq, and we should stay on the ball. So, in that respect, I see where you’re coming from, and almost everyone agrees with you on that—that the objective is to disarm Iraq. And, in fact, on that objective, the Council members are unanimous. And the [inaudible] attempts to find a solution [are] precisely to make it possible for us to continue sticking to our objective. QUESTION: In the Congo—the status of the Commission of Inquiry? S-G: Yes, the Commission of Inquiry is back in, and I hope that they will be able to continue with their work. They are hoping to move ahead. President Kabila saw them. In fact, he had hoped to get hold of me this morning and then I had to go in to the Council. But we expect them to be able to move ahead with their work. In my last letter to President Kabila, I indicated that they may have to go until May or beyond. We didn’t accept the February deadline in his exchanges with Ambassador Richardson [of the United States]. We had an understanding as to the mandate and the role of the mission and of the period it would take for them to complete their work. And, although we are grateful to Ambassador Richardson for trying to facilitate and de-block the impasse, his involvement was not intended to change the basic premise of the objective of the mission and the time we had assessed it would take us to do our work. And so they are there, and they are going to continue and do their work until they complete it.

3 February 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq Fred Eckhard, the Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s briefing by announcing that at around 11 a.m., the Secretary-General had spoken by telephone with Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. The Secretary-General initiat-

ed the call to discuss the seriousness of the situation and the need to get results. Of course they discussed the current crisis in Iraq. The Secretary-General described their conversation as “constructive” saying they had “agreed on the need to speed up efforts to find a negotiated solution to the problem”. Mr. Eckhard then recalled the SecretaryGeneral’s “brief meeting” at 3:45 p.m. yesterday with the Permanent Representative of Iraq, Nizar Hamdoon. He said Mr. Hamdoon had no substantive reaction to the Secretary-General’s supplementary report on the oil-for-food programme, because he had not yet received instructions from his Government. Meanwhile, in Iraq, a technical evaluation meeting on missile-warheads-related issues began on Sunday, 1 February, followed by another technical evaluation meeting yesterday on chemical weapons, Mr. Eckhard said. Both meetings were expected to last five days. On the side of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) monitoring the disposal of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, 18 experts were participating in the missile warhead talks and 19 experts were taking part in the talks on chemical weapons. Both groups included additional experts from China, France, Germany, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and the United States. Mr. Eckhard then recalled Iraq’s request that certain United Nations staff in Iraq move to official hotel accommodation consistent with the memorandum of understanding. That had been accomplished and all the United Nations staff associated with the “oil-for-food” programme, including the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for the programme in Iraq, Denis Halliday, had moved to the designated hotels. The Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait would meet at 3 p.m. tomorrow, not today, as announced in the Journal. Following the meeting, Committee Chairman Antonio Monteiro (Portugal) would brief correspondents. The Council had no meetings scheduled today, Mr. Eckhard continued. The President of the Council for February, Denis Dangue Rewaka (Gabon), was continuing bilateral consultations on the Council’s programme of work. Mr. Eckhard then announced that the Secretary-General had appointed Kensaku Hogen of Japan as the new Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, effective 16 March. Ambassador Hogen was currently

300 • 3 February 1998

Director-General of the Foreign Service Training Institute at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Japan. He had worked on a wide range of issues before the United Nations as well as in public information areas. He had directed the Foreign Press Division of the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo, as well as the Press and Information Section at the Japanese Embassy in Washington, D.C. Biographical information on Mr. Hogen and the text of the announcement was available in the Spokesman’s Office. (See Press Release SG/A/668BIO/3137- PI/1052.) The Economic and Social Council would resume its 1998 organizational session this afternoon, Mr. Eckhard said. At its first meeting for the year, held last month, the Council decided to convene a high-level meeting on reform of the United Nations in the economic and social fields. The meeting would be held on Saturday, 18 April. The Executive Committee on humanitarian affairs was meeting today, Mr. Eckhard said. One of four policy coordination entities created by the Secretary-General, the Committee would discuss Afghanistan, the Great Lakes region, specifically Rwanda, as well as the 1998 priorities of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The Executive Committee for peace and security met yesterday. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, was in New York and would attend meetings of the various Executive Committees, he added. Briefing notes from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Geneva were available in the Spokesman’s Office, Mr. Eckhard said. In the notes, the UNHCR spokesman expressed concern at the deteriorating situation in the Bosnian-Croat controlled town of Stolac in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The notes also mention that a UNHCR French national, Vincent Cochetel, who was kidnapped last Thursday in Ossetia, the Russian Federation, remained in captivity. No other news on him was available. Mr. Eckhard said the Department of Public Information (DPI) focus paper on the SecretaryGeneral and his reform efforts was available at the Documents Counter. A correspondent asked if the Spokesman had any information from the Secretary-General on his meeting this morning with the President of Albania, Rexhep Mejdani. Mr. Eckhard said, he had yet not received a read-out on the meeting, but suggested the correspondent contact the Spokesman’s Office after the briefing.

Replying to a question on the number of technical evaluation meetings taking place in Iraq, Mr. Eckhard said there were two types of meetings. The one on missile-warheads-related issues began on Sunday and the meeting on chemical weapons started yesterday. The teams of experts conducting the meetings had been expanded from the normal UNSCOM personnel to include additional experts from six countries—China, France, Germany, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and the United States. The correspondent said the report from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM, Richard Butler (document S/1998/58), mentioned serious divergence of views between the Iraqi side and UNSCOM on the nature of those technical evaluation meetings. Had that been resolved? he asked. Mr. Eckhard said the correspondent should contact UNSCOM’s spokesman for details on the technical evaluation meetings. Was the Assistant Secretary-General for Legal Affairs a new position and, if so, what was its purpose? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said that the position had been created to provide more high-level support for the Legal Counsel. There had always been a Senior Director at the D-2 level in the Office of Legal Affairs, but it was seen as a lack that there was no one at the level of Assistant Secretary-General under the Legal Counsel who was an Under-Secretary-General. The new post would provide a more “geometric pyramid” for the Office of Legal Affairs and some much-needed support for the Legal Counsel. In reply to a question as to whether the Assistant Secretary-General for Public Information, Samir Sanbar, would be staying on at the United Nations in some capacity, Mr. Eckhard said his office would make an announcement concerning Mr. Sanbar “a bit later”. Had the Albania President suggested that the Secretary-General establish some kind of United Nations presence in Kosovo? a correspondent asked. How would that work? Mr. Eckhard replied that he had not yet received a read-out of the meeting between the Albanian President and the Secretary-General and did not know if the matter was discussed. In any case, such a proposal would be first considered by the Security Council and, if there was any interest, the Secretariat would draw up a plan of operation. “But we are getting way ahead of ourselves”, Mr. Eckhard added. In their telephone conversation this morning, had Mr. Aziz and the Secretary-General discussed

5 February 1998 • 301 the report on the oil-for-food programme? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said the SecretaryGeneral had not mentioned to him whether the report was discussed, but he had to assume it had come up in their discussions. The SecretaryGeneral had said the emphasis was on the security situation. Finally, Mr. Eckhard said that the SecretaryGeneral had also spoken this morning with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and they discussed an initiative by the League of Arab States to send an envoy to Iraq tomorrow.

5 February 1998 Secretary-General Says Middle Eastern Countries and Peoples Are of the Highest Priority

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6453, GA/PAL/773); Middle East Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the opening meeting of the 1998 session of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, at UN headquarters. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate you on your unanimous re-election to the leadership of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. This is a clear reflection of the Committee’s appreciation for the consistent support that you and your country, Senegal, have given to the search for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. At its fifty-second session, the General Assembly reaffirmed the mandate of this Committee and of the Secretariat units which support its work. The Assembly also reviewed the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories. Overall, the General Assembly reaffirmed the importance that the great majority of Member States attach to the role of the United Nations in the Middle East and especially to questions related to Palestine. They expressed their conviction that the mandates should continue during the transitional period of the agreements signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, and until a final settlement is achieved. The convening last year of the tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly

was testimony to the world’s deepening concern about the prolonged stalemate in the peace process. The international community remains determined to make a concrete contribution to the peaceful resolution of a conflict that has preoccupied the United Nations for over half a century. Encouragingly, the past years witnessed historic developments in the Middle East, following the mutual recognition of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1993. Notwithstanding difficulties and delays, the parties have accepted negotiation as the most hopeful means to resolve their differences. Regrettably, the developments of the last year have sparked concern that the fragile edifice of the agreements reached since 1993 is in danger of collapse. More than once, I have been compelled to voice sorrow and dismay at horrifying acts of violence against innocent civilians. Those acts are the work of the enemies of peace. I have appealed to the parties not to let themselves be discouraged or distracted by the actions of a radical few who seek to destroy the undeniable achievements of the peace process thus far. The situation in the occupied territories has been aggravated by worsening economic conditions as a result of security restrictions. Further, there has been a deepening anxiety among Palestinians over the construction of settlements and its potential consequences for the final status talks. Consequently, tensions are high and the situation could become fragile. I have called on the parties to take measures, in a spirit of partnership, to restore mutual confidence and resume negotiations in earnest. I was encouraged by the recent meetings in Washington with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, aided by the personal involvement of the President of the United States, and by the agreement to continue these talks in the near future. It is essential that remaining obstacles to the resumption of the bilateral negotiations can be overcome. I also hope that the parties, in accordance with the agreements already signed, will be able to make progress on other outstanding issues. The aim must be a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). I also hope that it will become possible to resume talks on the other tracks of the Middle East peace process. It is essential that political and economic conditions be created that will support a lasting peace.

302 • 5 February 1998

To that end, we must strive to promote social and economic development and cooperative relationships throughout the Middle East region. The United Nations has long played a crucial role in this effort through its agencies present on the ground, especially UNRWA. That is a role that has been strengthened and expanded in recent years with the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian People and the establishment of the Office of the Special Coordinator in the Occupied Territories. Great challenges remain, however, particularly as deteriorating conditions on the ground have set back some of our endeavours. The continuing serious financial situation faced by UNRWA and the hardships caused to refugees by austerity measures must be addressed urgently in order to contribute to stability in the area. I plan soon to visit Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, as well as the areas under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority. Besides meeting with the respective leaders to discuss issues relevant to the activities and objectives of the United Nations, I shall visit United Nations peacekeeping missions in the area, as well as the headquarters of UNRWA in the Gaza Strip. The countries and peoples of the Middle East, at the centre of United Nations attention for so long, are of the highest priority to me. I look forward to listening to their hopes and concerns, and learning what more the United Nations can do to support their efforts for peace. I should like to conclude by expressing once again my appreciation for the work of this Committee and my continuing commitment to support its endeavours.

5 February 1998 Secretary-General Addresses Forum on the Final Report of the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6454); conflict prevention Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the forum, “The Centrality of the United Nations to Prevention and the Centrality of Prevention to the United Nations,” in connection with the final report of the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, at UN headquarters. It is a special pleasure for me to welcome today so many trusted friends and servants of the United Nations. Thank you, Cy, [former US secretary of

state Cyrus Vance] for those kind and generous words. That you and so many distinguished allies of the United Nations have convened here to address the prevention of global conflict is a source of great encouragement. Before sharing with you my vision for the United Nations mission in conflict prevention, I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary accomplishment that we mark today. In an era when violent conflicts too often are ignored and too readily accepted, at a time when people would rather look away than look ahead, the Carnegie Commission has called the world to action. You have reminded us that prevention is always better than cure. And you have detailed, as never before, the means, the uses and the promise of prevention. We are in your debt. The final report of the Carnegie Commission is guided by three central observations: first, that deadly conflict is not inevitable; second, that the need to prevent such conflict is increasingly urgent; and third, that successful prevention is possible. It presents a clear challenge to the international community to create a “culture of prevention”— a challenge the world can and must meet. For the United Nations, there is no higher goal, no deeper commitment and no greater ambition than preventing armed conflict. The prevention of conflict begins and ends with the protection of human life and the promotion of human development. Ensuring human security is, in the broadest sense, the United Nations cardinal mission. Genuine and lasting prevention is the means to achieve that mission. Throughout the world today, but particularly in Africa and other parts of the South, intra-State wars are the face of modern conflict. In these wars, the destruction not just of armies, but of civilians and entire ethnic groups is increasingly the main aim. Preventing these wars is no longer a matter of defending interests or promoting allies. It is a matter of defending humanity itself. And yet we seem never to learn. Time and again differences are allowed to develop into disputes and disputes allowed to develop into deadly conflicts. Time and again, warning signs are ignored and pleas for help overlooked. Only after the deaths and the destruction do we intervene at a far higher human and material cost and with far fewer lives to save. Only when it is too late do we value prevention. There are, in my view, three main reasons for

5 February 1998 • 303 the failure of prevention when prevention so clearly is possible. First, the reluctance of one or more of the parties to a conflict to accept external intervention of any kind. Second, the lack of political will at the highest levels of the international community. Third, a lack of integrated conflict-prevention strategies within the United Nations system and the international community. Of all these, the will to act is the most important. Without the political will to act when action is needed, without the will to answer the call that must be heeded, no amount of improved coordination or early warning will translate awareness into action. All Member States facing situations of conflict must recognize that far from infringing upon their sovereignty, early warning and preventive diplomacy seek to support and restore legitimate authority and global order. To ensure this, the membership of the United Nations as a whole must provide the mandate and resources available for preventive activities. Fortunately, the United Nations work in prevention is as old as the Charter itself. In every diplomatic mission and development project that we pursue, the United Nations is doing the work of prevention. The Secretary-General’s own good offices in preventive diplomacy have been exercised with success over the years. Though this practice is long established, the potential for progress is still greater. Within my first year as Secretary-General, I have renewed our peacemaking efforts in Cyprus, East Timor, Western Sahara, Afghanistan, and the Great Lakes region of Africa. These are longstanding disputes with hard and bitter roots. We will continue to seek new ways to narrow the divide in each case and promote a durable peace that can provide security and prosperity to all sides. Throughout the entire United Nations system, a more systematic and integrated framework for prevention is being developed. Joined by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Department of Political Affairs is now taking lead in the early-warning and preventive efforts of the United Nations. In its report, the Carnegie Commission has identified a valuable distinction between “operational prevention” and “structural prevention”. The United Nations operational prevention strategy involves four fundamental activities—early warning, preventive diplomacy, preventive

deployment and early humanitarian action. The United Nations structural prevention strategy involves three additional activities—preventive disarmament, development and peace-building. Guiding and infusing all these efforts is the promotion of human rights, democratization and good governance as the foundations of peace. Preventive deployment, in one particular example, has already had a remarkable effect in the explosive region of the Balkans. Such a force is only a “thin blue line”. But the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force’s (UNPREDEP) role so far in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia suggests that preventive deployment, adequately mandated and supported, can make the difference between war and peace. Preventive disarmament is another measure whose importance needs to be recognized and advanced. The United Nations has disarmed combatants in the context of peacekeeping operations from Nicaragua to Mozambique. In other cases, destroying yesterday’s weapons prevents them from being used tomorrow. This is also what the United Nations has been attempting to do in Iraq, where the inspections of the United Nations Special Commission have succeeded in destroying more weapons of mass destruction than did the entire Persian Gulf War. Urgent action is also needed to curtail the flow of conventional weapons. In particular, we must do more to halt the proliferation of small arms with which most wars are fought today. As part of my reform agenda, I have, therefore, established a new Department for Disarmament Affairs with a range of new tasks. High on its agenda will be the challenge of “micro-disarmament”, to work with governments in focusing on the illegal trade in small arms. But we cannot do it alone. The work of prevention—if it is to be lasting—must be supported by all sides and carried to success by the peoples and parties themselves. Their role and responsibility is fundamental. So is the role of arms-producing countries and those that permit the transit of arms. Long-term prevention can, however, be facilitated by many elements of the international community. There are cases where the United Nations, mandated with unique universal legitimacy must lead. There will be other cases where a regional or subregional organization’s proximity to a conflict and historical experience make it most able to prevent deadly violence. In all cases, the United

304 • 5 February 1998

Nations is poised to support those efforts and to coordinate multilateral assistance programmes. The policies of prevention that I have outlined so far—early warning, preventive diplomacy, preventive deployment and preventive disarmament—will succeed only if the root causes of conflict are addressed with the same will and wisdom. These causes are often economic and social. Poverty, endemic underdevelopment and weak or non-existent institutions inhibit dialogue and invite the resort to violence. A long, quiet process of sustainable economic development, based on respect for human rights and legitimate government, is essential to preventing conflict. The United Nations of the twenty-first century must become a global centre for visionary and effective preventive action. I will devote all my efforts to this aim, and I am grateful that a number of Member States are showing the way. Norway established the Fund for Preventive Action in 1996 to increase the capacity of the Secretary-General to undertake early and effective preventive action. I am grateful to the other governments who already have contributed to this Fund. I also welcome the Government of Japan’s recently convened International Conference on Preventive Strategy. Donor countries no less than those nations engulfed by conflict have realized the cost of ignoring prevention and the promise of putting prevention first. A Chinese proverb holds that it is difficult to find money for medicine, but easy to find it for a coffin. The last decade’s intra-State and ethnic wars have made this proverb all too real for our time. Have we not seen enough coffins—from Rwanda to Bosnia and Herzegovina to Cambodia —to pay the price for prevention? Have we not learned the lesson too painfully and too often that we can, if we will, prevent deadly conflict? Have we not heard General [Romeo] Dallaire say that 5,000 peacekeepers could have saved 500,000 lives in Rwanda? Indeed, we have no excuses anymore. We have no excuses for inaction and no alibis for ignorance. Often we know even before the very victims of conflict that they will be victimized. We know because our world now is one—in pain and in prosperity. No longer must the promise of prevention be a promise deferred. Too much is at stake, too much is possible, too much is needed. The founders of the United Nations drew up our Charter with a sober view of human nature.

They had witnessed the ability of humanity to wage a war of unparalleled brutality and unprecedented cruelty. They had witnessed, above all, the failure of prevention, when prevention was still possible and every signal pointed to war. With this report, the Carnegie Commission has restored new promise to our founders’ fervent belief that prevention is indeed possible and that humanity can learn from its past. Indeed, my vision of this great Organization is a United Nations that places prevention at the service of universal security. The achievement of human security in all its aspects—economic, political and social—will be the achievement of effective prevention. It will be the testament to succeeding generations that ours had the will to save them from the scourge of war.

6 February 1998 Secretary-General Attends Flag-raising Ceremony for Bosnia and Herzegovina

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6457); Bosnia and Herzegovina Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the flag-raising ceremony for Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are here today, before the United Nations, to welcome a new flag to the family of nations. We raise the new standard of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, symbolizing its commitment to consolidating its hard-won peace and assuring respect for the human rights of all its citizens. I would, in this regard, like to pay special tribute to the Office of the High Representative which has made this historic moment possible. For us at the United Nations, this is a moment of special significance. No conflict, no cause has presented a greater challenge to the United Nations. From all corners of the world, United Nations personnel went to Bosnia to promote the peace and the unity that we witness today. They did so for the sake of the people of Bosnia, and in the hope that co-existence—once flourishing among the communities of that country—can once again become reality. They saw that the desire for peace and for tolerance is genuine, and they knew that we in the international community have a duty and an obligation to make that peace a lasting one. Ultimately, however, it is the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina who must seize this chance for peace and prosperous co-existence. The world

6 February 1998 • 305 stands ready to help. But it is for them to make this peace their own. One flag. One future. One nation. In peace and with justice. That is the promise we mark today. That is our fervent hope for all the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and for their children.

6 February 1998 Secretary-General Notes New Politics Consensus on Strengthening Role of Economic and Social Council

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6455, ECOSOC/5749); Economic and Social Council Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the organizational session of the Economic and Social Council, at UN headquarters. Let me, at the outset, congratulate the newly elected President and Vice-Presidents of the Economic and Social Council. The Council is fortunate to have again at its helm Ambassador Juan Somavía of Chile, who brings to the presidency his challenging vision of the future of the United Nations, and four Vice-Presidents with such a wealth of experience and such a steadfast commitment to the Organization. I am grateful for the Council initiative which led to this meeting today. I should like to think that it was, at least in part, a response to the strong interest I expressed, at your high-level segment last year, in intensifying the dialogue with the Council. Your initiative is also very much in line with the spirit of the reform programme I launched last year: a call for the strengthening of interaction and the building of new partnerships within, as well as between, Secretariat structures, and the intergovernmental machinery was one of the main themes underlying that programme. And a dialogue between the Council and the Secretary-General, as Chairman of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), is indeed a necessity if we are to realize one of the main objectives of the reform process: mobilizing the system in order to place development at the top of the international agenda. In line with your suggestions, Mr. President, I will not confine myself to the outcome of the fall session of the ACC. I will share with you some reflections on the role of the ACC and the evolution of its work over last year. I will also venture some thoughts on the Council’s work during 1998. The ACC is a unique instrument. In many ways, it is the symbol of the unity of purpose of the

system; of the decentralized, diverse, but united system that our founders envisaged as the instrument to harness the specialized capacities and constituencies of the various agencies to meet the economic and social objectives of the Charter. But the ACC can and should be far more than a symbol. And I believe that we have only begun to exploit its potential: • its potential as an instrument of leadership for the Secretary-General in bringing to bear the wide-ranging capacities of the system on the overall effort to advance security and development; • its potential as a collective source of advice to intergovernmental bodies and as an instrument for pursuing in a comprehensive way intergovernmental mandates; and • its potential as a source of support for individual organizations within the system, in the face of challenges that are beyond the capacity of any one of them to address. Let me comment on each of those three points. Since the beginning of my term, I have given a great deal of personal attention to my responsibilities as Chairman of the ACC; to building and strengthening my personal relations with the executive heads of the system; and to reinforcing a sense of common purpose among them. I view this as key to the overall effort to revitalize the economic and social role of the United Nations and international cooperation for development. In the past few years, there has also been a very positive evolution of the relationship between the ACC and the central intergovernmental machinery charged with coordination responsibilities—particularly this Council. Some of the mutual suspicions of the past are being steadily replaced by a new sense of partnership and shared responsibility. The recent global conferences and summits— which have shown the unique convening power of the Organization—have been a turning point in this evolution. They have brought out for agencies the full capacity of the United Nations to establish policy frameworks which build on their distinct roles and capacities and, at the same time, impart to them common directions sanctioned at the highest level. In turn, the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly have appreciated the ACC taking the lead in arranging for the system to identify, from the results of these conferences and summits, cross-cutting themes and common operational and programme priorities. This will, in turn,

306 • 6 February 1998

help the Council reassert its role in providing policy direction and ensure coordinated implementation. It is an excellent example of the mutually reinforcing relations that the ACC and the Council must nurture. But the most significant evolution I have perceived lies in the Executive Heads’ own perceptions of the role of the ACC and inter-agency coordination. The wide-ranging discussions that have taken place in the ACC over the past year have brought to the fore the major strategic and managerial challenges confronting the system as a whole; they have strengthened the realization that the future of each part of the system cannot be separated from that of its other parts; and they have led to a renewed commitment to utilizing the ACC as the privileged forum where Executive Heads’ programme and managerial initiatives should be concerted, and their impact on the overall capacity of the system and its future assessed. The ACC’s discussions on reform during the past year have been pursued in this perspective. Executive Heads committed themselves to a continuing exchange of information on these processes to ensure that they are mutually supportive; that policy, programme and managerial implications for other organizations are taken into account; and that best practices are institutionalized and drawn upon system-wide. Another major theme of the ACC’s work during the year came under the broad heading of “peace-building”. It involved the development of a common, system-wide “strategic framework” that would help harness the capacities available throughout the system for assisting countries in responding to crisis, and recovering from it. The objective is to integrate the system’s analytical capabilities, its capacity for political mediation and humanitarian intervention, and its experience in development cooperation into a coherent force to build and sustain peace; but also to address the basic factors at the root of ongoing or potential conflicts. Mr. President, you have spoken eloquently about these issues in the Security Council, highlighting the crucial requirement of reconciliation. This is, indeed, a crucial component of peacebuilding where many of the agencies have, actually or potentially, a great deal to offer. We shall pursue this important dimension in shaping further the elements of the “strategic framework”. The ACC also gave continuing attention during the year to the implementation and impact of the United Nations System-wide Special Initiative

on Africa. And I have begun an intensive process of inter-agency consultations aimed at developing a concerted system-wide approach to the major reconstruction and development challenges being faced by the countries of the Great Lakes region. I am confident that, working with governments in the region, and with the support of other development partners, the United Nations system is in a position to launch a well-coordinated effort to help these countries resume their path to development. A further major focus for the ACC during 1997 was the challenge of enlisting the increasingly essential cooperation of civil society—including the private sector—in handling the global agenda. There was a broad consensus that a strengthening of the system’s partnerships with civil society should be viewed as a key objective of the reform processes currently under way. These partnerships are indeed an important dimension of the effort to adapt the system to the changes that are taking place in the national and international environment. And they are directly relevant to many of the major issues before us—from increasing resource flows and strengthening the system’s impact on development, to enhancing public support for the United Nations. In conjunction with the ACC’s October session, we held the first ever Retreat of ACC members. It was attended—as was the first ACC session I chaired in April—by all the heads of ACC member organizations. Focusing on the changing role of the State and its implications for the United Nations system, our discussions addressed programme and institutional implications arising from globalization and other trends in the world economy. We also reviewed key issues such as the prospects for development cooperation and new approaches to development financing. And we considered how to adapt the role and functioning of the ACC to the demands of the new international context. Drawing on the outcome of the retreat, I expect the ACC session in March to finalize several new initiatives that will facilitate a more effective policy dialogue within the system; these range from a dedicated information network to frequent Executive Heads-level consultations making use of teleconferencing. I hope that this Council will also consider carefully whether its present pattern of meetings, revolving around a single, extended substantive session a year, is conducive to the kind of in-depth dialogue we seek; and, more generally, whether it is best suited to the continuous policy management

6 February 1998 • 307 and monitoring role that the Council is called upon to perform. The rapid changes unfolding around us are a stark reminder that the United Nations cannot remain on the sidelines; it must be prepared to impact the problems of the real world. To do so requires an institutional setting rooted in the Charter, but not constrained by the methods and structures of the past. If we want to be faithful to the objectives of the Charter, we must be prepared to change the status quo. We are indeed making major strides in reforming the United Nations. Together, we are laying the foundation for a more effective Organization which will enhance our relevance and impact, especially in the field of development. But one of the biggest challenges still lies before us: reviving the political will to utilize fully the improved tools that we are now shaping. We must then proceed on two tracks: we must pursue our reform efforts further, while, at the same time, tackling substantive policy issues more forcefully in a way that breathes new life into the work of the Organization. The Economic and Social Council has a crucial role to play in both respects. There is a new political consensus on strengthening the role and capacity of the Council. This opportunity must be seized. Already, important new initiatives have been launched which hold the promise of rejuvenating your work. Indeed, the progress made by this Council in developing new and more effective methods of work is yet to be matched by the General Assembly itself and other parts of the intergovernmental machinery. But there is no room for complacency. A number of major reform issues are before the Council this year. 1998 will be critical. And I have no doubt that the work of the Council will have a broader signal effect; it is, in many ways, a test case for the Organization’s ability to enhance relevance and impact in a crucial sector of its overall mission. Resolutions 50/227 and 52/12B outline some of the main follow-up actions that have been entrusted to this Council in advancing the reform process. They involve the Council pursuing a review of its subsidiary bodies, including the regional commissions. There are other important issues before the Council this year that are, in equal measure, reform and policy challenges, and are central to the exercise of its main Charter functions. The decision to establish a new “segment” on

humanitarian assistance not only fills a major gap by strengthening governance arrangements in a key sector; it also adds an important new dimension to the role of the Council in contributing to the construction of a more secure and humane world. Regarding operational activities, the Council will review the work of Executive Boards of its funds and programmes. The Council is challenged to exercise its oversight function in a way that advances the integration of the work of their governing bodies; and, most importantly, in a way that will lead to a qualitative strengthening of the United Nations operational activities. In the policy coordination area, I look forward to your deliberations on the important issues of human rights and the advancement of women. These will be the lead themes of the Council’s coordination and operational activities segments. The Council will also consider the issue of market access in the context of globalization. This is a most timely issue. Its selection underscores the willingness of the membership to address, through the Council, highly relevant contemporary policy issues with major implications for international cooperation. In addition, several special events are scheduled this year which should serve to galvanize our collective efforts in this area. The high-level special meeting of the Council on 18 April can do much to foster a truly constructive interaction between the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions in order to bear to fruit their complementary strengths. I look forward to taking part in this discussion. In May, the Council will convene a special session to further consider the follow-up to major United Nations conferences and summits. The ACC will place before the Council its assessment of the impact of the thematic task forces it had charged with promoting an integrated follow-up to the results of these conferences. I hope that the Council will be able to reinforce the international community’s commitment to the agreements reached; and that it will, at the same time, forge ahead with future efforts to meet the underlying objectives of these conferences: a concerted attack on poverty. You can count on the ACC giving the utmost priority to harnessing all the capacities of the system in support of this effort. Indeed, in all areas of your work, you can count on the full support of the ACC and on the readiness of the organizations of the system to engage with you in a continuous, sustained dia-

308 • 6 February 1998

logue. Agency policies and activities should not only be the subject of the work of this Council; they should provide its main foundation. Today, I join you in a spirit of commitment to the work of the Organization in the economic and social fields. I am confident that we can achieve our goals. I pledge to you my full support and I wish you every success.

6 February 1998 Secretary-General Urges Decolonization Committee to Eradicate Colonialism by 2000

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6456, GA/COL/2975); decolonization Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the meeting of the Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, in New York. I am honoured to open this session of the Special Committee. It has made a lasting contribution to the guiding principles of international law concerning the inalienable right of peoples to selfdetermination. Mr. Chairman, Since you assumed the chairmanship of this Committee, two important steps have been accomplished: the consensus reached with the administering Powers on the resolution on small Territories; the agreement with the European Union on the resolution on economic and other activities. For almost four decades, this Committee has contributed to the independence and right to selfdetermination of many peoples. These efforts have consistently upheld the highest principles of the Charter and enhanced the commitment of the United Nations to ensure respect for human rights all over the world. The remaining 17 Territories on your Committee’s agenda represent complex challenges to the United Nations. Some have advanced economically and socially and are enjoying constitutional rights. Others are constrained by lack of development, or have suffered from natural disasters. The goal of eradicating colonialism by the year 2000 should continue to guide the work of the Special Committee. The main task of the United Nations is to live up to the trust bestowed upon it and to assist both the peoples of the Territories and the administering Powers in fulfilling our common aims. The right to self-determination has been estab-

lished as the right of peoples to choose to be independent, to be associated with another State, or to integrate with another State. Therefore, there is no formula which should be imposed. However, the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories should be assisted in their selection of what is best for their future. It is my earnest hope that the specialized agencies and other organizations within the United Nations system will step up their assistance to the peoples of these Territories. At this time, I would like to draw particular attention to the needs of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) in the execution of its mandate with regard to Western Sahara, as the largest Territory that remains on the Special Committee’s agenda. Finally, I am pleased to note that in 1997 the Special Committee demonstrated a practical and flexible approach to its work. The changes in the structures of the Special Committee brought about efficiency in its work and streamlining in its functions and procedures. As part of the United Nations family, it too has had to adapt to a new era, where a reformed and revitalized Organization will better serve the interests and ideals of our Member States.

9 February 1998 Letter (UN archives); humanitarian affairs Internal note from Sergio Vieira de Mello briefing the Secretary-General on his recent trip to Washington, D.C. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Subject: Visit to Washington D.C. At the invitation of the US Government, I visited Washington, D.C. on Thursday, 5 February where I met with representatives of the Departments of State and Defense and the national Security Council. The purpose of my visit was to brief on the work of OCHA and to exchange views on current humanitarian issues and crises. I also included Joe Sills of UNIC Washington in my meetings. I would like to highlight three subjects which were of particular interest to the U.S. Government: • Reform of the Humanitarian Sector. The Secretary-General’s reform of the humanitarian sector, as reflected in the establishment of OCHA, was very well received. Officials were particularly interested and supportive of the steps taken to focus OCHA on its core functions, reduce staffing

9 February 1998 • 309 levels, and make OCHA more inter-agency in character through secondments. • Internally Displaced Persons. U.S. officials strongly concurred with OCHA’s priority for 1998 to implement IASC decisions regarding the allocation of responsibilities for IDPs. The U.S. clearly considers the issue of assistance to IDPs as the most outstanding gap in the humanitarian sector. I would recommend that the IDP issue also be included in the Secretary-General’s priorities for 1998. • Afghanistan. The Secretary-General’s policy on gender in Afghanistan enjoys wide support. Questions were raised however, concerning the adherence of UN agencies and NGOs to the policy in their programmes and activities. I will look into this issue during my coming visit to Afghanistan.

9 February 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Middle East Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s noon briefing with the announcement that the Secretary-General had cancelled his trip to the Middle East. He had planned to leave Tuesday morning, passing through Rome in connection with the anniversary of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), before going on to Egypt, Israel, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. The Spokesman next read out a statement attributable to the Secretary-General, as follows: “In his efforts to help find a diplomatic solution to the crisis that has arisen as a result of Iraq’s non-compliance with Security Council resolutions, the Secretary-General has maintained close and frequent high-level contacts with all parties involved. These include leaders of governments and intergovernmental organizations which have sent envoys to the region, members of the Security Council, regional governments, and the Iraqi leadership. His objective remains to help bring about a diplomatic solution, while ensuring respect for the decisions of the Security Council. “Since, notwithstanding some movement in the right direction, an acceptable solution is yet to be agreed upon, he believes it is essential for him to remain available at Headquarters until the crisis has been defused. Therefore, regretfully, he has decided to postpone his visit to countries in the Middle East, which was due to commence on 11 February and to cancel his brief preceding visit to

Rome. It is his intention to reschedule the visit to the Middle East for a later date this year.” (See Press Release SG/SM/6459- IK/239.) Mr. Eckhard said that the question on everyone’s mind was whether the Secretary-General was going to Baghdad. The Secretary-General told journalists on his way into the Secretariat building this morning, “I have no plans at the moment to go to Baghdad”. The Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, had before it a letter from the Russian Federation concerning its plans to fly into Iraq on Sunday, carrying some Russian deputies as well as humanitarian supplies. The letter was circulated to many Committee members last week under the “no objection” procedure, with a deadline of noon last Friday, 6 February. A Committee member asked the Committee to put the flight request on hold. Bilateral contacts were under way to resolve that issue. The Spokesman said that the Security Council would be briefed at 3:30 p.m. in a closed session by the High Representative for the Implementation of the Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Carlos Westendorp. Following that briefing, at approximately 4:30 p.m., the High Representative was expected to respond to journalists’ questions at the stakeout position outside the Council. The Council would then take up the supplementary report of the Secretary-General on the “oil-for-food” programme in Iraq. It was not yet confirmed whether resolutions on that issue would be tabled this afternoon. Tomorrow, the Council would consider the report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Sierra Leone, and would continue with the item on Iraq. . . . The newly appointed Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Western Sahara, Charles Dunbar, departed today for the region to assume his duties, the Spokesman said. Prior to his arrival in Laayoune, the headquarters of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), Mr. Dunbar would visit Rabat and Tindouf in order to meet with the Moroccan authorities and the Frente Polisario leadership. Following his arrival in the Territory, he was scheduled to visit Algiers and Nouakchott for meetings with neighbouring Governments, Algeria and Mauritania. . . . The Spokesman announced that later this afternoon, Austria would become the thirteenth signatory to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. Luxembourg

310 • 9 February 1998

signed the Convention last Friday. It was opened for signature on 12 January, and would remain open for signature at Headquarters until 31 December 1999. It enters into force on the thirtieth day after the deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification. Turning to assessed contributions, Mr. Eckhard said that four Member States had fully paid their contributions to the regular budget for 1998. They were Cyprus, India, Trinidad and Tobago and Tunisia, with payments respectively of: $357,553, $3,207,464, $189,293 and $294,456. That brought to 28 the number of Member States that had paid in full. The monthly summary of troop contributions to peacekeeping operations as of 31 January was available in the Spokesman’s Office. In further announcements, Mr. Eckhard reminded correspondents about a press conference sponsored by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), scheduled for 12:30 p.m. in room 226. The ICC Vice-President and Presidentto-be, Adnan Kassar, and the ICC SecretaryGeneral, Maria Livanos Cattaui, would be joined by two United Nations officials, the UnderSecretary General of Economic and Social Affairs, Nitin Desai, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Rubens Ricupero. The group met at Headquarters this morning, and were expected to issue a statement at the press conference. A correspondent asked whether the SecretaryGeneral’s decision to remain at Headquarters until the situation with Iraq was defused, precluded a trip to Baghdad. Mr. Eckhard said that the Secretary-General was “waiting to see” what Member States wanted him to do. There were at least four actors in the field. They were talking to each other, and the Secretary-General was talking to each of them. He was waiting to see if a proposal emerged which had the support of the Security Council as a whole, and waiting for some indication that Iraq was willing to discuss the situation. Those were the conditions that he would likely set for a trip to the region. . . . Another correspondent asked whether the Secretary-General’s decision to cancel his trip to the Middle East was because of concern that being “seen” with Middle East leaders, especially of Israel, would “harm” the Secretary-General’s “diplomatic leverage” in Iraq. Mr. Eckhard said that the reason, as indicated in the statement, was the Secretary-General’s desire “to stay close to the

Security Council, close to the telephone” in order to better prepare for a possible role for himself if the Council members wanted it. Another correspondent asked why the United Nations correspondents were the last to know of the Secretary-General’s change in plans, given the announcement in Cairo this morning. Mr. Eckhard said the concerned governments had to be informed as soon as a decision was made, and they were informed Sunday afternoon. Because the decision could be open to different interpretations, the Secretary-General wanted to issue a statement. The governments were asked to keep the information confidential until a statement was issued in New York today. The release of the information early today might have emanated from an assumption that the announcement had already been made in New York. Yes, the Secretary-General met this morning with Richard Butler, the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission (UNSCOM) monitoring Iraq’s disarmament, the Spokesman said in answer to another question. No read-out was available yet, but correspondents could check with the Spokesman’s Office later today to see if there was anything it could release. Asked if a member of the Sanctions Committee had objected to the Russian flight, Mr. Eckhard said that that was a closed meeting and he, therefore, could not say. Did Mr. Topfer’s designation as head of Habitat require any specific approval, and why was it necessary for Habitat to retain its own identity? another correspondent asked. The Spokesman said he thought that Habitat had a distinct mandate from the General Assembly. If the SecretaryGeneral wanted to merge the two offices, he would have to seek the approval of the Assembly, but since he was only asking Mr. Topfer to strengthen and further unify and coordinate the Office at Nairobi, as a temporary assignment, no Assembly approval was required. He was asking Mr. Topfer to chair a task force to consider ways to strengthen the Nairobi Office. Asked for details about the Secretary-General’s coordination of efforts to secure a diplomatic solution in Iraq, the Spokesman said that, to date, the SecretaryGeneral was staying in touch with the various efforts under way, and waiting to see if Member States sought his assistance in some way. Asked in a follow-up question whether he considered that he was now coordinating the diplomatic effort, the Spokesman said, “not to my knowledge, no”. Another correspondent, referring to a letter on Friday from Costa Rica requesting the SecretaryGeneral to go to Baghdad, asked if other similar

11 February 1998 • 311 letters had arrived. Mr. Eckhard said he did not believe that they had, but the matter had been discussed at the Security Council lunch on Friday, at which time Council members made their views known. Costa Rica then decided to put its views in writing. Asked again if a trip by the Secretary-General to Baghdad was precluded, Mr. Eckhard said that if the Council asked him to go, and if he felt he could accomplish something by going, “certainly, he will go”. “Wasn’t it crowded out there, diplomatically?” another correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said that the Secretary-General was monitoring the various parties’ efforts to find a diplomatic solution, and he hoped that one could be found. To a question concerning a “new solution” about changing the composition of UNSCOM, including the nomination by the Secretary-General of a new Executive Chairman, Mr. Eckhard said that the Secretary-General had been in touch with the Arab League of States throughout last week and was aware of their ideas as they developed, but he had no comment on what was made public today.

11 February 1998 Secretary-General Expresses Concern at Risks Posed to Civilians and Humanitarian Organizations by Heavy Shelling in Freetown

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6462, AFR/38); Sierra Leone I have taken note of the statement issued yesterday morning by the President of the Security Council on behalf of its members on the situation in Sierra Leone, and I share the concerns expressed therein. The United Nations supports the goals of the Conakry Agreement of 23 October 1997, that is, the surrender of power by the junta in order to ensure a peaceful re-establishment of the constitutional order in Sierra Leone and the improvement of the humanitarian condition of the Sierra Leonean people. My Special Envoy stands ready to assist in the attainment of those objectives. I am concerned at reports that heavy shelling in Freetown is posing serious risks for the safety of civilians, and that some staff of humanitarian organizations have been prevented from evacuating. I call on both sides urgently to spare civilians and to ensure the protection of humanitarian personnel. I have also received reports of a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation, with growing numbers of displaced persons fleeing the fighting.

United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations are ready to expand the delivery of humanitarian assistance. It is therefore of paramount importance that all parties facilitate the free access of humanitarian organizations and goods as a matter of life-saving urgency.

11 February 1998 Secretary-General Meets with Permanent Members of Security Council Concerning Iraq

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6463); Iraq I met this afternoon with Permanent Representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council as part of my continuing attempts to resolve the current crisis relating to United Nations inspections in Iraq. We discussed the principal problems that have arisen and the possible next steps that could be taken. A number of aspects were considered and participants undertook to consult their capitals with a view to resuming discussions later this week. The participants in the meeting agreed that all efforts must continue to achieve a diplomatic solution aimed at full implementation by the Government of Iraq of the resolutions of the Council.

11 February 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq/Sierra Leone Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, told correspondents at today’s noon briefing that the Secretary-General had worked at his residence in the morning, and that Iraq continued to dominate his programme. The Spokesman said that the SecretaryGeneral was presently scheduled to meet at Headquarters with the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, Bill Richardson. At 12:30 p.m., he planned to meet with the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Canada, Lloyd Axworthy, and at 5:30 p.m., with the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Poland, Bronoslav Geremek. He was expected to meet with the five permanent members of the Security Council at 4 p.m. to discuss the Iraqi crisis. The Spokesman said that the SecretaryGeneral spoke by telephone this morning with the Prime Minister of Italy, Romano Prodi, who informed him of a joint statement issued with

312 • 11 February 1998

President Boris Yeltsin of the Russian Federation, who was visiting Rome. Their statement called on the Secretary-General to take an active role to resolve the crisis. The Russian aircraft that was carrying members of the Duma, as well as medical supplies, landed at Saddam Hussein International Airport in Baghdad at 5 p.m. local time today, Mr. Eckhard said. At the request of the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, four United Nations monitors went aboard the aircraft and checked the cargo. The aircraft was carrying 7,541 kilograms of medicine. The Spokesman next read out a statement on behalf of the Secretary-General, concerning the situation in Sierra Leone. It was available in the Spokesman’s Office, and read as follows: “I have taken note of the statement issued yesterday morning by the President of the Security Council on behalf of its members on the situation in Sierra Leone, and I share the concerns expressed therein. “The United Nations supports the goals of the Conakry Agreement of 23 October 1997, that is, the surrender of power by the junta in order to ensure a peaceful re-establishment of the constitutional order in Sierra Leone and the improvement of the humanitarian condition of the Sierra Leonean people. My Special Envoy stands ready to assist in the attainment of those objectives. “I am concerned at reports that heavy shelling in Freetown is posing serious risks for the safety of civilians, and that some staff of humanitarian organizations have been prevented from evacuating. I call on both sides urgently to spare civilians and to ensure the protection of humanitarian personnel. “I have also received reports of a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation, with growing numbers of displaced persons fleeing the fighting. United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations are ready to expand the delivery of humanitarian assistance. It is, therefore, of paramount importance that all parties facilitate the free access of humanitarian organizations and goods as a matter of life-saving urgency.” (See Press Release SG/SM/6462-AFR/38.) Mr. Eckhard said that staff in Conakry, Guinea, of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) today confirmed the presence of 1,400 more refugees from Sierra Leone, who were arriving in small boats carrying 20 to 30 people each. . . .

Mr. Eckhard announced that the United Nations appealed for $70 million today to meet humanitarian needs in Liberia. That country was recovering from the effects of a seven-year conflict that claimed an estimated 150,000 lives, and displaced more than half the pre-war population of 2.3 million people. Despite considerable progress in normalizing the political and security situation there, more than 1.4 million people—including internally displaced persons, refugees, ex-combatants, child soldiers, and other vulnerable groups— remained seriously “war-affected”. He went on to say that the United Nations consolidated inter-agency appeal was designed to provide support for the resettlement and re-integration of those groups. It promoted the consolidation of peace, and guided war victims from dependency on relief assistance to increased self-sufficiency. The international community was called upon to respond generously to those initiatives. A press release was on the racks. The Spokesman said that tomorrow’s scheduled press briefings included the Under-SecretaryGeneral for Humanitarian Affairs and the Emergency Relief Coordinator, Sergio Vieira de Mello, at 11:15 a.m. in room S-226. He would be joined by the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Bernard Miyet. They would launch the “Study on the Development of Indigenous Mine-Action Capacities”, which examined United Nations’ supported mine-action programmes in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia and Mozambique. The study reached a number of conclusions, including the possibility of meeting the challenge of the landmine crisis within years, rather than decades. The President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, would address correspondents at the noon briefing, the Spokesman said. Judge McDonald was on the Secretary-General’s programme for today. . . . Concerning a question about plans for the humanitarian experts in Conakry sent by the Secretary-General before “all the fighting”, Mr. Eckhard said that he believed they were stuck in Conakry because the security situation did not allow them to go into Sierra Leone. If that situation did not change, they would have to re-evaluate their plans. Concerning press availability following the Secretary-General’s meeting this afternoon with the permanent members of the Security Council, Mr. Eckhard said that correspondents would have

13 February 1998 • 313 to “try to snare” the participants, adding that he did not think that the Secretary-General would make a statement to the press. . . .

12 February 1998 Letter (UN archives); Security Council Note, prepared by the Secretary-General’s note taker Rolf Knutsson, summarizing some of the issues raised in his informal meeting with the members of the Security Council. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Subject: Your meeting with the President of the Security Council

During today’s informal consultations of the Security Council on the draft resolution for Oilfor-Food, the Permanent Representatives of Bahrain, Brazil, Gambia, Portugal and Slovenia requested the President of the Council to bring to the attention of the Secretary-General their concern that the non-permanent members of the Security Council were not properly briefed on the Secretary-General’s initiatives to resolve the current crisis with Iraq. The PR of Bahrain mentioned that there should be no reason for discrimination of non-permanent members. While making this statement, he referred to information released by the Spokesman of the Secretary-General on yesterday’s meeting with P-5. The President of the Council assured these representatives that during his meeting with the Secretary-General, he would convey these concerns. He would point out that the non-permanent members fully supported the efforts of the Secretary-General and there was no “negative feeling” towards his meetings with regional groups or any other entities in efforts to resolve the Iraqi crisis. The Russian Federation supported this observation, pointing out that the Secretary-General was engaged “in the normal working process of which he had briefed the Council two weeks ago when he had offered to provide his good offices”. Noted—and have explained matters to Secco [Security Council] President. —K.A., 15/2

13 February 1998 Secretary-General Says Discussions on Inspections in Iraq Reveal Common Ground

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6465, IK/240); Iraq Text of the Secretary-General’s statement to correspondents and his response to their questions concerning Iraq. I met this afternoon with Permanent Representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council to resume the discussions we began on Wednesday on ways of resolving the current crisis relating to United Nations inspections in Iraq. We reaffirmed the basic principles at stake, including the need to implement the resolutions of the Security Council fully and without conditions. The meeting focused on the issue of the socalled ‘Presidential sites and palaces’, in particular on the need to define them and the possible exploration of modalities to inspect them. Large areas of common ground emerged, but discussions will continue and we will meet again later during this long weekend, specifically on Monday at 4 p.m. I also informed the Permanent Representatives of my decision to send a technical team to Baghdad this weekend to work with Iraq to map the Presidential sites urgently. I expect them to conclude this task within three or four days. The participants in the meeting expressed full confidence in the UNSCOM [United Nations Special Commission] and its work, which is continuing elsewhere in Iraq and which must continue unimpeded. QUESTION: What were the areas of agreement reached by the permanent Council members? SECRETARY-GENERAL: I don’t think I would want to get into that, but take my word, we had broad areas of agreement. And I think you would understand why I cannot go into details at this stage. QUESTION: Were you any closer now to being able to say that you would be going to Baghdad? S-G: I think I have made it quite clear that I am prepared to go to Baghdad, and the work I am doing now with the permanent five is in preparation for that visit. QUESTION: Today, Sandy Berger [United States National Security Adviser] gave what seemed to be a policy statement of the United States that there would be no dilution of the integrity of UNSCOM, and you seemed to be aiming at something that would create zones restricted to UNSCOM. S-G: I don’t see how you get that inference from anything I have said this afternoon. QUESTION: In preparation of your eventual

314 • 13 February 1998

visit to Baghdad, what would you want to hear from Baghdad? S-G: I would want to hear that they are accepting the Security Council resolutions and they are prepared to work with us to disarm Iraq and to respect the resolutions of the Council. QUESTION: Do you feel that the five participants in your meeting are willing to arrive at a deal, or do you feel that one or two of them are not interested in a deal or a compromise? S-G: The fact that we have met a second time and have fixed a third meeting indicates that there is a willingness for us to work together and find a common ground that will permit me to move on to Baghdad.

17 February 1998 Secretary-General to Visit Baghdad After Consultations with Permanent Members of the Security Council

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6468, IK/242); Iraq Text of the Secretary-General’s statement to correspondents and his response to their questions after his meeting with the permanent representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council concerning inspections in Iraq. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am sorry we had to bring you all out on a holiday, on a long weekend that we had to interrupt. Let me say that, as I told you on Friday, I met again with the Permanent Representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council to resume the discussions we began last Wednesday on ways of resolving the current crisis relating to United Nations inspections in Iraq. We had very constructive discussions for about an hour, but the permanent five are engaged in intensive consultations and have told me that they need a little more time to arrive at a conclusion. I have therefore agreed to meet them again tomorrow afternoon, and then brief the Council on Wednesday. Thank you very much. QUESTION: Are you planning to go to Baghdad? S-G: I have made it clear that I would go to Baghdad once this series of consultations with the permanent five is concluded. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, we understand that the British delegation has been trying to arrive at a formula to bridge the gap between the different positions. Now, you must be famil-

iar with that formula, or with the different principles of it. Do you feel there is any room for a face-saving formula in the principles stated as the “red lines”, if you will, by Brits, or do you feel that the position of the United Kingdom and the United States—to say, “You do not go to negotiate”—is the one that is going to stop you from going to Baghdad? I would ask you to be as precise as possible. S-G: Do you really expect me to enter into those details? No, I don’t intend to, because, first of all, let me say that we are having very serious and confidential discussions, and I have always made it clear that the kind of work I do, when it comes to these delicate negotiations, is best done discreetly and away from cameras. If I come to discuss these sort of details, I will not be doing my work. But you raise the question, would I go to Baghdad, and I think I answered that earlier. QUESTION: May I follow up, Sir? S-G: Please. QUESTION: Will you go to Baghdad to deliver an ultimatum, or will you go to Baghdad to find a solution? Will you not go to Baghdad unless you have a solution, and will you go to Baghdad to deliver an ultimatum? S-G: Let me say that I have made it, I think, clear right from the beginning that I will be prepared to intervene. And if I am going to intervene I am doing it to make a difference. I have also made it clear that for the trip to be successful it has to be carefully prepared, both here and in Baghdad. And this is why I have been engaged in these discussions with the permanent five. And as you know, I have also been in touch—I am in touch—with the Iraqi side. And that doesn’t smell like an ultimatum. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, I think you just said that you have made it clear from the beginning that you will go to Baghdad once this series of consultations is concluded. Does that mean you will go even if there is not an agreement within the permanent five about just what they think the parameters of your mission should be? S-G: I don’t think any of us involved in this exercise is prepared to contemplate the scenario you have indicated. QUESTION: But it hasn’t happened yet; it could still not have happened by Wednesday. S-G: There’s always a tomorrow, my dear man. QUESTION: I had the same question.

17 February 1998 • 315 S-G: Then you’ve got your answer, thank you very much. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, do you believe that the use of military force can achieve something in Iraq that diplomacy cannot? S-G: I think everyone concerned is after the same thing—full compliance with Council resolutions; full access for the inspectors—and everybody agrees that we would prefer to do it through diplomatic means. And this is why we are all so engaged, and we are all very busy. QUESTION: Would you be prepared to go if you had a majority—say four out of five—of the permanent five? S-G: We are not operating on majorities; we are operating on the basis of unanimity, and I think we are getting there. Thank you.

17 February 1998 Secretary-General Concludes Consultations on Iraq with Permanent Members

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6469, IK/243); Iraq Text of the Secretary-General’s statement to correspondents and his response to their questions, following his meetings with the permanent representatives of the permanent and nonpermanent members of the Security Council concerning Iraq. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good evening, once again. This is becoming a daily occurrence. I just wanted to share with you the fact that I have had a very constructive meeting this afternoon with Perma-nent Representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council and subsequently with those of the non-permanent members. I believe I now have a clear basis on which to brief the Security Council tomorrow and prepare to proceed for Baghdad. An advance team will leave tonight to prepare the ground for my visit. I expect to arrive in Baghdad on Friday, with the support of the entire Security Council, and to conduct discussions this weekend to attempt to resolve the crisis. It is my hope that we can achieve a diplomatic solution that will ensure the full implementation of all the Security Council resolutions. Thank you. QUESTION: Do you have the stomach to be tough with President Saddam Hussein? S-G: What type of tough stomach does one need to deal with him? I think I do. QUESTION: Est-ce que le mandat que vous avez n’est pas trop contraignant? Et aurez-vous une marge de manoeuvre nécessaire?

S-G: Oui. QUESTION: You have a trip. Do you have a deal? S-G: I would say I have both. I have both. QUESTION: Would you be going anywhere else after Baghdad? S-G: I would be coming straight back to New York to report to the Security Council and brief you. QUESTION: The United States Permanent Representative, Ambassador Bill Richardson, said that they reserve the right to an “alternative conclusion”—to use his words. Obviously, the United States is the most relevant party in this effort. You seem now to be going very much on your own. What are the ingredients of success, and what is your greatest fear? S-G: First of all, I did not ask for a mandate. Right from the beginning, I was acting on the basis of the Secretary-General’s authority and my desire to use my good offices. I know that there have been reports in the newspapers that the Secretary-General was blocked by this country or that country and is not allowed to go. I don’t know the basis for that. I did not approach anybody for permission to go. What we did discuss, what I wanted, was an understanding and a basis that will help my mission and make it successful—that if I came back with something everybody will be on board. QUESTION: Will you address then the issue of the ingredients of a formula for success? S-G: I don’t think I want to get into that at this stage. QUESTION: You said you have a trip and a deal. On what basis do you say you have a deal? S-G: I did tell you that I needed to have the mission prepared very carefully both here and in Baghdad with a reasonable chance of success, and when I have that basis I would be prepared to travel. I didn’t want to just jump on a plane and have a trip, and this is what we are talking about. QUESTION: Est-ce que vous pourriez répéter en français votre dernier commentaire Monsieur le Secrétaire général à propos de votre mandat? S-G: J’ai dit à tout le monde que si l’on arrive à avoir, non pas une position commune, mais disons un accord entre nous, les cinq membres permanents et moi-même, je serais prêt à partir pour Baghdad et que la mission devrait être bien préparée, pas seulement ici à New York, mais aussi à Baghdad. Nous avons utilisé ces dernières semaines à parvenir à cela et je crois que maintenant je suis prêt à partir.

316 • 18 February 1998

18 February 1998

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq

Letter (UN archives); Sudan

Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s press briefing by welcoming Rafiah Salim, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management. Ms. Salim had just established a task force on human resources management and was at the briefing to talk to correspondents about its composition and objectives. Following the Secretary-General’s briefing of the Security Council this morning, the Council President issued a statement concerning the Secretary-General’s intention to travel to Baghdad this weekend over the problem of access to inspection sites for United Nations inspectors, Mr. Eckhard said. The President gave a strong endorsement to the Secretary-General’s trip. To that, the Secretary-General said that he felt that he now has what he needs to undertake a serious discussion in Baghdad about the shape and content of a political solution. The Secretary-General also quoted an unnamed member of the Council who had said in Latin, “Be firm in substance and flexible in form”. That was the Secretary-General’s approach to the situation. The Spokesman drew attention to a report on a network television news programme last night which had characterized the Secretary-General’s telephone conversation with United States President Bill Clinton yesterday. The report said that the President told the Secretary-General he was in danger of jeopardizing a strong relationship with the United States, as well as his own reputation. None of that rang true to the SecretaryGeneral, who had spoken to President Clinton about all aspects of the Iraqi crisis, and who stated this morning that President Clinton also would prefer a diplomatic solution. It was clear that the United States was part of the consensus in the Council supporting the Secretary-General’s efforts. That particular television report “wasn’t a spin”, Mr. Eckhard quoted the Secretary-General as saying this morning—“it was a twist”. Concerning reports that the United Nations had evacuated some of its staff from Baghdad, the Spokesman said the security level in Iraq was at Phase I, the lowest threat level, and had been that way for a long time. The United Nations would move 31 people out of the country tomorrow. There were a total of 300 staff members in Baghdad, including 120 personnel of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). There were 146 additional staff members in the northern part of the country, as well as Lloyds’ contractors for inspections and Sayboat personnel for oil-

Letter from the Secretary-General to Omer Hassan Ahmed Al-Bashir, president of the Republic of Sudan. Excellency, I welcome the opportunity to convey to you my concern about efforts to address the current humanitarian needs in your country. I have recently received information describing the serious humanitarian situation in Bahr ElGhazal province. Reports from UNICEF, the World Food Programme and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs all conclude that civilian populations displaced by the renewed hostilities there are suffering severe hardship and that some indeed, inevitably the most vulnerable, may be dying. I understand that emergency relief flights operated by Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) have not been permitted access to the affected areas since the first week of February, thus preventing the delivery of vital humanitarian assistance. I also understand that the numbers of those in need of such assistance is growing by the day. I am aware that discussions in Khartoum between officials of your Government and the United Nations Coordinator for Emergency and Relief Operations are continuing in an effort to find a way to resolve the impasse. Concern is growing within the humanitarian and donor community over the situation and suffering of those in need in Bahr El-Ghazal. I know that you will agree with me that it is imperative that the viability of Operation Lifeline Sudan as the effective framework for humanitarian assistance be maintained. To achieve this, an early and satisfactory conclusion of the discussions to which I have referred is essential. Under these circumstances, I have decided to dispatch to Khartoum Ambassador Robert van Schaik, my Special Envoy for Humanitarian Affairs for the Sudan. I regard his visit as an exceptional measure warranted by the lack of visible progress to date on the issue of the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the people of Bahr El-Ghazal and the consequences thereof which may also effect the viability of the OLS operation as a whole. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

18 February 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

18 February 1998 • 317 export monitoring, accounting for a total of 504 staff members in Baghdad. The Organization had merely decided that, in view of the current developments, it would scale down some of its activities in the humanitarian area. Moving out the 31 people tomorrow was, therefore, only a precautionary measure. Mr. Eckhard announced that Nigeria would tomorrow become the fifteenth country to sign the memorandum of understanding with the United Nations on standby arrangements for United Nations peacekeeping operations. The signing ceremony would take place tomorrow at 3:30 p.m., with the Chief of Defence Staff of Nigeria, MajorGeneral A.A. Abubakar signing for his country, and Bernard Miyet, the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, signing for the United Nations. To date, 67 countries had expressed their willingness to participate in the standby regime to expedite deployment of United Nations peacekeeping troops. . . . Last December, the Security Council requested a technical analysis of the humanitarian situation in Sierra Leone in the period since the coup d’état which deposed President Tejjan Kabbah, including the effects of the sanctions on that country, Mr. Eckhard said. Earlier this month, an expert mission went to the region. Owing to the deterioration of the security situation, the mission had worked in Conakry, Guinea, submitting an interim report which was now circulating among members of the Security Council. Correspondents who were interested in having a copy should inquire in the Spokesman’s Office. Mr. Eckhard cautioned that that mission in question was different from the one about which he had spoken yesterday, which was being led by the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Sierra Leone, Francis Okelo. Of that mission, he said that Mr. Okelo had arrived in Sierra Leone today. The Special Envoy would conduct a rapid assessment mission there and was expected to return to Conakry tomorrow. . . . Another correspondent said she had heard on the radio a short while ago that the SecretaryGeneral would be meeting with President Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. Mr. Eckhard said that he did not yet have any details of the Secretary-General’s programme; he would leave New York on Thursday morning and spend the night in Paris. There was a possibility of an official meeting in Paris, but that announcement was not ready yet. The Secretary-General would leave for Baghdad on Friday morning on a private plane, arriving

some time in the afternoon. He was expected to begin his meetings on Saturday and to conclude them on Sunday. He would then begin the trip back, to arrive New York on Monday. Specifics on his programme in Baghdad were not yet available. ... Concerning the Secretary-General’s stopover in Paris, a correspondent asked if any meetings would be held there with French or Iraqi officials. Mr. Eckhard said he had no details of the programme and had only just been alerted that there was a chance the Secretary-General might have an official meeting. He said he was not told whom the Secretary-General might be meeting with, although he was aware of a story on the newswires that the Secretary-General would meet with President Jacques Chirac.

18 February 1998 Letter (EOSG); United States Letter to Jimmy Carter, former president of the United States, sent to the Carter Center. The letter was also sent to the 138 signatories of the open letter. Dear President Carter, I was delighted to read the open letter to the Congress of the United States that appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post of 11 February. You and the other eminent signatories make up a formidable coalition. I congratulate you for setting aside partisan differences and coming together in support of a concrete, achievable agenda of action that would greatly benefit the world’s people. Your dedication to multilateralism is also a significant boost to the United Nations at a time of uncertainty about the Congress’s own commitment to international cooperation. The United Nations for which you voiced support is in fundamental respects a new institution. It continues to promote the universal values on which it was founded: freedom, justice, equality, social progress, the rule of law and the peaceful resolution of disputes. But the United Nations is also transforming itself so as to better meet the needs of a new, interdependent era in world affairs. The General Assembly has adopted major aspects of my reform plan and is now discussing further measures. Moreover, the spirit of reform now infuses the entire United Nations system—including the funds, programmes, specialized agencies, World Bank and International Monetary Fund. In short, we are building the global institutions we need for life in a global society.

318 • 18 February 1998

The relationship between the United Nations and the United States is a pivotal part of this equation. The United States has done much to bring about a world of expanding democracy, growth and opportunity; for it to step back from its global engagement, as you say, would damage American interests. The current turmoil in Asia and the stand-off with Iraq are just two situations that illustrate a point I have made on many occasions: just as the United Nations needs the United States, the United States needs the United Nations. Thank you again for such a powerful public statement of support. I look forward to working with you in the years ahead to realize the goals we share and hold dear.

19 February 1998 Letter (EOSG, S/1998/142); Western Sahara Letter to the president of the Security Council, Denis Dangue Réwaka. Dear Mr. President, In its resolution 1133 (1997) of 20 October 1997, the Security Council requested me to report every 60 days from the date of extension of the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) on the progress in the implementation of the settlement plan and the agreements reached between the parties for its implementation. Following my report of 13 November 1997 (S/1997/974) which included a timetable and my recommendations for the full deployment of MINURSO, I provided, in a letter to the President of the Security Council dated 12 December (S/1997/974), an account of the identification of potential voters in the referendum since its resumption on 3 December. My report to the Council dated 15 January 1998 (S/1998/35) provided a further detailed account of that process and of other activities in implementation of the settlement plan. Since then there have been several important developments. As members of the Council are aware, my Special Representative, Mr. Charles F. Dunbar, arrived in the mission area on 9 February 1998. In Rabat, he was received by His Majesty King Hassan II and had meetings with the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, Mr. Abdellatif Filali, and with the Minister of State for the Interior, Mr. Driss Basri. In the Tindouf area, he met with the SecretaryGeneral of the Frente Popular para la Liberacion de Saguia el-Hamra y del Rio de Oro (Frente POLISARIO), Mr. Mohammed Abdelaziz, and

other Frente POLISARIO leaders. Mr. Dunbar assumed his duties at MINURSO headquarters in Laayoune on 16 February. He travelled to Algiers on 17 February to meet with the Algerian authorities, and will proceed to Nouakchott shortly to meet with the Mauritanian authorities. During the reporting period, my Acting Special Representative, Mr. Erik Jensen, maintained regular contacts with the parties, to resolve difficulties which continued to arise, in particular in the identification process. The Chairman of the Identification Commission, Mr. Robin Kinloch, also held regular consultations with the Moroccan and Frente POLISARIO coordinators with MINURSO. Following visits by the Commission Chairman to Nouakchott and by a technical mission to Zouerate in Mauritania, plans were finalized to open an identification centre in Zouerate. The centre began its work on 9 February, a month later than originally planned, in part because of the holding of Mauritanian presidential elections in December 1997. The technical mission considered a proposal by Mauritania for a second centre at Atar, instead of Nouadhibou. A decision in this regard is expected to be taken following my Special Representative’s consultations with the Mauritanian authorities. Eight identification teams are currently operating in the mission area (three in Western Sahara, two in the Tindouf area, two in Southern Morocco and one in Mauritania). During the eleven weeks since the resumption of the identification process, i.e. between 3 December 1997 and 18 February 1998, 42,484 persons were convoked by the Identification Commission. Of these, 30,425 came before the Commission for interview and identification, bringing to 90,537 the total number of persons identified since the start of identification in August 1994. In January alone, 14,000 persons were identified. This is the highest number achieved in a month so far, notwithstanding the impact of the fasting month of Ramadan and the Eid-el-Fitr holidays. Interruptions in the identification process due to illness of sheikhs on either side caused the loss of three working days at one centre. Work at all centres was lost for one day as a result of sandstorms. Disputes between the parties caused the loss of four working days at two centres. A change in procedures at the Laayoune airport for arriving and departing POLISARIO delegations led to the loss of one working day at seven centres, and this was followed by a reciprocal change at the Tindouf airport for Moroccan delegations. In addition, the

19 February 1998 • 319 Eid-el-Fitr holidays necessitated closure of all centres for two and a half days. However, extra hours of identification work as well as weekend sessions enabled the Commission to make up for some of these delays. The above interruptions and other factors contributed to a perceptible increase in tension between the two parties. There was a marked increase in anti-POLISARIO and sometimes antiMINURSO coverage in the Moroccan press. The other factors included Moroccan official protests and public demonstrations against the negative testimony of several sheikhs on the POLISARIO side, the designation by the Frente POLISARIO of its former “Minister of Defence” (now “Minister for the Occupied Territories”) and its “Minister of Education” as observers, and protests against the behaviour of a specific POLISARIO observer; changes in the Moroccan arrangements for meals for the POLISARIO delegation at Laayoune; and refusal, for a time, by a Moroccan observer to allow the identification of non-convoked ex-prisoners of war. The parties expressed some reservations on the decisions contained in my report of 15 January 1998 (S/1998/35) concerning the centres in Morocco, the identification of tribal groups H41, H61 and J51/52, as well as the identification of tribal group D13. Nevertheless, the Identification Commission incorporated these last two decisions in the identification programme for February. In this connection, the Commission expects to identify during the latter part of February and in March some 4,000 unconvoked individuals, who presented themselves at identification centres in Western Sahara on the days of convocation of members of tribal groups H41, H61 and J51/52 listed in the 1974 census and their immediate families. On the basis of the outcome of the identification of these 4,000 individuals, decisions will then be made on ways of dealing with any additional applicants from the above tribal groups, including those in Morocco. In the meantime, I call on the parties to continue to cooperate with MINURSO in the identification of persons from non-contested tribes, including those to be convoked in the towns of Sidi Kacem and El Kelaa des Sraghna in Northern Morocco. Since my report to the Security Council of 15 January (S/1998/35), the number of civilian police officers assigned to MINURSO has remained at. 79, including the Civil Police Commissioner, Chief Superintendent Peter Miller. Two additional positions have therefore to be filled, in order to

bring the civilian police component of MINURSO to its approved strength of 81 officers. As described in my report of 15 January, the civilian police continues to assist the Identification Commission in its daily tasks, and also to prepare for the transitional period. Under the command of Major-General Bernd S. Lubenik, the military component of MINURSO continues to monitor the cease-fire between the Royal Moroccan Army and the Frente POLISARIO forces and to plan for full deployment. The military situation remains stable and both sides continue to cooperate with military observers in their respective areas. Two engineering teams from Sweden and Pakistan visited MINURSO in late January and early February, to assess the demining requirements and the time necessary to undertake demining activities for both the repatriation of refugees and the installation of additional military team sites at designated locations. During the reporting period, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) continued its preparatory work for the repatriation of Saharan refugees. Discussions were held by the UNHCR with the parties as well as my Special Representative on its repatriation programme and role under the settlement plan. The UNHCR is completing preparations for its special appeal for funds for the implementation of that programme. It is further reviewing the budget for the operation, which is expected to exceed $50 million, of which 60 per cent might be necessary to cover transport and logistics costs. Before issuing its appeal for funds, the UNHCR will brief potential donor countries on the repatriation programme and related financial requirements. I intend to report further to the Security Council in good time before the expiration of the current mandate of MINURSO on 20 April 1998. In the event that circumstances so warrant, I shall bring to the Council’s attention any significant developments in identification process in the coming weeks. In the meantime, I reiterate my appeal to the Security Council to support continued preparations, and provide the necessary resources, for the full deployment of MINURSO. I also count on the parties to refrain from any statement or action that could undermine the significant progress made so far in the identification process, and to cooperate fully with MINURSO in completing this process, so that the transitional period may start as planned. Mr. Erik Jensen will have completed his assignment with MINURSO at the end of this

320 • 19 February 1998

month, after four years as Head of Mission. I wish to take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation for his unfailing dedication and invaluable contribution to the peace process, under difficult circumstances. I should be grateful if you would bring this letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

20 February 1998 Letter (EOSG, S/1998/155); Sierra Leone Letter to the president of the Security Council, Denis Dangue Réwaka. Dear Mr. President, The Security Council at its informal consultations on 22 December 1997 requested the Secretariat to prepare a specific technical analysis of the humanitarian situation in Sierra Leone since the coup d’etat, including the effects of the imposition of sanctions. An inter-agency assessment mission led by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs was sent to the region to undertake such analysis. However, because of the deterioration of the security conditions in Sierra Leone, the mission worked in Conakry and prepared an interim report, drawing on information and analysis provided by UN agencies, the ICRC and NGOs active in Sierra Leone. I would like therefore to make available to you, and through you to the members of the Security Council, the interim report of the interagency mission. I would like, in particular, to draw the attention of the Security Council to the recommendations of the report. I am confident that these recommendations will receive the full consideration of the members of the Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

20 February 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq Juan Carlos Brandt, Senior Associate Spokesman for the Secretary-General, began Friday’s press briefing by saying that the Secretary-General arrived today at the Saddam Hussein International Airport in Baghdad at 5:50 p.m. local time. He was met by the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz.

At the airport, the Secretary-General made remarks and answered a few questions. The text of that exchange was made available by the Office of the Spokesman earlier, Mr. Brandt continued, pointing out that the Secretary-General described his visit as “a sacred duty”. He also stated that, as Secretary-General, he had “an obligation, a juridical and moral obligation to try and reduce international tensions wherever I can”, adding that that was the purpose of his mission. Mr. Aziz had also spoken at the airport, said Mr. Brandt, stating that he shared the optimism of the Secretary-General about the outcome of his visit. Mr. Aziz also indicated that the Government of Iraq wanted a “peaceful, balanced and fair solution”, one that would “preserve the sovereignty, dignity and national security of Iraq, as well as the implementation of Security Council resolutions”. Leaving the airport, the Secretary-General went to the Guest House, where he would be staying in the course of his visit, and then into a oneon-one meeting with Mr. Aziz. That meeting had been in progress for about 45 minutes by the time Mr. Brandt had spoken to Fred Eckhard, the Spokesman travelling with the Secretary-General, this morning. It was understood that on Saturday the Secretary-General would start the day with a similar meeting with Mr. Aziz at 9 a.m. at the Foreign Ministry. At 9:30 a.m., that meeting would be expanded into a full meeting between the Secretary-General’s delegation and the Iraqi delegation, led by Mr. Aziz. In anticipation of correspondents’ questions, Mr. Brandt said that was all the information he had at this time. As information arrived from Iraq, however, it would be passed on to the correspondents. Concerning questions his Office had received this morning about an incident at the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM) a few days ago, he said that an official vehicle with two military observers had been forced to a halt at a roadblock during a night patrol at about 9:35 p.m. local time on 18 February. Two unknown armed men ordered the military observers out of the vehicle and drove away in it. That incident happened on the Iraqi side of the demilitarized zone and UNIKOM protested to the Iraqi authorities, while investigating the incident. The mission believed, for now, that it was just an act of criminal activity unrelated to the current situation over inspections. The UNIKOM had been monitoring the border between Iraq and Kuwait since April 1991, he added, noting that approximately 1,100 people had served in it.

20 February 1998 • 321 Continuing, Mr. Brandt said that before the Secretary-General travelled to Baghdad, his only meeting in Paris today had been with Bertrand Dufourq, the Secretary-General of the Quai d’Orsay, at 8:30 a.m. local time. Mr. Dufourq, of course, had been sent earlier to Baghdad as an envoy of his Government. Mr. Brandt drew the attention of correspondents to two exchanges the Secretary-General had with the press in Paris yesterday, the texts of which were received in New York this morning. It was in French, and had taken place at the airport, after the Secretary-General had arrived in Paris and also, after his meeting with President Jacques Chirac. Concerning the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in Iraq, Mr. Brandt told correspondents that the Commission continued to carry out normal monitoring activities involving the designated and well-known sites. He pointed out that at issue were the presidential and sovereign sites, which Iraq had declared off-limits to UNSCOM. The Security Council was today discussing the draft resolution on the oil-for-food programme for Iraq, Mr. Brand continued. At the time of the briefing, that text was being amended, although it was expected to be adopted before the end of the day. Under “other matters”, the Council would receive a briefing from the Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) on Sierra Leone. The briefing would inform the Council that, owing to their support, humanitarian assistance was now flowing into the country, but in as yet insufficient quantities and to a limited number of locations. The Economic Community of West African States’ Monitoring Observer Group (ECOMOG) was in control of Freetown, and electricity and water had returned to some parts of the city. First priorities for the city, however, included food, medicines and improved sanitation. United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations stood prepared to participate and implement an operational plan to demobilize, together with ECOMOG and the Government of Sierra Leone, the irregular elements. Meanwhile, Sierra Leoneans continued to arrive in Conakry by boat, Mr. Brandt added. Since 6 February more than 6,000 had arrived. Discussions had started with the Government of Sierra Leone on plans for repatriation back to Sierra Leone. Following a further influx of refugees into Liberia last week, aid agencies estimated the total number of incoming refugees stood at about 50,000. Mr. Brandt said that the letter of the Secretary-

General to the President of the Security Council on the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) was available today, under document symbol S/1998/142. In that report, the first since 30 November 1997, the Secretary-General noted the arrival of his special representative, Charles Dunbar, in the mission area on 9 February. He also stated that during the reporting period his acting special representative, Erik Jensen, had maintained regular contacts with the parties to resolve difficulties that continued to arise, especially in the identification process. During the 11 weeks since the resumption of that process (3 December to 18 February), 42,484 persons were convoked by the Identification Commission, bringing the total number of persons identified, since the start in August 1994, to 90,537. The Commission expected to identify, in the latter part of February and in March, about 4,000 unconvoked individuals and their families listed in the 1974 census. The Secretary-General indicated his intention to report again to the Council, in due course, before the expiration of the current mandate on 20 April, said Mr. Brandt. In the report, he also reiterated his appeal to the Council to support continued preparations and provide the necessary resources for the full deployment of MINURSO. The Secretary-General said he counted on the parties to refrain from any statements or action that could undermine the significant progress made so far in the identification process, and to cooperate fully with MINURSO in completing the process, so that the transitional process could start as planned. Also available now, Mr. Brandt said, was the latest report on the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA), with symbol number A/52/757. Updating the hostage incident involving the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), first reported yesterday, Mr. Brandt said that today representatives of the mission had direct contact with the hostage takers. That happened outside the house where the military observers were being held. A second meeting would take place at 8 a.m. Saturday. The hostages were in good health and their captors called themselves the National Guard of the legitimate government of Georgia. The Georgian negotiating team had left the scene for the time being, even though the Georgian authorities would continue to be in charge of the negotiations. Due to security threats to the United Nations peacekeepers, the mission had taken additional security measures.

322 • 20 February 1998

“The standoff, unfortunately, continues”, Mr. Brandt added. At the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, he said that the latest information on the Jean-Paul Akayesu trial was that Trial Chamber I had authorized the United Nations Secretariat to appear before it as amicus curiae (friend of the court). That was in accordance with the provisions of rule 74 of the Tribunal’s rules of procedure and evidence. The Secretariat representative would make a statement on the scope of the waiver of immunity enjoyed by General Romeo Dallaire, as former Force Commander of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda. The Trial Chamber’s decision to authorize that presentation recognized the Secretariat’s request to be represented during the testimony of General Dallaire. Daphna Sharaga, from the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, would be representing the Secretariat. General Dallaire would testify as a witness for the defence beginning 23 February. Further information was available in the Spokesman’s Office. Saying that it was “not because they were not important, but because there are so many of them”, Mr. Brandt then “quickly” drew attention to the following press releases: • from OCHA, an update on the appeal for international assistance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which was further to an earlier report on the floods in the country, the worst of which was now considered to be over; • the first situation report from the humanitarian coordinator in Georgia for the period 1 to 31 January; • a humanitarian situation report on Sierra Leone covering 21 January to 12 February; • briefing notes from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which included the information that on 17 February, UNHCR staff in Iraq visited Turkish refugees in northern Iraq who had left their camps at Ain-Sufni and moved towards Iraqi-controlled territory over the weekend of 14 to 15 February. About 6,800 refugees were reported to have moved about 3 kilometres towards the Iraqi checkpoint at Shaikhan. The refugee leaders told the UNHCR staff that they moved from Ain-Sufni for security reasons. Also, the High Commissioner, Sadako Ogata, arrived in the Democratic Republic of the Congo yesterday and had a meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bizima Karaha. The UNHCR notes also included an update on Sierra Leone; • from the World Health Organization (WHO),

setting the record straight and affirming that WHO did not bow to political pressure in publishing a report on cannabis; • from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), on Sierra Leone, with accounts of last week’s fighting in Freetown and an update on relief efforts in the country. It also contained a telephone number for Tim Wall (325-7506); and, • from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, on the ratification earlier this month by Mauritania of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. Mr. Brandt also drew attention to a weekly report on the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, as well as the 1997 Report of the International Narcotics Control Board, copies of which were available in the six official languages on the third floor. Mr. Brandt drew attention to the embargo on that report. Its contents were not to be published or broadcast before 24 February. In connection with the report, he announced a press conference with Herbert Okun, a member of the Board, at 11:15 a.m. Tuesday, 24 February, in room 226. Any correspondent seeking additional information should contact Bill Hass on extension 3-1303. As correspondents were expected to be closely following the progress of the Secretary-General in Iraq in the next few days, Mr. Brandt informed them that the Office of the Spokesman would not only be open, as usual, throughout the weekend, it would be provided with more staff. Rolando Gomez would be there on both Saturday and Sunday. In addition, on Saturday, Agnes Marcaillou and Sophie Sebirot would be there. On Sunday, Hiro Ueki and Mr. Brandt would be there. Information on their telephone/beeper numbers would be available in the Office of the Spokesman later in the day. To a correspondent who asked for information on a possible meeting between the SecretaryGeneral and President Hussein, Mr. Brandt referred him to a statement made a few days ago by the Secretary-General as he entered Headquarters in the morning. Would he be meeting with President Hussein, a journalist had asked, to which the Secretary-General replied, “yes”. When was the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM, Richard Butler, going to brief the Security Council, since the briefing that had been scheduled for yesterday was aborted? a correspondent asked. Mr. Brandt reiterated that the Council was today dealing with the oil-for-food draft reso-

23 February 1998 • 323 lution, and there was as yet no indication that Mr. Butler’s briefing had been rescheduled. Whenever that was done, he would inform the correspondent. Asked the identity of refugees to which he had alluded, Iraqi Kurds or Turkish Kurds, Mr. Brandt said that information was not contained in the briefing he had just given. He referred the correspondent to the UNHCR press release, which was available in the Spokesman’s Office. The notes before him, he stated, simply said “Turkish” refugees of which there were 6,800, but did not indicate ethnicity. In the absence of the Secretary-General at Headquarters, asked another correspondent, what were the duties of the Deputy Secretary-General, of whom nothing had been heard in the one month since she was appointed? Mr. Brandt recalled that when she met with correspondents, she had stated that she would assume her position on 1 March. He pointed out that she had been a very senior official in the Government of Canada, who was having to relocate. Taking care of her professional and personal matters had made it necessary for her to take some time before assuming duties at the United Nations. She was expected to be on board on 1 March, and to be fully in charge in the absence of the Secretary-General.

23 February 1998 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter to all members of the Security Council. Following is a Memorandum of Understanding signed in Baghdad on this day. Excellencies, Please find attached a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and me today. The purpose of this communication is to give you the opportunity of preparing yourselves for my briefing on Tuesday, 24 February 1998. Because of the complexity of the matter and the efforts that I have made to come this far, l would appreciate it if you could bear with me and abstain from commenting upon the Memorandum of Understanding or publicly draw conclusions before I have had the opportunity of explaining its content to you. Please accept, Excellencies, the assurances of my highest consideration. Memorandum of Understanding Between the United Nations and the Republic of Iraq

1. The Government of Iraq reconfirms its acceptance of all relevant resolutions of the Security

Council, including resolutions 687 (1991) and 715 (1991). The Government of Iraq further reiterates its undertaking to cooperate fully with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2. The United Nations reiterates the commitment of all Member States to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. 3. The Government of Iraq undertakes to accord to UNSCOM and IAEA immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access in conformity with the resolutions referred to in paragraph 1. In the performance of its mandate under the Security Council resolutions, UNSCOM undertakes to respect the legitimate concerns of Iraq relating to national security, sovereignty and dignity. 4. The United Nations and the Government of Iraq agree that the following special procedures shall apply to the initial and subsequent entries for the performance of the tasks mandated at the eight Presidential Sites in Iraq as defined in the annex to the present Memorandum: (a) A Special Group shall be established for this purpose by the Secretary-General in consultation with the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM and the Director General of IAEA. This Group shall comprise senior diplomats appointed by the Secretary-General and experts drawn from UNSCOM and IAEA. The Group shall be headed by a Commissioner appointed by the SecretaryGeneral. (b) In carrying out its work, the Special Group shall operate under the established procedures of UNSCOM and IAEA, and specific detailed procedures which will be developed given the special nature of the Presidential Sites, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. (c) The report of the Special Group on its activities and findings shall be submitted by the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to the Security Council through the Secretary-General. 5. The United Nations and the Government of Iraq further agree that all other areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation shall be subject to UNSCOM procedures hitherto established. 6. Noting the progress achieved by UNSCOM in various disarmament areas, and the need to intensify efforts in order to complete its mandate, the United Nations and the Government of Iraq agree to improve cooperation, and efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of work, so as to

324 • 23 February 1998

enable UNSCOM to report to the Council expeditiously under paragraph 22 of resolution 687 (1991). To achieve this goal, the Government of Iraq and UNSCOM will implement the recommendations directed at them as contained in the report of the emergency session of UNSCOM held on 21 November 1997. 7. The lifting of sanctions is obviously of paramount importance to the people and Government of Iraq and the Secretary-General undertook to bring this matter to the full attention of the members of the Security Council. Signed this 23rd day of February 1998 in Baghdad in two originals in English. For the United Nations Kofi A. Annan Secretary-General For the Republic of Iraq Tariq Aziz Deputy Prime Minister * * * Annex to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the United Nations and the Republic of Iraq of 23 February 1998

The eight Presidential Sites subject to the regime agreed upon in the present Memorandum of Understanding are the following: 1. The Republican Palace Presidential Site (Baghdad) 2. Radwaniyah Presidential Site (Baghdad). 3. Sijood Presidential Site (Baghdad). 4. Tikrit Presidential Site. 5. Tharthar Presidential Site. 6. Jabal Makhul Presidential Site. 7. Mosul Presidential Site. 8. Basrah Presidential Site. The perimeter of the area of each site is recorded in the survey of the “Presidential sites” in Iraq implemented by the United Nations Technical Mission designated by the Secretary-General, as attached to the letter dated 21 February 1998 addressed by the Secretary-General to the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq.

23 February 1998 Letter (UN archives); UN budget Letter from the Secretary-General to John Bourn, chairman of the Panel of External Auditors, explaining the UN’s position on the inadmissibility of audits by national authorities.

Dear Sir John, In reference to your letter of 10 December 1997 concerning the inadmissibility of independent audits of the United Nations, I have taken note of your position and its further endorsement by the Advisory Committee. Please be assured that the United Nations fully shares the position stated in your letter and consistently follows it in practice by not submitting itself for any audits by national authorities. I will continue to uphold this position also in my capacity as Chairman of the Administrative Committee on Coordination.

23 February 1998 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter from Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz of Iraq. The letter was handed to the SecretaryGeneral as he prepared to leave Baghdad. Excellency, With reference to paragraph 4 (b) of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Republic of Iraq and the United Nations on 23 February 1998 in Baghdad, which stataed [sic] that specific detailed procedures will be developed, given the special nature of the Presidential Sites, I should like, in the light of our discussions, to state the following understanding: 1. For the purpose of coordination and rendering support for the work to be carried out by the Special Group, Iraqi personnel will accompany the Group according to the practice hithereto [sic] followed. 2. The work to be carried out by the Special Group at the Presidential Sites shall comprise the determination of the presence or absence of proscribed weapons, equipment and / or production relating thereto. To that end, the Special Group can use any necessary equipment, including underground probing equipment, and, if necessary, immediately carry out excavations. The experts can take soil, water, plant and leaf samples, which shall be shared by Iraq and the parties members of the Group (senior diplomats). An analysis of these samples shall be performed at the Baghdad Centre of Monitoring and Verification of UNSCOM with the participation of representatives of Iraq and parties represented in the Special Group. Such analysis, on the basis of the same modality, can be carried out abroad by reputable experts when necessary. State documents shall not be subjected to the verification in question. Photograping [sic] activities shall be

24 February 1998 • 325 restricted solely to the technical work of verification. 3. Iraq shall provide all the necessary accommodation [sic], transport and other requirements to the Special Group. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest considerations. Tariq Aziz Deputy Prime Minister Republic of Iraq Baghdad

24 February 1998 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6470); Iraq SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have just finished briefing the Security Council, and I am pleased to tell you that I had a general sense of approval from the membership as to the agreement that I signed in Baghdad. Obviously, there are details that will have to be worked out and explanations that must be given, but none of it gives me and my team any difficulties. And I am convinced that once the explanations are given we will have unanimous and strong Council support. I think you heard me this morning thanking all those who have helped make this possible and the sort of things that inspired me. In fact, I recall that the night before I left a friend called me to wish me goodbye, and he shared a story with me. He said that he had been with this little handicapped girl of 11, called Abby. Abby was watching television, and apparently I came on the screen. And she said, “They are sending this nice man to Baghdad. I will pray for him every day.” And I thank Abby and all those who prayed for me while I was gone. What is important is that, in my judgement, this agreement can and should work. There is a qualitative difference about this agreement that the others did not have. First of all, we have to remember that in the years that the United Nations has been present in Baghdad, many agreements have been signed, but none have been negotiated and approved with Saddam Hussein. This one was negotiated with the President himself, and the leadership has got the message that he wants cooperation, he wants it done. They are very disciplined and hard-working people, and I think that with that leadership we will see a qualitative difference in their attitude. We on the United Nations side, as well as United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM)

staff members, also have to handle Iraq and the Iraqis with a certain respect and dignity and not push our weight around and cause tensions. And I think we need to make other arrangements and take steps to ensure that the relationship can be maintained smoothly. We should have a mechanism for resolving conflicts before they become dilemmas and almost bring us to the verge of war. I think there are lessons in this for everyone. But this could not have happened if all involved— including the Iraqi leadership—had not shown what I asked for: courage, wisdom, flexibility. And I thank all those involved for giving us a [inaudible] chance. But it is a victory not for me, if we call it victory, but a victory for the United Nations, for this Organization, which sent me there as a servant. And I hope that this new phenomenon, where peoples from all over the world come together and focus on something and get it resolved, is something that we are going to see more and more of, whether in the landmine ban or in the general popular support for a peaceful solution. There are other issues coming up in the course of the year, in which I hope the public and the peoples of the world will be there rooting for us. We should reaffirm the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and get the public to understand, the individual to understand, that those rights are his. It is not something that is given to him by a government, like a subsidy that can be taken away. It is intrinsic, it is inherent, and if we can really use this fiftieth anniversary to get that message across, I hope the peoples around the world, the governments around the world—I wrote to each leader, each government leader, asking them to join us in celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of human rights. And I hope they will be there. In June, we have the conference on drugs, to combat drugs. Pino Arlacchi [executive director of the Office of Drug Control and Crime Prevention] has done a very good job in a relatively short time. Again, the world should come together to fight and join in this fight against drugs, which kill our youth—that is, our future. The international community should come together once again, as it has done on this Iraqi crisis. I will take a few questions and then, if you permit me, I am tired and so I will go home and sleep. QUESTION: On behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association, we join your staff in the rousing and well-deserved welcome. S-G: And I was happy to see so many of you in Baghdad.

326 • 24 February 1998

QUESTION: The question is, you have mentioned on more than one occasion the linkage between diplomacy and preparation for the use of force, if necessary. You have just spoken of not throwing your weight around. In that context, I wonder if you feel that the military presence in that region should be downgraded prior to that point or very soon, in any case. S-G: You are trying to get me into dangerous waters. Let me say that the point I have made is that diplomacy can be effective, but it helps to have a military presence in the region. As I have said, if in fact you don’t get to use it, it is even better. You are showing force in order not to use it. You can do a lot with diplomacy, but with diplomacy backed up by force you can get a lot more done. QUESTION: You have described your talks with Saddam Hussein as tough, and the sticking point had been time limits for the inspections. At the point that you realized you were going to have a deal, how did you feel at that point? And secondly, you have established a relationship with Saddam Hussein at this point. How would you describe that and the relationship you would like to have with him in the future? S-G: When I sensed that I would get a deal, I was of course elated and happy for the world and the people in the region and the poor Iraqi people. I was happy that their leader was seizing the moment and really wanted to do the right thing to protect his people, the region and, in time, to make friends and to come out of the isolation. But, of course, in negotiations you don’t show all your feelings, so I was impassible as ever. But, let me say that we did have a good human rapport. He did say several times, “I know I can do business with you. I know you are courageous and I know I can trust you.” And his ministers repeated it to us the next morning. I trust that if we really organize in such a way that we can remove the impediments or conflicts as they come up, rather than let them build up, and then you have a storm which almost leads to war, we will be okay in the future. QUESTION [translated from French]: What makes you believe that Saddam Hussein will keep his word this time? You met him, you established a rapport with him. S-G [translated from French]: As I said earlier, we have concluded many agreements with the Iraqis, but this is the first time that an agreement was negotiated with the President himself. It is a very disciplined, hard-working people. Once they

know that the President himself is committed, they’ll get down to work, they’ll cooperate. But we have to do our part as well. We must behave appropriately. Question: The agreement states that lifting the sanctions is of paramount importance to Iraq. The United States seems to be of different minds about this. What are the conditions that you understand have to be fulfilled for sanctions relief to begin? S-G: That is very simple for me: the conditions stated in the Security Council resolutions. QUESTION: Which resolutions, sir? Is it the resolutions relevant to weapons of mass destruction or all resolutions? S-G: Relevant Security Council resolutions. QUESTION: You suggested that you were hoping that there would be some way of getting rid of conflicts and you suggested that there needed to be a dignity in the way the inspections are approached. Are you suggesting that you think in the past there wasn’t? And there is some confusion as to whether Mr. Butler [Richard Butler, executive chairman of UNSCOM] is still in charge. Is UNSCOM in charge or is this new commissioner, this new procedure, in charge? Secondly, you said that Saddam Hussein had said that he felt he could trust you. Do you feel that you can trust him? S-G: Let me start by saying that, on the question of UNSCOM, Mr. Butler stays. He remains the head of UNSCOM. I informed the Iraqi authorities, and they know that. In fact, Mr. Butler, unless his plans have changed, is due in Baghdad next month, and Tariq Aziz [deputy prime minister of Iraq] told me: “I am waiting for him and we will work with him, be reassured.” So I think there is no problem. Butler will continue. QUESTION: Does he have to report through this new commissioner? S-G: No. I’m sorry, I’m so tired, I forgot your next question. You have so many questions. Can I trust Saddam Hussein? I think I can do business with him. I think he was serious when he took the engagement. I am perhaps not as pessimistic as some of you are. I think he was serious when he took the engagement. I think he realizes what it means for his people. He realizes that if he is going to see light at the end of the tunnel, Iraq has to cooperate and work with UNSCOM, and UNSCOM should respond in kind to accelerate the process of disarmament and implement the resolutions to make that possible. So I think he is serious. QUESTION: Now that you have an agreement, how quickly do you expect to test it?

26 February 1998 • 327 S-G: As quickly as possible. In fact, this afternoon my legal counsellor, who was with me, will be working out some of the details with some of our other colleagues. QUESTION: Can you share with us your personal view of the personality of President Saddam Hussein? And also, what did he ask you for regarding the lifting of sanctions? S-G: Well, he is very calm—very, very calm. Never raises his voice. Well-informed, contrary to the sense outside that he is ill-informed and isolated. And decisive. In the negotiations, I was impressed by his decisiveness. And that is what also made the agreement possible. QUESTION: What about sanctions? What did he ask you for? S-G: The sanctions are hurting his people, and they have done quite a lot of work. They have, in their judgement, fulfilled all the conditions and they really don’t know what else there is to find. But they would want to see the sanctions ended. Their people are suffering, and he hopes that the international community understands this. And, in fact, you saw the last paragraph of the agreement, for me to mention it to the Council, which I have done. QUESTION: Exactly on that last point you just made, the seventh paragraph of the agreement— and preceded by the sixth, actually first, how will you bring to the full attention of the Security Council the issue of sanctions? Secondly, in paragraph 6, you speak about paragraph 22 of resolution 687 (1991), which is read by some to mean that the lifting of the oil embargo is to be completed once Iraq complies with UNSCOM. Now you have clouded it a bit by answering my colleague’s question, when you said, “all other resolutions”. Can you make yourself clear on this? S-G: Let’s keep it clouded for the moment, and it will clear very, very soon as we go on into it. QUESTION: I was asking you for a clarification on your position . . . S-G: No, I have indicated quite clearly that the responsibilities of Iraq will have to be fulfilled before the sanctions are lifted. And not only that, he understands it. But he asked me to pass on to the Council the suffering of his people, how long this has gone on and how much longer it is going to go on. And I shared that with the Council this morning. QUESTION: In the absence of a Security Council resolution that would threaten consequences if this agreement were breached, the United States seems ready to make that judgement

unilaterally, and commit military action in the Gulf unilaterally, if it feels the agreement is breached. Are you comfortable with that situation, or would you prefer to see the Security Council take that up? S-G: Let me be clear here. Ladies and gentlemen, I have done my work. I trust the Council will do its duty, and leave unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Thank you.

26 February 1998 Press conference (UN archives); Iraq Press briefing by under-secretary-general for legal affairs, Hans Corell, regarding the SecretaryGeneral’s trip to Baghdad, attempting to avert a crisis over UNSCOM inspections of Saddam Hussein’s presidential sites. The Secretary-General had gone to Baghdad to see what he could do to resolve an issue that could have had “very serious consequences” even outside the region, the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, Hans Corell, told correspondents at a Headquarters press briefing today. He said the Secretary-General had achieved his objective after considerable diplomatic effort, involving personal contact with many heads of State and other influential personalities around the world and after a constructive dialogue with President Saddam Hussein and Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. The Secretary-General had brought home a Memorandum of Understanding that had diffused the immediate crisis and clarified many questions which had been subject to rumours, Mr. Corell continued. It had also preserved and even strengthened the authority of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) set up to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The Memorandum would make it possible for UNSCOM to complete its work, including its inspections of presidential sites, within a different time-frame than so far envisaged. It also guaranteed the dignity of a sovereign State that was subject to unprecedented international control. Mr. Corell said it was understandable that many would be concerned about the outcome of the Secretary-General’s effort. Given the history of relations between the United Nations and Iraq, he had no illusions: “the truth was in the testing”. He noted that UNSCOM’s Executive Chairman Richard Butler had said he expected the Iraqis to live up to their commitment. The Secretary-General had determined to

328 • 26 February 1998

“reach out” to the Iraqi authority and had recognized its legitimate interest to be treated with dignity even in the present circumstances, Mr. Corell continued. That had bridged a way for the understanding. As with all agreements, there could be views on the details and there was much talk about the fine print, but he was not so concerned with that, Mr. Corell said. If the Iraqi side did not live up to its commitment under the Memorandum—and the Iraqi President had been personally engaged in the exercise—then the difference would not lie in the so-called “fine print”. Mr. Corell, who prepared the first draft of the Memorandum, said he had had a number of “lode stars”; to preserve UNSCOM’s integrity and also that of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); to recognize the legitimate concerns of the Iraqi side; and to solve the question of the palaces or the sites. The final Memorandum was negotiated by the Secretary-General, President Hussein and Deputy Prime Minister Aziz. Referring to erroneous press reports that the Secretary-General had described some UNSCOM inspectors as behaving like “cowboys”, Mr. Corell said he had followed the Secretary-General’s efforts over the last few days. He had shown statesmanship and should be treated accordingly. Replying to a question on how he would define a breach of the Memorandum, Mr. Corell said those issues would be dealt with by Mr. Butler and UNSCOM. They would assess the situation and examine how it related to the Memorandum, which referred to all relevant Security Council resolutions and UNSCOM procedures. There was no question of detracting from obligations under those resolutions. He was working closely with Mr. Butler, at the request of the Secretary-General, to refine the extra procedures. Mr. Butler would determine if there were any violations of the Memorandum and, if that ultimately became an issue, the Council would decide on the matter. To what extent did the Memorandum protect Iraq’s sovereignty and how would he define the country’s legitimate concerns? a correspondent asked. Mr. Corell said when the Secretary-General went to Iraq, he was dealing with a sovereign State and a Member of the United Nations, and there were legitimate concerns. The Secretary-General’s party had visited presidential sites that were used as houses and villas where President Hussein might choose to stay or reside. The sites were also used for hospitality, which was very important in that region of the world. Visiting heads of State

and other foreign officials were quartered in them. Certain rooms were considered sacrosanct and displayed Iraq’s coat-of-arms. It was important to show respect when visiting those sites. Asked whether Iraq or UNSCOM would decide on the validity of documents found on the presidential sites, Mr. Corell said there was no question that the Commission or the IAEA should be able to fulfil their tasks under the relevant Council resolutions. He did not believe that would be a problem. The idea was to treat people who might be staying at villas on the sites with respect. Would UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter be able to lead an inspection team? a correspondent said. Mr. Corell said the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM had jurisdiction in such matters. The fourth paragraph of the Memorandum referred to a special group which included experts from UNSCOM and the IAEA. How did the idea of more transparency in the inspection process support the element of surprise or unannounced inspections? a correspondent asked. Mr. Corell said particular elements of the Memorandum could not destroy the main purpose of the whole exercise, namely, that Council resolutions should be applied, and UNSCOM and the IAEA should do their jobs. At the same time, the Secretary-General had recognized that there could be more transparency in areas that would not destroy the work of UNSCOM or the IAEA. Those were technical details which would be examined by Mr. Butler and the IAEA, he said, adding that he would provide advice on the text. Asked whether a new Council resolution was necessary to make the Memorandum legally consistent with prior resolutions, Mr. Corell said that issue was one of the many problems he had to wrestle with when drafting the document. He had been careful not to infringe on the authority of the Council, nor to draft the text in such a way that it forced the Council to take a particular decision. The purpose was to give the Council the full freedom to deal with the Memorandum as it saw fit. He did not wish to speculate because Council members were discussing in what manner to deal with the Memorandum. In reply to a question about the line of authority between the diplomatic observers and UNSCOM, Mr. Corell said he did not believe that there would be any problem. The teams would work under UNSCOM and IAEA authority, and there was no question of taking away from their technical or scientific work. Diplomats who accompanied the inspection teams visiting the

26 February 1998 • 329 presidential sites would have a precise mandate. The diplomats would not deal with the technical work, but would guarantee that the visits were conducted in a way that respected the dignity of the sites. Asked whether a military strike would be justified if Iraq violated the Memorandum, Mr. Corell said that question was “the big issue” and one for the Security Council, not the Legal Counsel. In response to question as to whether the Memorandum carried the force of law or needed ratification by the Council, he said he preferred not to comment on the status of the Memorandum, which contained language normally used in internationally binding documents. On the United Nations side, it was an internal constitutional issue, presently in the hands of the Council. Would a Council resolution give the Memorandum less weight, and if it already ratified existing resolutions, why would a new one be needed? a correspondent asked. Mr. Corell said the Secretary-General had made an extraordinary effort. Normally, such matters were dealt with by the Council; UNSCOM or the IAEA. But with the immediate threat of an armed conflict, the Secretary-General had decided to take an initiative. After a major diplomatic effort and discussions with the Council, particularly the five permanent members, he had gone to Baghdad with the blessing of Member States and the whole world. It was a difficult undertaking. He had to strike the right balance and negotiate a document that was within the framework in which he could act. The whole regime established in Iraq was a Security Council matter.

26 February 1998 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter to Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz of Iraq in response to his letter of 23 February handed to the Secretary-General as he was leaving Baghdad. Excellency, I have the honour to reply to your letter of 23 February 1998 in which you refer to paragraph 4(b) of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the United Nations and the Republic of Iraq on the same day in Baghdad. In your letter you mention “in the light of our discussion” and what you describe as an “understanding”. You will recall that, during the discussions which led to the Memorandum of Understanding, the Iraqi representatives proposed the inclusion in the Memorandum of language along the lines that

appear in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of your letter under reference. On the United Nations side, we explicitly stated that we were not prepared to include this language in the Memorandum. We pointed out that the provisions related to technical aspects into which we were not prepared to enter. Before my departure, I informed you that upon my return to New York, I would immediately address the question of specific detailed procedures referred to in paragraph 4(b) of the Memorandum. I specifically reiterated to you that I was not prepared to discuss the subject matter in substance, and that I would revert to you with the required procedures, which are presently being prepared in the Secretariat. In the light of the above, I should like to make clear that the language contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of your letter does not constitute an “understanding” between United Nations and the Government of Iraq. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest considerations.

26 February 1998 Letter (EOSG); Australia Letter to Prime Minister John Howard of Australia. Excellency, I am writing as part of my on-going efforts to strengthen the United Nations as a force for the economic and social advancement of the world’s people. The United Nations has built a solid record of achievement in this regard, establishing itself as a major vehicle for development assistance and cooperation. Indeed, without strong operational activities for development, the United Nations would not have earned the credibility it has today, nor will it have the credibility it needs to face the development challenges of tomorrow. Enhancing our ability to promote development and address the root causes of poverty and conflict has been one of the major goals of the reform effort that I set in motion upon taking office as SecretaryGeneral. We have made significant progress: the grouping of United Nations Funds and Programmes into a cohesive United Nations Development Group; an improved Resident Coordinator system to better manage United Nations country teams; and new strategic tools such as the United Nations Development Assistance Framework, which is designed to improve the way United Nations agencies work together in support of national development efforts.

330 • 26 February 1998

Still, we face great challenges. As you know, most foreign direct investment in the developing world goes to a very limited number of countries, predominantly middle- or high-income developing nations. By contrast, the assistance provided by the United Nations—long-term development assistance as well as humanitarian aid—is focused directly on helping the poorest and least developed countries. However, the financial resources available to United Nations development programmes have declined in recent years. I would like to enlist your cooperation in reversing this disturbing trend. While we are working to increase contributions from new and non-traditional sources, most funding for United Nations Funds and Programmes must continue to come from traditional donor countries. I would like to appeal to your Government to increase its core support for 1998 and subsequent years. Such support would constitute not only a sound investment in assisting the poor, but would also be a significant boost for multi-lateralism and the United Nations. Even if an increase in support is not feasible, I hope that you will be able to maintain your customary support. The commitment of the United Nations to development and human security in the broadest sense of the word remains unshakeable. I know that I can count on your generosity to help the Organization continue fulfilling this Charter-driven mission. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

27 February 1998 Letter (EOSG, S/1998/166/Add.1); Iraq Letter to the president of the Security Council, Denis Dangue Réwaka, with the attached technical report on Iraq dated 20 February 1998. Dear Mr. President, Attached please find the report of the United Nations Technical Mission which I dispatched to Iraq to survey the “presidential sites” (annex I), along with a copy of my letter of 21 February 1998 addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq (annex II). I would appreciate it if the report and the letter could be brought to the attention of the members of the Security Council as an addendum to the document containing the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 23 February 1998 in Baghdad by the United Nations and the Republic of Iraq (S/1998/166).

As the materials referred to in the conclusions of the report of the Technical Mission are voluminous, the Secretariat is, therefore, making them available for consultation by delegations in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General. They will be available in the Map Room on the 38th floor between 2 and 5.30 p.m. from Monday to Friday. (Any enquiries in this regard may be addressed to Mr. Vladimir Grachev, ext. 3-3793.) Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. * * * Annex I: Report of the United Nations Technical Mission to Iraq I. General Comments

1. The United Nations Technical Mission was guided by the enclosed terms of reference provided by the Executive Office of the Secretary-General. 2. The original team was composed of Staffan de Mistura, Team Coordinator, Peter Fodor (Austria), surveyor/engineer, and Wolfgang Eichel (Austria), surveyor. 3. Upon arrival, after meeting with the Government of Iraq, the team was joined by two additional full-fledged members: Jaakko Ylitalo, Deputy Director, United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), and Gerard Essertel, specialist in photo analysis (UNSCOM). 4. At the same meeting, the team asked and obtained from the Government of Iraq that: (a) It would have access to the Government of Iraq’s relevant maps and have the Government of Iraq clearly define the perimeters for each “presidential site” defined and identified as such by the Government; (b) It could use helicopters to overfly any presidential site as required by the team; (c) It could take aerial and ground photographs of each site and each building as wished by the team. 5. The team concluded its physical surveys at 2.30 p.m. on 18 February 1998 and worked daily from 6.30 a.m. to 11.00 p.m. II. Implementation of the Terms of Reference

6. The timetable available to the Mission was extremely short for such distant and different sites. The Mission was able to accomplish the following tasks listed in the second paragraph of its terms of reference: (a) Definition on large-scale maps of the

27 February 1998 • 331 perimeter of all eight presidential sites as identified by the Government of Iraq; (b) Determination of the approximate number, size, character and purpose of structures existing within each site. 7. For purely time-related reasons, the Mission was unable to elaborate on the the maps the exact location of the buildings within each site since it gave priority to tasks (a) and (b) and also because some main buildings were already identified on the original maps. 8. On the other hand, the Mission went beyond its terms of reference by actually physically visiting as many buildings as it wished within its time limits. It should also be noted that the Mission covered by aerial and ground photographs the sites in a much more comprehensive way than originally expected. 9. The survey covered the following presidential sites, identified as such by the Government of Iraq: 1. Republican Palace Presidential Site (Baghdad). 2. Radwaniyah Presidential Site (Baghdad). 3. Sijood Presidential Site (Baghdad). 4. Tikrit Presidential Site. 5. Thartar Presidential Site. 6. Jabal Nakhul Presidential Site. 7. Mosul Presidential Site. 8. Basra Presidential Site. 10. Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were extensively overflown by helicopter and then visited on the ground, perimeters were defined, both aerial photographs and ground photographs were taken and buildings were visited internally. 11. The same procedure applied for sites 7 and 8, except that they were not overflown, for two reasons: (a) the use of helicopters in the extreme north or south was considered by the United Nations side unnecessary in view of the current tense international environment; and (b) because of their size and location, ground photographs could be sufficient. 12. During their physical ground surveys the team did not identify large office buildings or barracks, with the exception of the Republican Palace Presidential Site, where they found office buildings for the presidential staff involved in running the daily work of the Government. In addition, within the Republican Palace Presidential Site, the team did identify a headquarters building for the Presidential Battalion and a nearby helicopter pad with two medium-size helicopter sheds. On 20 February 1998, the team asked to visit these facil-

ities and did so on the same morning. Apart from the above, the team noted in all other presidential sites several sentry towers and/or guard rooms, but no military barracks as such. 13. All eight “presidential sites” visited appeared to be well defined by high walls or fences. They all had a rather similar landscape pattern: main guesthouses, with an integrated system of ancillary buildings and villas for accompanying dignitaries. Often an artificial lake with small artificial decorative islands located in a way to give access to the lake from each guesthouse. 14. The total area surveyed amounts to about 31.5 square kilometres. The largest presidential site, the Radwaniyah, totalled around 17.8 square kilometres and the smallest 0.8 square kilometres. The area covered by artificial lakes is estimated to add up to approximately 10.2 square kilometres. 15. The team experienced undisturbed access to all buildings they wished to survey and unrestricted authorization to take photographs. 16. At the specific request of the Government of Iraq, the United Nations team also surveyed internally and externally, while localizing it by global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, a specific building called Al Hyatt located within the Presidential Republican Palace Site. This building, which apparently in September 1997 had been a cause of contention between the Government of Iraq and UNSCOM, was photographed internally and visited extensively by the team. 17. The following senior officials of the Government of Iraq were available at hand for any questions or enquiries raised by the team: the Minister for Oil, Lt.-Gen. Amir Muhammad Rachid; the Deputy Foreign Minister, Dr. Raid Al Qaysi; the Director-General of Engineering of Presidential sites, Mr. Hussain Khadduia; the Director-General of the National Monitoring Governorate, Enecal Hassian Amin; and the Special Personal Secretary of the President of Iraq, Dr. Abid Mohammed. III. Practical Arrangments

18. The team was assisted by the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM) in its external travel arrangements. 19. The team in Iraq received full-time assistance both from UNSCOM and the United Nations Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq in terms of office personnel, logistical, communication and transport support. 20. For the actual identification of the coordinates of each perimeter, the team used two handheld GPS sets (Garrin 45x) provided by UNSCOM. 21. The photographs were taken by the

332 • 27 February 1998

UNSCOM photo specialist, Gerald Essertel, using a Nikon F806 camera with films specially designed for both aerial and ground photographs. In total, 523 photographs were taken. 22. Both Government of Iraq and UNSCOM helicopters were used as necessary and ground transportation was arranged by the Government of Iraq, UNSCOM and the United Nations Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq. IV. Conclusions

23. The end result of this survey is enclosed herewith. It includes for each presidential site:1, 2 (a) A global positioning system (GPS)-identified perimeter based on Government of Iraq indications. This perimeter is marked on the original map provided by the Executive Office of the Secretary-General to the Mission; (b) An outline of the actual area identified as the presidential site by the Government of Iraq, with its relevant GPS points and the calculation of its total size in square metres; (c) A list of GPS coordinates for each presidential site; (d) Two additional scale maps of each site; (e) A list of buildings estimated to be in each presidential site and a description of their approximate number, nature and utilization; (f) A complete set of photographs taken by air and by ground for each presidential site. 24. The members of the United Nations Technical Mission wish to express their appreciation to the Secretary-General for having entrusted them with this delicate technical mission. (Signed) Staffan de MISTURA Team Coordinator * * * Annex II: Letter dated 21 February 1998 from the Secretary-General Addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq

I have the honour to share with you the end result of the survey of the “presidential sites” in 1. There are three separate and complementary maps for the Radwaniyah Presidential Site in view of its complex shape and size. 2. The average maximum size of the main buildings listed as presidential guesthouses could be estimated as follows: large presidential guesthouse: 6,000 m2 (2/3 floors), medium presidential guesthouse: 1,500 m2 (2 floors) and small presidential guesthouse: 600 m2 (1 floor), whereas the Presidential Republican Palace located in the Presidential Republican Site has the following approximate size: 33,000 m2 (3/4 floors).

Iraq implemented by the United Nations Technical Mission designated by me.

2 March 1998 Secretary-General Tells Security Council Iraq’s Fulfillment of Obligations is Only Aim of Agreement

Presentation to the Security Council (EOSG, SG/SM/6475, IK/244); Iraq I wish to thank and commend the members of the Security Council for the action you are about to take in relation to the agreement that I secured last week from the Government of Iraqi [sic]. If respected, if honoured, and if sustained, this agreement could constitute one of the United Nations’ most important steps in addressing the consequences of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait seven years ago. I would like to take this opportunity to make clear to the entire international community the nature, the demands and the promise of this agreement. I went to Baghdad, with the full authorization of all members of the Security Council, in search of a peaceful solution to the crisis. I went to fulfil my constitutional obligation under the United Nations Charter, and my commitment to the General Assembly at the commencement of my term—a sacred, moral obligation and commitment—to act, any time, anywhere, without seeking or accepting instructions from any government, whenever that action may be helpful in reducing a grave threat to international peace and security. No one can doubt or dispute that Iraq’s refusal to honour its commitments under Security Council resolutions regarding its weapons of mass destruction constituted such a threat. That threat has now been averted. The mandate of the Security Council has been reaffirmed. The full and unlimited access of United Nations inspectors to any and all sites has been restored. The authority of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission has been acknowledged and strengthened. Whether the threat to international peace and security has been averted for all time is now in the hands of the Iraqi leadership. It is now for them to comply in practice with what they have signed on paper. I am under no illusions about the inherent value of this or any other agreement. Commitments honoured are the only commitments that count. Indeed, this agreement, and today’s Security Council resolution, will merely be empty words unless both parties now implement it fully, fairly, and without delay.

332 • 27 February 1998

UNSCOM photo specialist, Gerald Essertel, using a Nikon F806 camera with films specially designed for both aerial and ground photographs. In total, 523 photographs were taken. 22. Both Government of Iraq and UNSCOM helicopters were used as necessary and ground transportation was arranged by the Government of Iraq, UNSCOM and the United Nations Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq. IV. Conclusions

23. The end result of this survey is enclosed herewith. It includes for each presidential site:1, 2 (a) A global positioning system (GPS)-identified perimeter based on Government of Iraq indications. This perimeter is marked on the original map provided by the Executive Office of the Secretary-General to the Mission; (b) An outline of the actual area identified as the presidential site by the Government of Iraq, with its relevant GPS points and the calculation of its total size in square metres; (c) A list of GPS coordinates for each presidential site; (d) Two additional scale maps of each site; (e) A list of buildings estimated to be in each presidential site and a description of their approximate number, nature and utilization; (f) A complete set of photographs taken by air and by ground for each presidential site. 24. The members of the United Nations Technical Mission wish to express their appreciation to the Secretary-General for having entrusted them with this delicate technical mission. (Signed) Staffan de MISTURA Team Coordinator * * * Annex II: Letter dated 21 February 1998 from the Secretary-General Addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq

I have the honour to share with you the end result of the survey of the “presidential sites” in 1. There are three separate and complementary maps for the Radwaniyah Presidential Site in view of its complex shape and size. 2. The average maximum size of the main buildings listed as presidential guesthouses could be estimated as follows: large presidential guesthouse: 6,000 m2 (2/3 floors), medium presidential guesthouse: 1,500 m2 (2 floors) and small presidential guesthouse: 600 m2 (1 floor), whereas the Presidential Republican Palace located in the Presidential Republican Site has the following approximate size: 33,000 m2 (3/4 floors).

Iraq implemented by the United Nations Technical Mission designated by me.

2 March 1998 Secretary-General Tells Security Council Iraq’s Fulfillment of Obligations is Only Aim of Agreement

Presentation to the Security Council (EOSG, SG/SM/6475, IK/244); Iraq I wish to thank and commend the members of the Security Council for the action you are about to take in relation to the agreement that I secured last week from the Government of Iraqi [sic]. If respected, if honoured, and if sustained, this agreement could constitute one of the United Nations’ most important steps in addressing the consequences of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait seven years ago. I would like to take this opportunity to make clear to the entire international community the nature, the demands and the promise of this agreement. I went to Baghdad, with the full authorization of all members of the Security Council, in search of a peaceful solution to the crisis. I went to fulfil my constitutional obligation under the United Nations Charter, and my commitment to the General Assembly at the commencement of my term—a sacred, moral obligation and commitment—to act, any time, anywhere, without seeking or accepting instructions from any government, whenever that action may be helpful in reducing a grave threat to international peace and security. No one can doubt or dispute that Iraq’s refusal to honour its commitments under Security Council resolutions regarding its weapons of mass destruction constituted such a threat. That threat has now been averted. The mandate of the Security Council has been reaffirmed. The full and unlimited access of United Nations inspectors to any and all sites has been restored. The authority of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission has been acknowledged and strengthened. Whether the threat to international peace and security has been averted for all time is now in the hands of the Iraqi leadership. It is now for them to comply in practice with what they have signed on paper. I am under no illusions about the inherent value of this or any other agreement. Commitments honoured are the only commitments that count. Indeed, this agreement, and today’s Security Council resolution, will merely be empty words unless both parties now implement it fully, fairly, and without delay.

2 March 1998 • 333 For our part, the United Nations stands ready for that implementation. We shall continue to fulfil our long-standing obligation to act with respect for the sovereignty and dignity of every Member of the United Nations. We shall continue to strive to improve in every way the cooperation and effectiveness of every United Nations agency. That includes UNSCOM, which, I am proud to repeat, has already destroyed more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq than did the entire Gulf war, and which, under this agreement, remains in full operational control of the inspection process. For its part, the Government of Iraq must now fulfil, without obstruction or delay, the continuing obligations that it reaffirmed last week at the very highest level. That means accepting all relevant Security Council resolutions; cooperating fully with United Nations inspection teams; according immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to those teams to every area, facility, piece of equipment, individual and means of transportation. Those areas include the eight sites delineated as “Presidential Sites” where members of UNSCOM and IAEA will be joined by senior diplomats whom I will appoint. Iraq’s complete fulfilment of these obligations is the one and only aim of this agreement. Nothing more and nothing less will make possible the completion of the United Nations-mandated disarmament process and thus speed the lifting of sanctions, in accordance with the previous resolutions of the Security Council. With today’s Security Council resolution, however, the Government of Iraq fully understands that if this effort to ensure compliance through negotiation is obstructed, by evasion or deception, as were previous efforts, diplomacy may not have a second chance. No promise of peace and no policy of patience can be without limits. This agreement tests as never before the will of the Iraqi leadership to keep its word. But it also serves as a call for this union of nations to look to the future, beyond the horizon and to the time when the disarmament process in Iraq has been completed. All of us can agree that sanctions have added greatly to the Iraqi people’s suffering; that the expansion of the oil-for-food programme will reduce that suffering without diluting the disarmament regime; and that someday, sooner or later— and we pray sooner—a fully disarmed and peaceable Iraq would be able to rejoin the family of nations.

The United Nations, founded even before the close of the Second World War over 50 years ago, has an inherent obligation to remember that even the bitterest of enmities among nations do not last forever. It is, therefore, not too early for us to think about reconciling peoples once their governments are at peace. The agreement reached in Baghdad was neither a “victory” nor a “defeat” for any one person, nation or group of nations. Certainly, the United Nations and the world community lost nothing, gave away nothing and conceded nothing of substance. But by halting, at least for now, the renewal of military hostilities in the Gulf, it was a victory for peace, for reason, for the resolution of conflict by diplomacy. It underscored, however, that if diplomacy is to succeed, it must be backed both by force and by fairness. The agreement was also a reminder to the entire world of why this Organization was established in the first place: to prevent the outbreak of unnecessary conflict when the will of the world community can be achieved through diplomacy; to seek and find international solutions to international problems; to obtain respect for international law and agreements from a recalcitrant party without destroying forever that party’s dignity and willingness to cooperate; to secure, in this case, through on-site inspections and negotiations, the assured destruction of weapons of mass destruction that aerial bombardment can never achieve. If this agreement is fully implemented and leads over time to a new day in the Gulf; if this exercise in diplomacy, backed by fairness, firmness and force, stands the test of time, it will serve as an enduring and invaluable precedent for the United Nations and the world community. If, ultimately, we have learned the right lessons of this crisis, then this planet’s age-old prayer for enduring peace and justice may be within our reach. It was that prayer, from people of every faith and every frontier, that sustained me on my journey for peace to Baghdad. I pledge today, before this Council and the world, to strive, to seek, to find and not to yield in the fulfilment of my duty.

2 March 1998 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter from the permanent representative of the Holy See, Renato R. Martino, to the United Nations.

334 • 2 March 1998

Your Excellency, I write to forward to you herewith a translation of a portion of the Angelus Message which the Holy Father delivered yesterday at St. Peter’s (Annex). As you can see, His Holiness has directed a “special word of appreciation” to you for the great efforts which you put forth in going to Baghdad and negotiating the agreement which has averted the threatened use of military force, with the inevitable consequences of suffering and death for many of the Iraqi people. I would wish to add my own personal word of appreciation to you for your work for peace with regard to Iraq. I can assure you that your efforts have been constantly in my prayers. In addition, following your telephone call to my residence the evening prior to your departure for Iraq, I spoke with Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Secretary of State, so that your request for prayers would be conveyed directly to the Holy Father. Please know of my continuing spiritual support for you and for your endeavors for peace as this situation continues to develop in the coming days. I am pleased to take this opportunity to renew to you, Your Excellency, the assurance of my highest consideration. Renato R. Martino Permanent Representative of the Holy See to the United Nations From the Angelus Message of the Holy Father Delivered at the Vatican Sunday, March 1, 1998

Finally, I would like to invite you to thank the Lord with me for the happy outcome of the Baghdad Accord, with the hope that this agreement might have averted definitively any recourse to arms. A special word of appreciation goes also to the Secretary General of the United Nations, and to all those who have wished to believe in the good will of men in this difficult crisis. Their diplomatic success is certainly a victory of the International Community. The situation remains delicate and complex, but there is strong hope as well. May God continue to enlighten all those who have at heart the fate of the Iraqi people as well as peace in the Middle East. We entrust these intentions to Blessed Mary, the Queen of Peace, imploring her maternal intercession for them.

2 March 1998 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter to Pope John Paul II.

Your Holiness, Now that I have returned from my mission to Baghdad, I should like to express my profound gratitude for your message of support as I prepared to embark on the trip. Your words meant a great deal to me since we share the same aspiration of peace throughout the world. I was also deeply touched by the kind expression of your appreciation for our efforts in the Angelus Message which you delivered on 1 March. As Secretary-General of the United Nations, I felt a moral duty to offer my good offices to help defuse the crisis between the Government of Iraq and the United Nations. I believe that the agreement, which we concluded in Baghdad was crucial to avert a loss of life and a major tragedy for the region. When I was in Baghdad I never felt alone: I was sustained by your prayers and those of so many around the world who wished to avoid bloodshed and suffering. As I mentioned in the press conference after the signing ceremony, one should never underestimate the power of prayer. Once again, I should like to thank you for your support and inspiration. We still have a long way to go before we can truly consider this crisis behind us but, with our continued prayers for peace, I hope that wisdom will prevail. Please accept, Your Holiness, the assurances of my highest consideration.

3 March 1998 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter to permanent representative of the Holy See to the United Nations, Renato R. Martino. Dear Archbishop Martino, Thank you for your letter of 2 March, with which you forwarded an extract from the Angelus Message which His Holiness the Pope delivered on 1 March. I would be grateful if you could arrange for the enclosed letter to be forwarded to His Holiness. A copy is enclosed for your information. Allow me, also, to thank you for your kind support before my trip and for the words of appreciation in your letter. As I embarked on my mission it was a great source of comfort to know of the prayers of so many around the world, and I am most grateful to you for conveying my request for spiritual support through Cardinal Sodano to His Holiness the Pope.

3 March 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

3 March 1998 • 335 Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq/Angola Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, said at the beginning of today’s noon briefing that the Secretary-General had been pleased with the Security Council’s unanimous endorsement last night of the Memorandum of Understanding that he had negotiated with Iraq. “His mission started and finished, therefore, with consensus among members of the Council, and he wishes to thank all those responsible for the broad international support he received for his efforts from both governments and individuals”, Mr. Eckhard said. The Secretary-General had made a major statement in the Council last night, the Spokesman said. The text of that statement was available as a press release yesterday (SG/SM/6475-IK/244). Transcripts of his comments to the media after last night’s session were available in the Spokesman’s Office. Correspondents could see on the SecretaryGeneral’s schedule for today that at 12:45 p.m. he would see the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), Richard Butler; the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, Hans Corell; and the Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs and newly appointed UNSCOM Commissioner, Jayantha Dhanapala. That meeting would be in connection with the detailed procedures for the inspection of the eight presidential sites in Iraq. The Secretary-General expected to communicate those details to the Council shortly, but maybe not today. On the “oil-for-food” programme, Mr. Eckhard said that the first deposits from the oil sales under Phase III of the programme had been received yesterday, according to the “Weekly Report” number 54 on the implementation of the programme. By the end of this week, it was expected that $114 million would have been received in the United Nations Iraq account. The Security Council Committee which monitors the sanctions against Iraq had approved last week 18 humanitarian sales contracts under Phase III and 23 contracts under Phase II. No applications had been blocked and none had been put on hold. Another humanitarian flight, carrying 25 tons of medicines and baby food, had arrived in Iraq on 1 March, Mr. Eckhard said. That flight had been authorized by the Sanctions Committee and was the fifth such flight this year. Two fact sheets from Baghdad were available in the Spokesman’s Office—one concerned the food basket for the month of March, as well as for the preceding 11

months, and the other concerned the special humanitarian flights this year. The Spokesman went on to say that arrangements were being made for a group of oil experts to go to Iraq to assess the country’s capability to export oil. Despite the Council’s approval of $5.2 billion for an expanded “oil-for-food” programme, Iraq had indicated that it had the ability to export only up to $4 billion worth in 180 days. That group of oil experts was likely to arrive in Baghdad sometime next week. The Secretary-General would be sending a letter—probably later today—to the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf, inviting him to New York to discuss policy issues related to the expanded oil-for-food programme, particularly the new distribution plan. It was thought that the Foreign Minister could be here early next week. In response to a correspondent’s question yesterday about Angola, the Spokesman said, “All the remaining tasks that were scheduled to be completed by the end of February, in fact, were not.” As of 27 February, of the 7,877 National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) residual forces registered, 5,857 had been demobilized. Some localities still under UNITA control, such as the UNITA strongholds of Bailundo and Andulo, were yet to be placed under government control. Security arrangements for Jonas Savimbi had yet to be agreed upon. The Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Behrooz Sadry, together with the Ambassadors of the Troika Countries—Portugal, Russian Federation and the United States—had met with President Jose Eduardo dos Santos in Luanda, and with Mr. Savimbi in Andulo yesterday, to discuss the current stage of the peace process. The Joint Commission made up of representatives of both sides was meeting today to discuss a new timetable for the completion of the remaining tasks. . . . The Secretary-General had informed the members of the Security Council today of his decision to postpone the submission of his report on Africa, from the end of February—as originally promised—until mid-March, the Spokesman said. That was due to the distraction caused by the Iraqi crisis. Last September, the Council had held a ministerial meeting, in which they had requested the Secretary-General to submit, by February 1998, a report including “concrete recommendations on the sources of conflict in Africa, ways to prevent and address those conflicts and how to lay the foundation for durable peace and economic growth following their resolution”. The Council would

336 • 3 March 1998

call another meeting—it was unknown whether or not that would also be a ministerial-level meeting—to consider the report of the SecretaryGeneral once it had been submitted. The Council was meeting at 3:30 p.m. today, Mr. Eckhard said. As it was the beginning of the month, the programme of work was the sole item on their agenda. The Gambia was the Council President for March. The Foreign Minister of the Gambia, Momodou Lamin Sedat Jobo, had chaired last night’s session. Mr. Eckhard said that the Secretary-General had announced the appointment of Major-General Timothy Ford of Australia as Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) in the Middle East. He would take over from Major-General Rufus Modupe Kupolati of Nigeria, who would end his tour of duty on 31 March. Some biographical details on MajorGeneral Ford were available in the Spokesman’s Office. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, currently in New York, had issued a statement today concerning the situation in the Kosovo Province in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Mr. Eckhard said. In the statement, she had said that she was deeply disturbed at reports of escalating violence and use of arms in Kosovo. While recognizing the complexity of the situation there, the High Commissioner would ask the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to honour its obligations to protect the right to life and the security of all persons. The High Commissioner had concluded her statement by saying that the problems of Kosovo would not be resolved through force of arms or recourse to violence, but through a willingness to negotiate differences and full respect for the human rights of all. . . . Also available was a press release concerning refugees in Sierra Leone from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Spokesman went on to say. That release stated that Sierra Leoneans were continuing to cross over the border into Liberia, although the reported numbers varied widely: 1,780 on Friday, and 127 on Sunday. The total through Sunday stood at 18,364. Also on Sierra Leone, the World Food Programme (WFP) had announced this morning in Abidjan that it had successfully delivered its first food aid by road to Sierra Leone since the coup d’état last May. Two convoys had arrived in Kambia, in the northern part of the country, carrying enough emergency supplies to feed

40,000 people for one month. That press release was also available in his office. . . . Asked if the Secretary-General’s trip to Washington, D.C., was being rescheduled, Mr. Eckhard said “They are working on it now. I can’t predict when it will be, but he is planning a trip to Geneva at mid-month—we’ll announce the details somewhat later—and so the question is whether the Washington trip could be rescheduled before he leaves. And that’s pretty much a function of the President’s schedule, so we have nothing to announce just yet.” Would the Secretary-General be meeting with United States President William Clinton in New York later today? “They are both going to be at the seventy-fifth anniversary dinner for Time magazine tonight, so there is a possibility they could meet there, yes”, Mr. Eckhard said. That meeting would not be a formal meeting. It would be a “casual encounter”. A correspondent asked if that was the first time a high-level Iraqi official would be invited to Headquarters to discuss the oil-for-food programme. Was there something special about that agenda? Mr. Eckhard said that when the SecretaryGeneral had been in Baghdad—on that Monday morning—he had met with Iraqi Vice-President Taha Ramadhan; there had clearly been unresolved issues between the United Nations and Iraq concerning the oil-for-food programme. The Spokesman said he would have to check whether or not it was the first time the Secretary-General had invited a senior level official to New York to discuss those problems. . . . Would the Secretary-General’s trip to the Middle East be rescheduled? “They are working on that as well”, the Spokesman said. “They are looking towards the end of this month, in between two dates when the Secretary-General must be in Geneva—the opening of the annual session of the Commission on Human Rights at mid-month, and then the biannual meeting of the ACC [Administrative Committee on Coordination] at the end of the month. So that is the window for the planning of the rescheduling of the Middle East trip. But we have nothing firm to announce at this time.” Was there any estimate of when the inspectors would be getting into the presidential sites? The Spokesman said there was not. The first step was to finalize the detailed procedures; then it was a matter of a practical decision—whether or not there was something the inspectors wanted to investigate. Asked whether the detailed procedures would

4 March 1998 • 337 include names of ambassadors, Mr. Eckhard said, “I don’t think there will be names of ambassadors. It may mention the pool that might be drawn on for putting together the diplomats who will be part of the special group.” What was the procedure for picking the ambassadors? Mr. Eckhard said that, as stated in the Memorandum of Understanding, they would be appointed by the Secretary-General.

4 March 1998 Interview (OSSG); Iraq Interview with the Secretary-General by Margaret Warner of the “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.” The spotlight has been on U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ever since his last minute trip to Iraq resulted in a deal with Iraqi president Saddam Hussein that averted a military strike. He talks to Margaret Warner about his role in the crisis, details of the deal, and his hopes for the future of the United Nations. MARGARET WARNER: Welcome, Mr. Annan. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Thank you very much. MW: Thanks for being with us. What is the meaning to Iraq behind the resolution that the U.N. passed this week? S-G: I think the meaning to Iraq is that if they do not comply next time round peace may not be given a second chance. And I hope that they will comply because the test will be in the application. MW: So does the severest consequences, which is the phrase used in the resolution, does that definitely mean military action? S-G: I think it implies that the Council will take a very strict action, and that if there is further disruption of inspections, that there could be very serious consequences. And my sense is if that were to happen the mood in the Council may be quite different. And, let’s not forget that the resolution was passed unanimously. So the unity of the Council is restored. And if they have to act again, my sense is that unity could be sustained. MW: Now, President Clinton said yesterday that he felt the resolution, the phrase he used was provides the authority to act, as he put it, if Iraq doesn’t comply. Is that how you read it, that it provides the authority say for any single member state to act unilaterally? S-G: This is a Council-led decision. I mean, the resolution yesterday was passed unanimously by the Council, and the Council decided that it will remain seized of the matter. And my sense then is that if Iraq does not comply and action is going to

be taken, the Council will somehow want to be seized of it. But I think it will be much easier then for the Council to move forward unanimously. MW: So you feel that say the French, the Chinese, the Russians, would be—do intend to follow through—would be more open to the use of military force than they were before? S-G: I think they—first of all, let me say that everybody this time round indicated they preferred a diplomatic solution. We have got that solution, and we are now going to test it. If Iraq fulfills it strictly and in accordance with the understanding we’ve reached in Baghdad, it may see light at the end of the day. If it does not and disrupts it, and the issue came up again, I don’t think there will be many members in the Council hesitating to take action. MW: Now, what would constitute violation of the agreement, of the agreement you negotiated with the Iraqis, in your view? S-G: The agreement offers full and unrestricted access for the U.N. inspectors. And we are also being given access and entry into the presidential palaces. This can only be done with the cooperation of the Iraqis, and hopefully they will stick to this understanding. If they don’t, and they block the inspectors from doing their work, it will constitute a violation. MW: Now, in your reading of the agreement, which, of course, you negotiated, is there any room for legitimate disagreement, as you see it, over an access question? S-G: It’s difficult to answer that question. I think we pretty much covered most of the issues, but, you know, you’ve asked a theoretical question, and I’m often hesitant about dealing with theoretical situations. In life, you never know. It could happen, yes. MW: I guess I was just asking because it also says unconditional access. And I just wondered if, in your view, that means basically the inspectors can go anywhere, anytime they want. S-G: I think, you know, we all have to be reasonable, and I think the Iraqis and the U.N. officials in that even though we have unconditional access, almost everything we’ve done in Baghdad we’ve had to rely on the cooperation of the Iraqis. For example, the Iraqis participate; they travel with the inspectors; they go along with them; and in some cases inspections have been canceled because the Iraqi participants have not appeared. And so there could be some misunderstanding, but it is not beyond human ingenuity to find solutions to these. And I hope that even if the situation

338 • 4 March 1998

you’ve alluded to were to occur, with the professionalism and goodwill on both sides, we can work them out. MW: Now, turning to the presidential sites, which was the special category you particularly had to negotiate, what is going to be the role of these diplomats, who for the first time are going to accompany the UNSCOM inspectors? S-G: There has been some confusion about that. The role of the diplomats will be to observe, and they’ll be observing both ways, to ensure that the Iraqis carry out their commitments and do what they have promised to do—and also to ensure that the U.N. inspectors get on with their work with certain respect and sensitivity, given the fact that these are presidential sites, and for the government it is extremely important that it is handled with dignity and sensitivity. And so the diplomats will observe. They will have nothing to do with the actual inspections. The team leader will be an expert either from UNSCOM or the Atomic Agency. And the diplomats will be there to observe. MW: And will the diplomats have any independent authority or independent line to you? S-G: They will have access to the commissioner, who is the head of the special group for the palaces. And he and Mr. Butler will be working very closely together. But it will be to the commissioner. MW: Not to beat this horse to death, but will you be getting your report from Mr. Butler, or will there be a separate report from the commissioner of the diplomats? S-G: The report of the special group, which is headed by a commissioner, will be sent to the Security Council from Butler through me to the Council. MW: Now, you also said that the diplomats are there to ensure that the UNSCOM inspectors treat these sites with the dignity they should be treated. Are you suggesting that in the past UNSCOM inspectors have not done that? S-G: Well, this is the first time in seven years that they’ve been given access to any of these palaces. And this is a direct outcome of the agreement we signed in Baghdad on the 23rd of February. Some of the other sites have been factories; they have been laboratories. They have been other sites which perhaps do not require the kind of sensitive treatment that the Iraqis are demanding here. And I know that I have been misquoted and misquoted wrongly time and time again, and, in some cases, I think deliberately, that I have

called the inspectors cowboys. I did not call them cowboys. I reported what the Iraqi authorities told me, that some of them throw their weight around and behave like cowboys. And they don’t want that sort of treatment around these—that sort of behavior around these palaces. I have been working with UNSCOM right from the beginning, and I know the tremendous amount of work they have done, and I have respect for them. But I also have a duty to report to the Council what I picked up in Baghdad. MW: And this week, as I understand it, your representative with Mr. Butler and others have been negotiating these procedures. Has that been concluded? Is all this agreed to? S-G: Yes, it’s more or less done. We have the procedures, and we should be ready to begin the inspections of the palaces as soon as the team is gathered in Baghdad. MW: Now, President Clinton also said that U.S. forces will remain, that beefed-up U.S. forces will remain in the Gulf for the time being. Do you think that’s necessary, or helpful, to ensure Iraqi compliance? S-G: I think in the President’s judgment that is necessary for them to remain there until we’ve had a chance to test the agreement. And, as I said, agreement is something on paper until one lives up to their commitments. And I hope in the next few months we will see serious performance on the Iraqi side, and when that happens, presumably the President will not see any need to keeping military on the ground. MW: How long do you [think] it would be appropriate—you talked about several months— for the U.S. to keep forces at that level in the region? S-G: That judgment is not mine. The judgment of how long the troops stay is that and that of the President and the alliance alone. And so it is a decision they will have to take. The reference to a month or a couple of months is a guess—guesswork on my part. The decision is the President’s and his alone. MW: Now, the resolution also says that once Iraq complies with Resolution 687, which was the resolution that ended the Gulf war, that sanctions could be lifted, but again there’s some confusion over really what it is Iraq has to comply with. What has Iraq not done yet, very briefly, that it hasn’t? Is it all dealing with weapons, or are there other issues? S-G: I think you have the weapons issue, the question of disarmament, and we have two phases

5 March 1998 • 339 of that. You first disarm to establish a base line, and then you have ongoing monitoring, which can go on for quite some time. And then you have the question of missing in action, a Kuwaiti missing in action, and return of Kuwaiti properties. These are the things that Iraq has to comply with, and then the Council will lift the sanctions. MW: Finally, as you know, your deal has been criticized by some Republicans in Congress, and you personally, Trent Lott, the Senate Majority Leader, said—he was describing your dealings with Saddam Hussein, and he said you were someone bent on appeasement and someone devoted to building a human relationship with a mass murderer. How do you answer critics like that? S-G: Well, these are rather strong and harsh words. And I’m not even sure if I can comment because I don’t know what is behind those statements, because I think what I did was to try to save lives, to try and get Iraq to comply in accordance with the Security Council resolutions. And I think if this effort, which was not an easy one, which entailed quite a lot of risks, to try and get Iraq to comply, to save lives, and to prevent explosion in the Middle East—is going to be described in those terms, then of course we have different objectives. I know that some people on the Hill have a different idea as to how Iraq and President Saddam Hussein should be handled. That is not my concern. I am guided by Security Council resolutions. Yesterday, on the Larry King Show I was asked: Some people say the President must be taken out. And I explained, quite candidly, that the U.N. is not in the business of taking out any president, this or that president out. In our organization that is illegal. And I have no mandate from the Council. And so for those who think that should be the objective, whatever you do short of that is failure, is appeasement, and is weakness. And so I don’t think there is anything else I can say. MW: How do you think you can—or do you think you can regain the trust of these Republicans who are ones who are going to decide whether or not the U.S. pays back its U.N. dues? You were supposed to be down here this week to talk to them about that, and Sen. Lott sent word he was too busy to see you. How are you going to get around that? S-G: Well, first of all, I had to postpone my visit to Washington, because I had to be in New York for the Security Council discussion of the agreement I brought back. It was legitimate that I remain here, and so, perhaps just as well he didn’t have time to see me also, because I was going to go down in any event. But let me say that I have

done my work as Secretary-General, I’m accountable to the United Nations, to the Security Council, and to the 185 member states, including the U.S. And I did what the Security Council and the United Nations wanted me to do. The U.S. is a member of this organization; the U.S. voted in the Security Council before I left, agreeing to what I was attempting to do. And since I came back, the entire Council has unanimously endorsed the agreement, and the U.S. voted for it. And so those who have a problem with the agreement should not quarrel with me. They should take it up with the member states of the U.N. There are 185 of them. If they have a quarrel, it’s with them and not with me. From the day they approved the agreement in their program, I negotiated it. MW: All right. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Annan.

5 March 1998 Letter (EOSG); UN Environment Programme Letter to Martin Holdgate, Cambridge, UK. Dear Mr. Holdgate, In order to assist me in the preparation of proposals for submission to the General Assembly on reforming and strengthening United Nations activities in the environmental and human settlements areas, I have decided to establish a task force composed of personalities with outstanding expertise in these fields and well acquainted with the United Nations system. It is a pleasure for me to invite you to be a member of the task force. I am attaching its terms of reference for your information. I have requested Dr. Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Director General of the United Nations Office at Nairobi (UNON), to chair this group and present a report to me before 15 June 1998. The task force will be serviced by a small secretariat working under the immediate supervision of Dr. Topfer. He will contact you to follow up on this letter. I am looking forward to your valuable advice and collaboration on this important endeavour for the United Nations. Terms of Reference Environmental and Human Settlements Task Force

1. To review existing structures and arrangements through which environment and environmentrelated activities are carried out within the United

340 • 5 March 1998

Nations, with particular reference to those departments, Funds and Programmes which report to the Secretary-General, but taking into account also the relevant programmes and activities of the specialized agencies; 2. In this respect to focus particularly on the distinctive functions of policy, development of norms and standards, programme development and implementation and financing, as well as relationships amongst these functions; 3. To evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of existing structures and arrangements and make recommendations for such changes, improvements as will optimize the work and effectiveness of the United Nations environmental work at the global level and of UNEP as the leading environmental organization or “authority”, as well as the role of UNEP as the principal source of environmental input into the work of the Commission on Sustainable Development; and 4. To prepare proposals, for consideration by the Secretary-General and subsequent submission to the General Assembly, on reforming and strengthening UN activities in the environmental and human settlement areas. Task Force Members

Michael Zammit Cutajar Executive Secretary Climate Change Secretary (UNFCCC) Mr. Martin Khor Director Third World Network Mr. Timothy E. Wirth President United Nations Foundations Mr. John Ashe Ambassador/ Deputy Permanent Representative Permanent Mission of Antigua and Barbuda to the United Nations Amb. Lars Goran Engfeldt Permanent Representative of Sweden to UNEP Amb. Makarim Wibisono Permanent Representative of Indonesia to the UN Current Chair of the G77 and China Group Sir Martin Holdgate Cambridge, UK Mr. Mostafa K. Tolba President International Centre for Environment & Development

Ms. Maria Julia Alsogaray Secretaria de Recursos Naturales y Desarrollo Sustentable Ambassador Tommy Koh Ambassador-at-Large Singapore Mr. Ashok Khosla Development Alternatives India Mr. Nitin Desai Under-Secretary-General, UN DPCSD Mr. Jean-Pierre Halbwachs UN Assistant Secretary-General Mr. James Gustave Speth Administrator, UNDP Ambassador Joseph Tousanga High Commissioner of Uganda to India Ms. Julia Marton LeFevre LEAD International, Inc. Mr. Maurice Strong Special Adviser to the Secretary-General

5 March 1998 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter to the president of the Security Council, Abdoulie Momodou Sallah. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to the difficulties arising from time to time in the relations between Iraq and the United Nations; and to the need for improved lines of communication between the Government of Iraq and my Office in order to help avert the development of such difficulties into fully-fledged crises threatening to undermine international peace and security in the area. With this objective in mind, I have decided, after careful consideration, to appoint Mr. Prakash Shah as my Special Envoy in Baghdad for an initial period of six months. It is envisaged that Mr. Shah, who will be assisted by a small team of internationally and locally recruited staff, will establish his office in Baghdad before the end of this month. As my Special Envoy in Baghdad, he will follow closely all developments relevant to the role of the United Nations with regard to Iraq. He will lend his support to existing United Nations activities in the arms control, humanitarian and eco-

9 March 1998 • 341 nomic and social fields while giving special attention to any crisis or problem which might benefit from intervention by United Nations headquarters. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

9 March 1998 The Unpaid Bill That’s Crippling the UN

Op-Ed (OSSG); UN dues Article written by the Secretary-General that appeared in the New York Times. I will be traveling to Washington on Wednesday to meet with President Clinton and members of his Administration, to discuss not only Iraq but also the debilitating problem of the $1.3 billion in back dues that the United States owes to the United Nations. When I became Secretary General in January 1997, I pledged that I would revitalize the role of the United Nations and undertake top-to-bottom organizational reforms. I have kept my pledge. Yet the United Nations, for all practical purposes, remains in a state of bankruptcy. Our doors are kept open only because other countries in essence provide interest-free loans to cover largely American-created shortfalls—not only NATO allies like Britain, France, Italy and Canada, but also developing countries like Pakistan and even Fiji. The United States has not paid its United Nations dues in full and on time for some years. In 1995, it paid less than half its total assessment. These gaps have never been closed. Who benefits from a cash-starved United Nations? The aggressors of the world whose designs we seek to foil; the violators of human rights whose abuses we endeavor to curtail; the drug dealers and international criminals whose dealings we reveal; the arms merchants whose traffic in deadly weapons our conventions help stop. Also impeded is our humanitarian work, against hunger, deprivation, the loss of homes and livelihoods. The Iraq crisis demonstrates how indispensable the United Nations can be in the areas of peace and security. If honored, the agreement I negotiated in Baghdad will allow United Nations weapons inspectors to expand their search for and elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction—an outcome that alternative courses of action might not have yielded. The public becomes aware of United Nations

contributions to conflict resolution only occasionally, when a crisis erupts that thrusts us onto television screens and into newspaper headlines. My recent trip to Baghdad was such an occasion. But we have been there all along. As President Clinton has stated on numerous occasions, unarmed United Nations inspectors have destroyed more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq during the last six years than Operation Desert Storm did. United Nations Security Council resolutions have kept sanctions in place. The “oil for food” program administered by the United Nations has sought to reduce the suffering of Iraqi civilians, especially women and children. And when the international community determined that diplomacy in Iraq deserved one last chance, the eyes of the world instinctively turned to the United Nations. Institutional reforms are more difficult to portray to the public than crisis management. Under my reform package, we have achieved an actual decrease in the United Nations budget, down to $2.53 billion for the 1998 and 1999 biennium. Nearly 1,000 posts have been cut outright, bringing the staff size below 9,000, and other jobs are being held vacant. Administrative expenditures are being cut to 25 percent of the budget, from 38 percent. Our leadership and management structure has been tightened, making it more coherent and more responsive to the needs of the world. And the General Assembly is debating my recommendations for streamlined legislative processes, sunset provisions for new mandates and a new efficiencyinducing budgetary system. Of course, people are more important than organizational structure. My recent appointments include Louise Frechette, Canada’s Deputy Minister of Defense, as the first Deputy Secretary General; Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, to lead our human rights efforts; Pino Arlacchi, a Mafia-busting Senator from Italy, to head our drug and crime prevention programs; Klaus Toepfer, German Environment Minister, to direct the Environment Program, and Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka, an arms control expert, who will head disarmament affairs and lead the special inspectors for presidential sites established in the Baghdad agreement. There is an American saying that all politics is local. But increasingly, all local politics has global consequences. And those global consequences, in turn, affect the quality of local life everywhere.

342 • 9 March 1998

A renewed partnership between the United Nations and the United States is, therefore, as much in the interest of the United States as the United Nations. But it has to be paid for. To paraphrase what Winston Churchill said to Franklin Roosevelt, “Give us the tools and we will do the job.”

9 March 1998 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter to the president of the Security Council, Abdoulie Momodou Sallah. Dear Mr. President, Further to my letter of today (S/1998/208), I have the honour to draw the attention of the Members of the Council to the relevant provisions of the special Procedures dealing with the designation of the senior diplomatic representatives who would form part of the Special Group established in pursuance of paragraph 4(a) of the Memorandum of Understanding. I would invite all States represented on the Security Council to nominate reprepresentatives to be placed on the roster, from which these senior diplomatic representatives would be selected. In response to the interest expressed by some Permanent Representatives of Members of the Council to observe the implementation of the special Procedures with respect to the Presidential sites, I would also invite them to inform me whether they or their deputies would wish to be placed on the roster. This would provide an opportunity for Permanent Representatives (or their deputies) to observe on the ground, implementation of measures approved in the Security Council. In this context, I should like to inform the Security Council further, that countries with diplomatic representation in Baghdad and countries which have volunteered to participate in this Special Group, are also being requested to nominate representatives to be placed on the roster. I should appreciate it if you would bring the above to the attention of the Members of the Council. Accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

9 March 1998 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter to the president of the Security Council, Abdoulie Momodou Sallah.

I have the honour to attach copy of a letter dated 4 March 1998 addressed to me by the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation, His Excellency, Ambassador Sergey Lavrov. In his letter, Ambassador Lavrov proposes the establishment of an additional post of Deputy Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and also nominates a Russian national for this purpose. It may be recalled that, as requested by the Security Council in its resolution 687 (1991), the Secretary-General submitted a plan, on 18 April 1991, for the establishment of a Special Commission (S/22508). According to the plan, which was approved by the Security Council on the following day (S/22509), the Special Commission was to have a membership of 26 to 25, including an Executive Chairman, a Deputy Executive Chairman and five small groups of experts on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles, and in monitoring and verification of compliance. The Special Commission currently has 22 members. As regards the recommendations of the emergency session of the Special Commission held on 21 November 1997, to which Ambassador Lavrov’s letter makes reference, it may be noted that whereas the report of the emergency session (S/1997/922) makes recommendations in its paragraphs 24 and 28 pertaining to the geographical base for the provision of inspectors and to the broadening of the multinational nature of inspection teams, this report does not specifically address the question of a second Deputy Executive Chairman. The Security Council may wish, however, to consider the proposal for a post for an additional Deputy Executive Chairman made in Ambassador Lavrov’s letter and advise me of any decision taken. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

9 March 1998 Secretary-General Proud That the UN Has Never Had More Women at the USG Level Than It Does Now

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6480, WOM/1045); women Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Group on Equal Rights for Women in the United Nations on the occasion of International Women’s Day, at UN headquarters.

9 March 1998 • 343 Dear Friends and Colleagues, How good to see you all here. I want to thank the Group on Equal Rights for Women in the United Nations for organizing this event. I was glad of the opportunity to come and talk to you on the occasion of International Women’s Day, because I feel it is important to show that, amid all the symbols and the celebrations, we mean business. Today, let us pause for a moment to take stock of where we stand, and to remember where we were a year ago. When I announced my first appointments after taking office at the beginning of last year, some of you felt there were too few senior women among them. I asked you then to judge me not on those first few weeks in office, but on what my cabinet would look like in the months to come. What better proof of our progress could I offer you than to introduce to you Louise Frechette, who one week ago took up her duties as the first Deputy Secretary-General of the Organization. Ms. Frechette, whom some of you will know (and even more of you will know of) from her time as Canada’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, brings an impressive degree of experience, expertise, energy and effectiveness to the post. I know that she, together with other senior women, will lead the way to other similar appointments in the months and years to come; that they will set the stage for a day where gender equality is an axiom, not an aspiration. After I leave you today, I hope Ms. Frechette will be able to stay on and take part in your discussion. In the past year, we have also welcomed Mary Robinson in one of our most high-profile posts— High Commissioner for Human Rights; Elisabeth Rehn, who, as Special Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, joins a category particularly devoid of women; Heidi Tagliavini as Deputy Special Representative for Georgia; and Rafiah Salim, who, as Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management, will be instrumental in reviewing our entire staff structure, while Angela King works on mainstreaming gender priorities throughout the Organization. I cannot know first-hand what it is like, but I can imagine the difficulties of working in an environment where most of your peers, and certainly almost all of your superiors, are of the opposite gender. I recently heard a female colleague praise her boss and say he was the best supervisor she had ever worked for, because if you “didn’t know any better you would think he was a woman”.

I do know that despite a slight increase, there is still an alarming lack of women at D-1 and D-2 levels. I know that the pyramid is getting even more pointed as we have fewer and fewer of these posts to offer. I know that a senior woman will often find herself surrounded by a sea of male faces and a chorus of male voices around the conference table. I know that we must achieve the critical mass necessary to end this imbalance. In short, I know that the culture must change. But I also take heart from the fact that while the dearth of women is now to be found at the director’s level, the same dearth was to be found at the P-3 and P4 levels and above just 20 years ago. Today, women are more than holding their own at those levels. The next step on the ladder will follow. I am proud in the knowledge that the United Nations system has never had more women at the UnderSecretary-General level than it has today. I am gratified that we now have training programmes that motivate gender awareness, and family leave programmes that better reconcile work and family responsibilities. I draw hope from projections that the next decade will provide a window of opportunity to enhance the status of women because more men will retire in the next few years than women. And I pay tribute to all women on our staff, in particular those in the General Service, who form such an important part of our backbone and who now enjoy greater training opportunities than ever before. Make no mistake, however: while yes, it is crucial to achieve participation by a greater number of women in all that we do, numbers are not the whole answer. The presence of senior women does not mean that women’s issues somehow become “their” responsibility; they are the responsibility of everyone in the system. Last October, I wrote to all executive heads of United Nations entities and senior officials in the Secretariat to tell them that the Economic and Social Council had adopted agreed conclusions on mainstreaming a gender perspective into all policies and programmes in the United Nations system. That means integrating a gender perspective into all areas of the United Nations work—including macroeconomic questions, operational activities for development, poverty eradication, human rights, humanitarian assistance, budgeting and administration, disarmament, peace and security and legal matters. I said then that this process is the responsibili-

344 • 9 March 1998

ty of all of us, and not just of gender experts in isolated units. I meant it. As I said in the letter: senior managers will be fully accountable for the implementation of the agreed conclusions. Those, to me, are the key words: the responsibility of all of us. It will not be the sole responsibility of Ms. Frechette, or Ms. Salim, or Ms. King, or Ms. Robinson, or any other woman, to keep these issues at the forefront of our agenda. I say this because if we accept that in any society, gender equality is more than a goal in itself; if we believe that the empowerment of women is a vital means to meeting the challenge of sustainable development; if we argue that the participation of women is a requirement in building good governance; if we insist that the rights of women are a precondition for the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance; if we are convinced of all these things in relation to all the societies we are trying to help in this world—then how can we fail to apply this conviction to our own society in our own house? I cannot end this meeting without mentioning two issues that concern women at large in the world today. As you know, violence against women, and the effects of armed conflict on women, are two of the main topics on the agenda of the Commission on the Status of Women as it meets here at Headquarters right now. As I said in my message for this year’s International Women’s Day, in today’s world, those two issues take on particular urgency. Women and children first used to be a phrase that referred to the seats in the lifeboats of a sinking ship. Now, it seems all too often to refer to the victims of a country in conflict. In all societies, women and girls are subjected to physical, sexual and psychological abuse that cuts across lines of income, class and culture. But let us not forget that among societies in conflict or crisis, women and children are particularly likely to suffer. Although entire communities bear the consequences of armed conflict, women and girls are especially affected because of their status in society and their sex. We owe it to women everywhere to make it clear that violence against women is not acceptable in any culture; that women’s rights are not something to be given or taken away by a government like a subsidy; that the rights of women and men alike are intrinsic to humanity. This year, International Women’s Day takes on a particular meaning for us all. In this fiftieth anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Women’s Day pres-

ents us with a dual call to arms; a call to demonstrate that human rights are inherent in all of us and belong to men and women alike. Let us show the courage and commitment to lead this process from our own doorstep. As the world celebrates this day, let us spread the message that women’s rights are the responsibility of all humankind; that combating all forms of violence against women is the duty of all humankind; and that achieving the empowerment of women is the advancement of all humankind.

9 March 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for Secretary-General Kofi Annan, began today’s noon press briefing by announcing that Prakash Shah, the SecretaryGeneral’s Special Envoy for Iraq, would meet with correspondents as part of the noon briefing. (The briefing notes will be issued separately.) The Secretary-General transmitted to the President of the Security Council just a few minutes ago the detailed procedures for inspections of the eight presidential sites in Iraq, Mr. Eckhard said. There would be a background briefing for correspondents at 12:30 p.m., during which the text of those procedures would be shared. That briefing would be given by two senior United Nations officials. He said the United Nations Special Commission on the disarmament of Iraq (UNSCOM) has indicated that Scott Ritter and his team conducted two inspections yesterday and three on Saturday. All the sites in question had been declared sensitive by Iraq, but the United Nations team was allowed to inspect them. Together with the three inspections on Friday, the team had thus far inspected a total of eight sensitive sites and would be taking a break today. The Foreign Minister of Iraq, Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf, and his delegation met with the Secretary-General this morning at 10:15 to begin a week of discussions on the “oil-for-food” programme. At 11 a.m., those talks resumed with Deputy Secretary-General Louise Fréchette chairing the United Nations side. Mr. Annan had asked his new Deputy to oversee the oil-for-food programme; Benon Sevan, the head of the Iraq programme, would now report to her. Mr. Eckhard went on to say that the Iraqi delegation included the Under-Secretaries for Health

9 March 1998 • 345 and Trade—not the Ministers for Health and Trade, as the Spokesman’s Office had announced last week. The full list of the members of the Iraqi and United Nations delegations, as well as the draft provisional agenda for the talks, were available in room S-378. Citing a question asked last week, Mr. Eckhard said that the Secretary-General’s Deputy Special Representative to Cyprus, Gustave Feissel, was indeed in the Building and was on the SecretaryGeneral’s agenda for today. The SecretaryGeneral’s Special Adviser on Cyprus, Diego Cordovez, was expected in New York tomorrow. He was tentatively expected to brief the Security Council on Cyprus on Thursday, 12 March. That would be in anticipation of his visit to the region, scheduled to begin on Tuesday, 17 March. The Spokesman’s Office would try to arrange for a press briefing by Mr. Cordovez—and Mr. Feissel, if he’s still in the Building—for later this week. The United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan (UNMOT) had decided today to withdraw from three United Nations team sites in remote areas to the Mission’s base in Dushanbe, the Spokesman announced. The decision was taken for two reasons. First, they were isolated, owing to heavy snow and avalanches. Secondly, the Tajik airport authorities were not allowing the United Nations Mission to use the airport in Dushanbe, despite the fact that the Mission was entitled to freedom of movement and to free use of the airport under the status-of-forces agreement. They were claiming that the necessary clearances could not be granted until their Ministry of Finance paid them outstanding dues. The Secretary-General’s Special Representative, Gerd Merrem, was discussing the matter with them. Mr. Eckhard drew attention to a substantive meeting of the Economic and Social Council last year which urged the Secretary-General to appoint experts to review how the United Nations efforts against illicit drugs had evolved since the creation of the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP). Today, the SecretaryGeneral was appointing 13 such experts. The main purpose of their work would be to recommend how to strengthen future international cooperation against illicit drugs and to identify measures aimed at reinforcing the Drug Programme’s activities, including increased financial resources for the Programme. The expert group was expected to hold its first meeting from 22 to 24 April in

Vienna. Its work would be financed entirely by the Voluntary Fund. . . . Why had the Secretary-General chosen this time to go to Washington, D.C.? a correspondent asked. What was his reaction to the criticism he had received? Did he perhaps feel he had not received enough thanks from Washington? “His principal reason for going to Washington is to discuss the memorandum of understanding on Iraq,” Mr. Eckhard said. There would be follow-up meeting which he would be having in the capitals of other permanent members of the Security Council. His programme for those meetings would be announced later on. The Secretary-General felt he had done his job by turning the agreement over to the Council, which approved it unanimously, the Spokesman said. “He feels that he has a certain stake in trying to maintain political support for this agreement”, which is why he is going to Washington and will be going to other capitals. “As for the criticism, that really is just to be expected.” Asked if finance was now the main item on the Secretary-General’s agenda, Mr. Eckhard said that finance was a very important item on his agenda. “Any time he goes to Washington, he raises it—it’s obviously important.” However, the “post-memorandum of understanding reason” for his making the current visit was to help solidify political support for it. Are you saying that there are still unanswered questions from Washington? the correspondent asked. “I don’t know—he’ll find out when he gets there.” There had been criticism from certain congressional quarters. The Secretary-General hoped to have one event on his programme organized by the United States Administration to bring him together with a few congressional leaders. He also planned to go back after the Congress’ Easter recess to meet specifically with congressional leaders. A correspondent drew attention to an Op Ed piece by the Secretary-General in today’s issue of the New York Times, stating that he seemed to emphasize the financial question more than anything else. “Yes, the financial question is very much on our minds at all times”, Mr. Eckhard said. Last Friday, you categorically denied a story which stated that the Secretary-General had not been informed or consulted prior to the decision by Ambassador Butler, Executive Chairman of UNSCOM, to send in the inspection team headed by Scott Ritter, a correspondent said. Did that mean the Secretary-General was consulted prior to

346 • 9 March 1998

the decision to dispatch that team? “What I said [was that] there was full consultation—and I said that on guidance from the Secretary-General, who must have felt he had been fully consulted”, the Spokesman replied. Did “full consultation” mean that the Secretary-General took part in the decision to send the team headed by Scott Ritter? the correspondent asked. “I said last week: it isn’t the SecretaryGeneral’s decision to make, and it was not Mr. Butler’s obligation to consult the SecretaryGeneral”, Mr. Eckhard said. “But the two of them were working very closely, and so in this case, there was full consultation.” To follow-up questioning by the same correspondent, the Spokesman said “I have said everything I have to say on this subject.” Asked if a date had been set for Mr. Butler to travel to Baghdad, the Spokesman said he did not believe a date had been set yet; the correspondent would have to ask Mr. Butler. . . . A correspondent asked for additional information about the Secretary-General’s meeting with Ambassador Sergey Lavrov of the Russian Federation. The Spokesman said the meeting had been requested by the Ambassador. He believed the Ambassador was carrying a message from his Foreign Minister. There was not a read-out on that meeting as yet. Asked if there was any further information regarding a second deputy for UNSCOM, Mr. Eckhard said the resolution governing the constitution of UNSCOM only provided for a single deputy. The Secretary-General would, therefore, have to take the matter to the Security Council for a decision. . . . A correspondent said that a letter from the representative of Germany to the Secretary-General had supported bringing the question of Kosovo before the Security Council. Had the SecretaryGeneral mentioned that? she asked. “No, I’m not aware of a message from Germany”, the Spokesman answered. He had seen the press reports on the Contact Group’s meeting today in London, but had nothing official to say on the matter. What procedure was involved with respect to the submission by the Secretary-General to the Council of the detailed procedures for inspections of the eight presidential sites in Iraq? a correspondent asked. The Spokesman said it was the Secretary-General’s decision to define the detailed procedures, and he had today informed the Council of what they were. Now, inspections of presidential sites under those procedures could

take place. There would be a background briefing shortly, at which correspondents would be provided with those details. . . .

10 March 1998 Letter (UN archives); UN history Letter to James S. Sutterlin, distinguished fellow at Yale University, from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza. Dear Jim, Thank you for your letter of 4 March 1998 responding to my request for advice concerning designating a person to maintain a chronicle of important developments in which the UN and the Secretary-General is involved. I discussed your letter with the SecretaryGeneral, who expressed his great appreciation for your valuable advice. We are evaluating some of our younger colleagues for this assignment. Should we need any candidates from you, I shall turn to you. Thank you again for your prompt assistance.

12 March 1998 Press Conference at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C.

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6482); Iraq/ US-UN relations PETER HICKMAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for coming. Welcome to the National Press Club and another NPC Morning Newsmaker, a very special one. My name is Peter Hickman, and I’m ViceChairman of the Club’s Newsmaker Committee and a freelance journalist and editorial and media consultant. Before introducing this morning’s newsmaker, I’d like to call your attention to some material on the table outside, which you may already have. It’s a list of other speakers we have coming and also some material related to this morning’s newsmaker. And, as you know, that newsmaker is the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, The Honourable Kofi Annan. Mr. Secretary-General, welcome back to the National Press Club. The Secretary-General spoke at the Club at least once before, at a luncheon about a year ago. And also with the Secretary-General this morning are the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ms. Louise Fréchette on my left, and Mr. Annan’s spokesman, Mr. Juan Carlos Brandt on my far right. Welcome to you both.

12 March 1998 • 347 And I also owe a very special thanks to the Director and the Deputy Director of the United Nations Information Centre here in Washington, Joe Sills and Joan Hills—the team of Hills and Sills: I had to say that—for suggesting and helping arrange this morning’s Newsmaker with Secretary-General Annan. Mr. Annan’s higher education was at the University of Science and Technology in Kumasi in his native Ghana, at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he studied economics; the Institut universitaire des hautes études internationales in Geneva, where he did graduate studies in economics; and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he was a Sloan Fellow and earned a Masters degree in Management. And as many of you probably know, Mr. Annan is the son of a tribal chief in Ghana, and I understand that, had he so chosen, he could have inherited that title from his father. Instead, he’s in charge of an organization which has about 180 major tribes and a lot of smaller ones. Before occupying the top post at the United Nations, Mr. Annan was the Under-SecretaryGeneral for Peacekeeping. Earlier United Nations posts were in management, administration, budget, finance, personnel and refugee issues. And, as you know, his topic this morning is “US-UN relations: a renewable partnership”. And, I suppose, Mr. Secretary-General, if the United States paid its dues that might help with renewal a little bit, wouldn’t it? He met with President Clinton yesterday and, as you know, a while back he visited President Saddam Hussein in Iraq; I hope he can tell us something about those visits this morning. After he speaks, he’ll take your questions, and we ask that you please identify yourself by name and affiliation. We have two floor mikes, I understand, and when you want to ask a question, just line up behind the floor mikes and then give your name and affiliation when you ask the question. And finally, if you haven’t done so already, as you leave, please add your name to the sign-in sheet outside. Thank you very much. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Thank you very much, Peter. I think you’ve defined the problem: that it has always been and still is a tribal problem. Let me tell you how happy I am to be back in Washington. I enjoyed my visit here last year, and it’s good to have your convictions tested once in a while. And Washington is always ready to do so when it comes to the role and value of the United Nations. Joking aside, let me say how grateful I am for the very warm and constructive meetings that I

have had since I came to Washington, with the President, with Mrs. Albright, with Secretary Cohen and Sandy Berger on the Administration side. I also had very positive meetings with Senators Helms, Gramm and Biden yesterday, and today I met with a group of 17 senators organized by Minority Leader Daschle, and we also had very constructive and useful discussions. And right after this press conference, I’m going to the Pentagon to talk to Secretary of Defense Cohen and his senior advisers. As you know, I came to Washington with two main reasons in mind: to discuss Iraq’s compliance with the demands of the Security Council and to find a way to end the debilitating question of United States arrears. I believe we’ve made real progress on both tracks. On the issue of Iraq, allow me to reiterate what I said at the Security Council upon their endorsement of the agreement I extracted from the Iraqi leadership on 23 February: Iraq’s complete fulfilment of these obligations is the one and only aim of the agreement. I am under no illusion about the inherent value of this or any agreement. Commitments honoured are the only commitments that count. With the Security Council’s unanimous endorsement of the agreement, however, the Government of Iraq should understand that, if this effort to ensure compliance through negotiations is obstructed by evasion or deception, as were the previous efforts, diplomacy may not have a second chance. No promise of peace and no policy of patience can be without limits. It is my sincere hope that the Government of Iraq does understand this and allows the United Nations Special Commission set up under Security Council resolution 687 (1991) in connection with the disposal of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (UNSCOM) to continue its work by giving it full, unfettered and unrestricted access to all sites. Since the agreement, I am pleased to tell you that we have had a very successful inspection led by Scott Ritter, and they entered a site they have not been able to enter for the past seven years. They did a very credible job, and I applaud the men and women of UNSCOM. On the issue of United States arrears, I would also like to thank the President for his strong support of the United Nations; and I think some of you heard both him and the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, appealing for the settlement of this debt. In his state of the Union address and elsewhere, he has also said better than anyone why a strong and fully funded United Nations is in the

348 • 12 March 1998

national interests of the United States. He reiterated this to me again yesterday in private and publicly, and I hope we will see progress in Congress this year. The United Nations is, as the Iraqi crisis has shown, a unique and irreplaceable instrument for achieving through diplomacy what the world demands. A stronger United Nations can do even more for the United States and for the rest of the world. I am now happy to take your questions. PH: Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General. As I said, please line up behind the two mikes and give your name and affiliation. QUESTION: I am from ITAR-TASS News Agency, the Russian news agency. How would you assess the contribution of Russia to the peace process and to what we have today? That is the first question, and the second one is, there were rumours and information that you are going to come to Moscow recently. Is that true, and if yes, then when? S-G: I think by the peace process you mean the Iraqi peace accords. Russia played a very important role, and right from the beginning sought a diplomatic solution, sending a Deputy Foreign Minister as an envoy, and he worked very hard at getting an agreement. In fact, he stayed on the ground for about a month. When I got there, he was still on the ground, and he was able to brief me on his efforts. I was also in touch with Foreign Minister Primakov and President Yeltsin, as I was with other leaders around the world in my preparation for the trip. So Russia did play an important role. Yes, I do intend to go to Moscow, and I will be in Moscow at the beginning of April, and again to ensure that we all stand together on this Iraqi crisis and send a message to the Iraqi leadership that they have signed an agreement and the whole international community intends to hold them to their fulfilment. QUESTION: Good morning, Mr. SecretaryGeneral. Crystal Wright from the Fox News Channel, and I have two questions for you. You mentioned in your opening remarks that the President reiterated to you in public and private that he wants to resolve the issue of the arrears. Now yesterday a group of House Republicans came out very loudly, saying that they’re going to tie this legislation with family planning and that they gave the President a deal last year, and he turned it down, he didn’t want to cooperate. Has the President given you assurances that he’s going to yield some ground on this issue and really try to

free up these arrears and meet the House Republicans sort of halfway on this? And my second question to you is, do you think it’s appropriate, in light of the fact that the United States has so many back dues owed to the United Nations, for them to be so vocal in this negotiation with Iraq and the standoff? S-G: On the first question, let me say that it is internal United States politics, and I would prefer not to be drawn into it. What I can say is that not a cent of the amount of money due to the United Nations that we are discussing is intended for abortion or any abortion-related issue. Most of it is for payment of peacekeeping arrears, is for us to reimburse governments that have put men and women in harm’s way so that this world would be a better place. These are the countries that offered troops for operations in places like Bosnia, Mozambique, Haiti and elsewhere. So, I will leave the American politicians, the Administration and the Congress to sort out this internal abortion issue. What I am interested in is that at the end of the day that this is sorted out, the right thing is done and the United Nations is paid. Because by withholding the funds, I think the United Nations [sic] is offending friends and foes alike. And even allies like the European Union issued a strong statement last year when the payment was not made, saying that by the way, that the withholding of payment is destroying trust among nations. And I think that was a strong statement. You will recall that the previous Foreign Minister, Malcolm Rifkind, from the General Assembly podium said there can be no representation without taxation. And, in fact, you have to know that Mrs. Albright was very quick, she came back with a quick retort—said that Congress has allowed the United Kingdom to crack a joke they’ve been waiting for more than 200 years to crack. QUESTION: And the second question? S-G: Your second question, please remind me. QUESTION: Even though it’s appropriate . . . S-G: Oh, yes, on Iraq. I think the United States does have a right to speak about Iraq. First of all, it was a country that committed troops on the ground. It was a country that was perhaps much more exposed, and a country that also led the alliance and is a permanent member of the Security Council. But I think its voice would even be clearer and louder if it paid its way. But it does have the right to speak. QUESTION: You will soon be visiting some countries in the Middle East, and the perception

12 March 1998 • 349 there is that there is a double standard as far as the implementation of the United Nations resolutions, Security Council resolutions in particular. What are you going to tell the leaders in these countries about the role of the United Nations now that you just said that the United Nations is indispensable in keeping peace? Why the Middle East problem is far from the United Nations? Also I want—if you can—you’re going to visit Egypt, meeting with President Mubarak. Would you elaborate a little bit about what are the topics you want to discuss there. S-G: Let me first address the perception of a double standard. I know that a perception in some circumstances becomes a reality. First of all, there is a qualitative difference between the United Nations resolutions affecting Iraq and the ones dealing with Lebanon and Israeli-Syrian relations. The Iraqi resolution is under Chapter VII: an enforcement resolution. Apart from that, there is a history. We know what happened in the region. We know the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and what the international community had to do to restore normalcy. And so I think we need to look at the facts. There are differences here. On the question of the Israeli-Palestinian and, if I may add, the Syrian-Lebanese track, the Security Council and the United Nations have not been absent. We have passed our resolutions 425 (1978) and 338 (1973), and we have troops on the ground. In fact, I’ll be visiting the United Nations troops on the Lebanese-Israeli border. I’ll visit them on the Golan Heights. And I’ll see our people in Jerusalem. So the United Nations has been present, but when it comes to mediation, the parties have agreed on a mediator, and that is the United States. The process is at an impasse, and every effort is being made by President Clinton and Mrs. Albright to break this impasse. And I was able to discuss some of these issues with the President, Mrs. Albright and Mr. Sandy Berger, and Secretary of Defense Cohen. So efforts are being made to break the impasse. In Egypt I will discuss with President Mubarak the Iraqi settlement and the need for all of us to keep the pressure on President Saddam Hussein to implement the agreement that we agreed to, as well as to discuss the Middle East process and to hear what he has to say. QUESTION [in French]: Quel est le rôle précis de ces diplomates qui vont participer dans les inspections des sites présidentiels? La c’est ma première question. La deuxième, comme on sait

que le Sénateur Helms, en fait, a été assez critique envers les Nations Unies, et que vous l’avez rencontré hier, est-ce qu’il y a eu une évolution dans sa position? Est-ce que vous avez des promesses concrètes par rapport au paiement des arriérés américains vis-à-vis les Nations Unies? S-G: I think there are two questions. The first question is what will be the role of the diplomats who will be attached to the inspectors when it comes to the inspection of the eight presidential sites? And the second question is, you saw Senator Helms yesterday, he has been a bit critical about the United Nations, did he give you firm and concrete promises about settling the debt with the United Nations? [In French] En ce qui concerne la première question, ces diplomates vont jouer les rôles d’observateurs. C’est des experts qui vont organiser les inspections. Des diplomates vont observer les deux côtés: pour s’assurer que l’Iraq respectent sérieusement ses engagements et que les inspecteurs des Nations Unies se comportent comme il faut en ce qui concerne les sites présidentiels. J’ai eu une discussion très amicale avec le Sénateur Helms hier. Evidemment, il a toujours certaines questions en ce qui concerne les Nations Unies. Mais il est prêt à pousser pour les paiements, disons l’accord qui était arrêté entre lui et le Sénateur Biden l’année dernière, dans lequel les États-Unis paieront 926 millions de dollars aux Nations Unies sous certaines conditions. Et donc il est prêt à avancer, et j’espère que d’autres vont travailler avec lui. Et on a eu une réunion très correcte, très amicale. Et j’espère que cette année ils vont payer. Basically, I just said that the diplomats who are going on the inspection will play the role of observers in assuring that Iraq keeps its promises, and that we on our side are sensitive to the fact that we are operating in a presidential site. On the question of Senator Helms, I indicated that we had a very friendly discussion, and the Senator has indicated that he wants to push for the Helms-Biden bill which was agreed to last year and which would release $926 million to the United Nations with all sorts of conditions and benchmarks. QUESTION: Even though you’ve been in this country a long time, it’s possible that some people may not feel that they know a lot about you. If you could be reflective just for a moment, what are some of the forces that shaped your life and particularly your approach to handling crises?

350 • 12 March 1998

S-G: That’s a tough question. It’s always so tough to talk about yourself. You have to be careful not to be boastful, apart from the fact that I’m a bit bashful about this sort of thing. Let me say that I think I have travelled the world. I’ve worked and lived on three continents. My early years were shaped in Africa, in Ghana. I was growing up doing the years of the struggle for independence. So as a teenager, as a young man, I saw lots of change taking place around me—and major changes, where the colonial Power was handing over the country to what we called then “freedom fighters”, where people like Nkrumah and others came from jail and became prime ministers and presidents. And so you grow up believing that change is possible. That all is possible, and that one can dare to make a difference, one can dare change. And that spirit is helpful. One is not easily intimidated or impressed by threats and this sort of thing. Then, of course, I’ve also had the opportunity to study and work in America and in Europe. I’ve also worked in the Middle East, in Egypt and in Somalia and others, and so you learn to appreciate and respect other cultures. Having worked with 185 countries over time, you also learn to raise issues with different nationalities. The way I would raise an issue and try to convince the Chinese about something would be quite different from the way I would try to do it with you or with an Iraqi or with a Russian, and those aspects also help. And I also try to respect those I deal with regardless of their rank, and I treat everybody from [unintelligible] to President with respect. I consult, but at the end of the day I have to reach deep inside myself to find inspiration to take the right decision. This is a very lonely position, but there’s lots of support and lots of encouragement, and with that one gets the feeling that perhaps this impossible job is doable. You learn—I told you about a lesson I learned as a youngster in Minnesota, for example, as a young, tropical person, my first winter ever in Minnesota. We had the same syllabus as the British, and I think some of my British colleagues, Sir Evelyn Leopold and others, we had to do the same syllabus as the British students; we did the Cambridge School Certificate, the Ordinary and the Advanced level, so you read about the seasons. I knew all about the winters; I knew about spring and the others, but in my own country we had two seasons—wet and dry. But intellectually, I thought I knew about it until I got to Minnesota. The first thing I didn’t like was that I had to put on layers

and layers of clothing to keep warm, but I decided that was useful enough. But there was one item that I was determined not to use, the earmuffs. I thought they were inelegant and ugly, until one day I went out to get something to eat and I almost lost my ears. I went out and bought the biggest pair I could find the next day and walked away with a lesson that you don’t walk into any situation and pretend you know better than the natives. That lesson has stayed with me all the days since. QUESTION (BBC): Mr. Secretary-General, you are going to visit the United Nations troops in south Lebanon. There’s a debate now about 425 and 426, and Israel is saying it’s willing to withdraw. Is change possible? Do you think you can change anything there, can you play a role in asking Israelis or playing a role between Israelis and Lebanese and ask them to leave as the Lebanese are asking without negotiations, unconditionally? S-G: Yesterday, there was a report emanating from Jerusalem that I was going to Jerusalem with a seven-point plan to try to unblock the impasse between Israel and Lebanon and that the Israeli troops will withdraw from Lebanon and the Lebanese army will fill the vacuum and the United Nations troops will be strengthened. There is no such plan, as far as I know; I’m carrying no such plan. But whenever I’m in the region, I do talk to all the leaders about the peace process and the need for us to double our efforts for peace. I would hope that as the United States works hard at breaking the impasse and getting the parties to the table, the parties will have the courage and the wisdom required to take the tough decisions. At the end of the day, it is the parties that have to do it; it is the parties that have to take those hard decisions that would ensure peace and eventual prosperity in their region. We have two examples in the region. Egypt and Israel were able to talk and resolve this. Of course, there were Security Council resolutions. Jordan and Israel talked and resolved it. I would encourage the other parties to really engage each other constructively, seriously. I know it is difficult. It requires courage and vision and wisdom, and I think they are capable of it. I would urge them to do it and work with the United States Government in resolving these issues. PH: I know it’s just a coincidence, Mr. Secretary-General, but the Ambassador of Egypt just walked in as you were talking. Welcome, Sir; glad to have you. QUESTION: Good morning, Mr. SecretaryGeneral. My name is Hannah Sayjacks, and I’m

12 March 1998 • 351 here on behalf of the Women’s International Business Directory, and I’m wondering if you feel as I do that if women gain greater financial and business opportunities in the global market place, this will ultimately lead to greater conflict resolution and world peace. S-G: I would go beyond that. I would not limit it to economic independence; I would limit it to their role in everything we do in political decisionmaking, in the work of the United Nations. I’ve started. What’s better, I have a Deputy here who is making a dynamic input into that. I think the role of women is extremely important. It has been demonstrated, with the micro-credits and some of the efforts that are going on around the world, that women, given the chance, given the credit, given business advice, can do as well as, if not better than, men. FOLLOW-UP REMARK: Well, I’m happy you feel that way. I have a copy of my Women’s International Business Directory for you. And don’t worry about Senator Helms; I’ll soften him up with my chocolate cake. S-G: Good! Thank you very much. QUESTION: Danny Golito, Market News Service. Looking to the future, back on Iraq, since you signed the agreement with the Iraqis, to what extent would you be out in front if there are further difficulties in implementing the agreement? Would you wait for the United States to complain and then react to that, or would you jump in front? To what extent are you responsible for the agreement? S-G: We are all responsible for the agreement. I negotiated the agreement with President Saddam Hussein, but the agreement was unanimously endorsed by the 15 members of the Security Council on behalf of the 185 Member States of the United Nations. So that agreement is no longer an agreement of the Secretary-General; it’s an agreement of the entire international community, and we all need to make it work. In fact, on my trip to the Middle East, this is one of the issues I will discuss, and on my trips to Moscow, Beijing and London we will discuss this. I have made it clear, even in preparing for my trip to Baghdad I got lots of help from President Mubarak, King Hussein and the Turkish Foreign Minister; from the French President and the Foreign Minister, from the Russian President and the Foreign Minister, as well as from the United States and British military presence. So all forces were brought to bear and I could tell President Saddam Hussein that I’m speaking in the name of the international commu-

nity and they’re all with me. We have the responsibility, all of us, to hold his hand to the fire. We also need to put in place mechanisms that will allow us to resolve conflicts as they arise, rather than allow them to fester and to develop into major crises, and to ensure that we have better communication with the Iraqis and that some of these small crises can be nipped in the bud. I have just appointed a Special Representative for Baghdad who will be my man and will provide a political link with the political leadership so that we can try to smooth out some of these things and avoid any repetition of what we went through. FOLLOW-UP REMARK: How does that work in practice? Who is the first sentinel in this process, the first person, the first layer once there are difficulties. . . . S-G: It depends. We have several programmes in Iraq. If there are difficulties on the inspection side, the man in charge is Richard Butler, and he will have to try to resolve it. If at any time he thinks he needs my help or it is necessary for them to bring the attention to my level, I will try to resolve it. If I am not able to do it, then, of course, the Council is the one that is responsible. My role is one of good offices. We also have the huge “oil-for-food” programme, and our man on the ground there is a man called Dennis Halliday, who oversees the oil for food. All the other United Nations agencies—welfare programme, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and all of them—are operating there. The Special Representative, who will be at the Under-Secretary-General level, will also ensure that our other United Nations humanitarian activities are effectively coordinated. QUESTION (Moroccan News Agency): I will ask you the question in English, though I could do it in French. I have a question on the Western Sahara. In recent months, the POLISARIO has been obstructing the identification process leading to a referendum. What is your view on that, Sir? According to news reports, your Special Envoy to the Sahara, Mr. James Baker, is said to be considering convening a second round of talks in Houston next April. Is that correct? S-G: First of all, let me pay tribute to the former Secretary of State, Jim Baker, for the outstanding work he’s done on the Western Sahara and that issue by getting the parties to agree to move forward and really getting them to understand that some of the difficulties they had could be worked out. Since his involvement, we’ve resumed the

352 • 12 March 1998

identification process and have identified thousands of people. We have had some hiccups and we do have some problems that we are working on, but I don’t think they are insurmountable at this stage. The future is something that you cannot know, but at this stage, I don’t think they are insurmountable. Mr. Baker is still engaged in the process and it has always been agreed that, if necessary, he can bring the parties together for another meeting. And so the possibility of a meeting [in Houston] cannot be excluded. QUESTION: I speak on behalf of many parents—who probably most of us are—you stand as a model for all of us to pursue peace. S-G: You flatter me. QUESTION: Thank you for pursuing your dreams. As a mother myself, I’m trying to build a kind of peaceful world in my small community. I’d like to know if you have a message for the youth of today and tomorrow to perhaps pursue a peaceful and more understanding global society. S-G: I think my message to the youth of today is for them to understand that the world is a diverse place and that there are many cultures. We need to learn about other cultures and respect other cultures. We need to respect and accept the religions of others. We need to respect what is sacred to others. And we need to understand that we live in an interdependent world, if not a global village, and we should encourage the children to think beyond their own national boundaries, to understand that, in the world today and in the world they are going to live in, we have lots of cross-border issues that will need to have cross-border solutions, which implies greater cooperation amongst nations and amongst people, and that tolerance and diversity are to be celebrated, are to be embraced, and not to be rejected. QUESTION: I have a basic question about the Iraqi deal. You clinched the deal with the Iraqis in the name of the United Nations, with the full support of the Security Council. Now, Mr. SecretaryGeneral, should the Iraqis fail to comply this time, would you support taking military action against the Iraqis in the name of the United Nations, not just the United States and the United Kingdom? S-G: I think the resolutions are Council resolutions and I have indicated that, if Iraq were to fail to comply, it may not have a second chance for diplomacy. I have also indicated that, if it became necessary to use force, some sort of consultation with Council members will be required and I maintain that position. QUESTION: In your discussions with President

Clinton and Secretary Albright, did you talk about the situation in Kosovo, and what is the position of the United Nations on the issue? S-G: Yes, we did discuss Kosovo. We did discuss the latest meeting of the Contact Group in London and reaffirmed the decisions they took regarding Kosovo, and also their request that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights play a bigger role in Kosovo. We also discussed the United Nations military presence in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the fact that the crisis in Kosovo may have an impact, not just there, but possibly in Macedonia and in Albania, and the desirability of maintaining the Force, because the last decision the Council took was that we should withdraw the Force in August. But given the current developments, I intend to review the situation and make a fresh recommendation to the Council. My sense is that, given this crisis, the Council is not going to insist or push for withdrawal of the troops in August. QUESTION: I want to come back to the question of the payment of the debt by the United States. Did you talk about possible consequences it would have if the debt was not paid back? What would these consequences be and do you have minimum expectations in the very near future about United States payments? S-G: We did talk about consequences. We did talk about a possible application of Article 19, where governments that are behind in their payments lose their vote. In fact, I have the UnderSecretary-General for Management here with me —Mr. Connor, who unfortunately is not able to join us here this morning— and he is also someone who knows something about figures as the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Price Waterhouse. He did indicate that, if we do not get about a $600-million payment this year, the United States in January could come into default, the application of Article 19 would kick in, and may lose its vote. Apart from paying the arrears, it is essential that at least $600 million be paid because we don’t want to see the United States in that situation. I’m sure the United States Government would not want to be in that situation nor would the people of America want to be in a situation where the United States loses its vote in the United Nations because of lack of payment.

16 March 1998 Secretary-General Stresses Need to Uphold Universal Declaration on Human Rights

16 March 1998 • 353 Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6487, HR/4355); human rights Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the opening of the 54th session of the Commission on Human Rights, in Geneva. Je suis très heureux d’être parmi vous aujourd’hui. La présente session de la Commission des droits de l’homme fera date: elle coïncide non seulement avec le cinquantenaire de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme, mais aussi avec l’examen de suivi consacré à la Déclaration et au Programme d’action de Vienne, cinq ans après leur adoption. La Déclaration universelle et les principes intangibles qu’elle consacre sont le fruit des efforts inlassables et de la volonté résolue d’hommes et de femmes issus des quatre coins du monde. Aujourd’hui, ces principes, qui sont devenus l’aune à laquelle on mesure l’état d’avancement des sociétés, sont connus et reconnus par tous les habitants de la planète. Bien sûr, ils ne savent pas nécessairement que la Déclaration universelle a été adoptée le 10 décembre 1948; ils ne savent pas toujours qu’au cours de ces 50 dernières années la communauté internationale s’est dotée d’un dispositif complexe destiné à promouvoir et à protéger les droits de l’homme. Mais ils savent que la dignité des êtres humains passe par le respect de leurs droits. All people share a desire to live free from the horrors of violence, famine, disease, torture and discrimination. They believe that all individuals have the right to express themselves freely, to develop their talents, to pursue their own aspirations and those of the community. They know that these rights belong not to a chosen few, but to all people. The people of the world have made human rights their own. All along, the growing support for the Declaration has given its message new life. It has extended its reach far and wide. It has reaffirmed its universality. The Declaration has served as a model for domestic constitutions and laws, regulations and policies, and practices of governance that protect human rights. Its provisions have supplied countless reference points for national court, parliaments, governments, lawyers and non-governmental organizations throughout the world. This wave of support, which has given the Declaration its place in our collective consciousness, is living proof that it speaks to a diverse world. All values must find expression in the language of the people they are intended to serve and protect.

The fiftieth anniversary motto of “all human rights for all” sums up the challenge we face today. Yes, the Declaration serves as our common proclamation of human rights. But unfortunately, it has yet to serve as our common call to action. Human rights violations remain a widespread reality which we have not been able, nor in some cases willing, to stamp out. The reasons for the gap between rhetoric and reality, between our words and our actions, are complex, but we must address them if we are to realize the vision which our forefathers gave us through the words of the Declaration. We should now push for the ratification of human rights treaties to make human rights legally binding the world over. The High Commissioner and I have addressed all heads of State and government to reiterate that call by the World Conference in Vienna. The United Nations human rights programme stands ready to support steps taken by Member States to that end. I see the role of the United Nations, and my own as Secretary-General, as central in expressing, promoting and safeguarding human rights. In the months leading up to my election, much was heard about fiscal discipline and administrative efficiency. Yet as I said upon taking up the job, what is and must remain our guiding star is the moral dimension of our work. To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration, I have broached the subject of human rights before audiences everywhere, from Tehran to Shanghai. Take my own continent, Africa, as a case in point. When I went to Harare to address the Organization of African Unity (OAU) last year, I had a difficult message to take to them, but at the same time a very simple one. I would like to share some of it with you now. In the past five decades, Africa has been through a series of transformations. First, there was decolonization and the struggle against apartheid. Then there was a period marked and marred by civil war and military rule. Now, I believe, it is time for Africa’s third wave—a wave of peace rooted in democracy and human rights. The success of the third wave begins with a simple proposition—the will of the people. All across the world, the evils of coups are becoming increasingly recognized. What better proof of that than the return to Freetown a week ago of President Ahmad Tejan-Kabba, following the removal from power of the illegal military junta. Yet some Africans still view the concern for human rights as a rich man’s luxury for which

354 • 16 March 1998

Africa is not ready, or even as a conspiracy imposed by the industrialized West. I find these thoughts demeaning—demeaning of the yearning for human dignity that resides in every African heart. Do not African mothers weep when their sons and daughters are killed or tortured by agents of oppressive rule? Do not African fathers suffer when their children are unjustly sent to jail? Is not Africa as a whole the poorer when just one of its voices is silenced? Human rights, I told the audience in Harare, are African rights. They are Asian rights; they are European rights; they are American rights. They belong to no government, they are limited to no continent, for they are fundamental to humankind itself. And they are the concern of all levels and sectors of society. What Mrs. Robinson calls the “bottom-up” approach means action at grass-roots and national levels. “All human rights for all” requires national programmes and capacities. It means joint action by government and civil society. It implies a responsibility shared by institutions and individuals. This gathering understands, perhaps more clearly than any other, that for the victims of human rights violations, human rights actions usually come too late. Is it enough to tell these victims that we have done our best? Is it not better to act to prevent these violations from happening? I am here today to tell you that the next century must be the age of prevention. I am here to say that we can no longer claim that a lack of available resources prevents us from acting in time. Today’s human rights violations are the causes of tomorrow’s conflicts. This vicious circle of violations and conflict, leading to new violations, can and must be stopped. We have almost unlimited information sources to tell us about events around the world. We have reports submitted to the Commission, to the General Assembly, to the High Commissioner. They should be seen as diagnostic tools and early warning signals. They must not be disregarded. The international community must summon the will to use this information to act in time. The international community has yet to absorb fully the implications of the link between democracy, development and human rights. That link was stressed by the World Conference. It has been demonstrated by the experiences of all nations. Those experiences, highlighted sometimes by remarkable achievements, sometimes by tragic events, teach us that sustainable development is

impossible without the full participation of the people, that it is impossible in the absence of full human rights. Human rights are integral to peace and security, economic development and social equity. That is because human life and human development are at the heart of every mission and every programme that we pursue. Human rights propel peace and development, reinforce the rule of law and release without inhibition the creativity of individuals and societies alike. Indeed, only now are we beginning to understand how much our approach to peacekeeping, humanitarian affairs and sustainable development will be altered and enriched by taking in the human rights factor. It is not an easy task, but the consequences of failure will be harder still—for us, for our children and for our children’s children. Our forefathers built the United Nations to save succeeding generations from holocaust and war, horrors which brought untold sorrow to humankind. The Universal Declaration was born out of that experience as a mission statement never to let these horrors happen again. We cannot afford indifference, individually or collectively. Let us heed the unforgettable warning of the German theologian Martin Niemoller: “In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. “Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.” If we do not speak out, individually and collectively, today and every day when our conscience is challenged by inhumanity and intolerance, we will not have done our duty to ourselves or to succeeding generations. Now is the time to ask not only how the Declaration can protect our rights, but how we can rightly protect the Declaration. Half a century after the adoption of the Declaration, it is time to embark on a new stage in our journey to bring its message to life for all people. Today, I call upon all of you to seize the day which this anniversary presents. This is our moment to chart the course of human rights for the next 50 years and beyond.

17 March 1998 • 355 Let this be the year in which the world once again looks to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as it did 50 years ago, for a common standard of humanity for all of humanity.

17 March 1998 The Situation in Afghanistan and Its Implications for International Peace and Security

Report to the Security Council and General Assembly (SC, GA, S/1998/222, A/52/826); Afghanistan Excerpts from a longer report by the SecretaryGeneral on the situation in Afghanistan. This is an example of the use of his “good offices.” I. Introduction

1. The present report is submitted pursuant to paragraph 19 of General Assembly resolution 52/211 B of 19 December 1997, in which the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to report to it every three months during its fifty-second session on the progress of the United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan (UNSMA). The present report, which covers developments since the submission of the report of the Secretary-General of 14 November 1997 (A/52/682-S/1997/894), is also submitted in response to requests by the Security Council for regular information on the main developments in Afghanistan. 2. On 29 December 1997, Mr. Norbert H. Holl completed his assignment as Head of UNSMA. Mr. James C. Ngobi, Deputy Head of UNSMA, has since that time directed UNSMA activities on the ground as its Acting Head. Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi will continue to serve as my Special Envoy for Afghanistan, while also carrying out other functions for the United Nations at my request from time to time. Together with the Department of Political Affairs, he will continue to oversee and guide the activities of UNSMA, including its coordination of and cooperation in humanitarian and other United Nations activities in Afghanistan. He will also undertake diplomatic initiatives, as appropriate, aimed at bringing peace to Afghanistan. I have asked him to pay special attention to diplomatic contacts with the Governments of countries that have influence with Afghan factions and parties, in particular those with common borders with Afghanistan. Mr. Brahimi is scheduled to visit the region soon to discuss with the Afghan parties and the Governments of the immediate neighbours of

Afghanistan the current situation and the prospects for the future. II. Activities of the Special Mission

3. As mandated by the General Assembly in its resolution 52/211 B, UNSMA continued its efforts to facilitate national reconciliation and reconstruction in Afghanistan and explored opportunities for bringing the factions together and starting a dialogue. One example of this was the effort by UNSMA to build a political dialogue on the agreements reached by several of the factions to exchange prisoners of war. Unfortunately, this effort was frustrated when disputes arose between the Taliban and General Abdul Rashid Dostum, resulting in the de facto detention of General Dostum’s negotiator. The details of the prisoner exchanges are described in section III of the present report. . . . 5. UNSMA made special efforts to broaden its consultations with a wide variety of Afghan and other influential individuals and groups in Pakistan. These consultations included meetings with non-partisan Afghans advancing a number of their own peace proposals, including the organization of a loya jirgah (grand assembly). UNSMA made clear that all serious ideas were welcome to the extent that they could contribute to a peaceful settlement of the country’s civil strife. . . . Humanitarian Situation

32. The Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello, visited Afghanistan from 20 to 25 February 1998. He visited Kabul, Faizabad and Kandahar and met with senior local authorities and aid workers. Mr. Vieira de Mello underlined the importance of improved security and of a unified, coherent and consistent approach by United Nations agencies in the implementation of humanitarian assistance programmes. 33. The deteriorating security conditions for United Nations personnel continued to be of serious concern to me. I was particularly disturbed to learn that Taliban aircraft bombed Bamyan airport on 31 December and 1 January, when United Nations personnel and aircraft were on the ground. On the first occasion, WFP was initiating an airlift of emergency food supplies to Bamyan, with the cooperation of the Pakistani authorities. On the second occasion, a United Nations team was at Bamyan airport to examine the security conditions. These attacks not only prevented the delivery of urgently needed food to 160,000 people who rely on United Nations assistance, but also jeop-

356 • 17 March 1998

ardized the safety of humanitarian workers. In both cases, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance to Afghanistan had obtained flight clearance from the Taliban in advance. . . . V. Activities at the United Nations

40. I stressed in my previous report (A/52/682S/1997/894) that in view of the unabated supply of arms and the divergence of ways in which the countries concerned seemed to be dealing with the Afghan conflict, a solid international framework must be established in order to address the external aspects of the Afghan question. It was in this context that the Special Envoy and Mr. Kieran Prendergast, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, convened on 3 March the 4th meeting of the “Six plus Two”. The group comprises the neighbours of Afghanistan—China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan—as well as the Russian Federation and the United States. . . . VI. Observations and Conclusions

46. I note with increasing alarm that, in recent months, the repeated mutual allegations of mass killings by the Afghan factions have heightened still further ethnic and sectarian tensions in Afghanistan. These developments warrant urgent action on the part of the United Nations; credible efforts should be made immediately in order to separate fact from unsubstantiated rumour. The need to verify accusations of human rights violations is indispensable, not only because of the gravity of the acts, but also to demonstrate United Nations responsiveness and even-handedness visà-vis the Afghan factions. . . . 49. The objective of these investigations, to be organized and conducted by the High Commissioner, would be to establish, to the extent possible, the facts with respect to the allegations. These investigations should cover, but not be limited to, all the allegations mentioned in section IV of the present report. It should be noted at this juncture that in order to conduct the investigations it will be indispensable for the United Nations to be given the cooperation of all the Afghan parties concerned. The findings of these investigations will be reported to the General Assembly and the Security Council. 50. In the meantime, I am obliged to repeat the plea already made so many times by my predecessors and me: that those Member States concerned should heed the wish of the ever more desperate Afghan people that they cease supplying war-making materials to the Afghan factions.

51. In conclusion, I wish to take this opportunity to express my thanks to my Special Envoy, Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, for his continuing efforts and dedication to the Afghan peace process. I also wish to thank the personnel of UNSMA and its Acting Head, Mr. James C. Ngobi, for their dedication and perseverance in carrying out the tasks entrusted to them in extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances.

17 March 1998 Secretary-General Says Review of International Disarmament Mechanisms Needed

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6489, DC/2598); disarmament Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the 30th session of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, in Geneva. It gives me great pleasure to join you for this thirtieth session of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters. The Board is a valuable think-tank, a rich blend of diplomats and scholars, and I am grateful to be able to call on your collective experience. I should like to recognize a number of colleagues who are here today: • Ambassador André Erdös, who will chair the sessions of the Board in 1998; • Ambassador Mitsuro Donowaki, who performed admirably as Chairman of the Board’s last session; • Mr. Vladimir Petrovsky, who, as you know, serves as Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva and Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament; • Dr. Patricia Lewis, who began her assignment as Director of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research last October. She faces the challenge of upholding UNIDIR’s tradition of high-quality research while working with a greatly reduced pool of human and financial resources; • And the most recent addition to my senior management team, Mr. Jayantha Dhanapala, who has joined me as Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs. I have also appointed him as a Commissioner of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) with responsibility for the special group that will conduct entries into presidential sites in Iraq under the Memorandum of Understanding agreed during my recent mission

17 March 1998 • 357 to Baghdad and subsequently endorsed by the Security Council. Recent events in Iraq show the United Nations at work in many ways: as an impartial voice for the peaceful resolution of disputes; as a provider of humanitarian assistance; and as a peacekeeper along the Iraq-Kuwait border. But the core of the multifaceted involvement in Iraq is disarmament: the efforts of the United Nations Special Commission, in tandem with the International Atomic Energy Agency, to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to neutralize a grave threat to international peace and security. So the Board is meeting at a time when the attention of the world is focused on disarmament issues with particular intensity. Let us make the most of this moment to advance the disarmament agenda on all fronts, from weapons of mass destruction to small arms. As you know, the re-establishment of a Department for Disarmament Affairs under an Under-Secretary-General was a key element of the programme of reform I have put in place since taking office. It derives from my vision of the disarmament work of the Organization, a vision which places disarmament at the centre of our mission of peace and development. That work has four main components. First are preventive disarmament measures, such as dialogue and transparency, which build confidence. The Register of Conventional Arms is one such measure. The Register keeps track of international transfers of major conventional weapons systems; it is a spotlight designed to help avoid costly and destabilizing arms build-ups. All major arms suppliers and most recipient States now participate. Regional forums such as the Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa can assist in formulating other preventive measures. Interest in such cooperation and dialogue is growing. The Organization of American States, for example, recently adopted a treaty banning illicit trafficking in firearms. A second element of our disarmament work is norm-setting. The United Nations plays a crucial role through deliberative bodies, such as the First Committee and Disarmament Commission, and the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, the Conference on Disarmament. The Organization also actively supports efforts to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation, including

the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which is the core of the non-proliferation regime, and negotiations on a verification protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention. It closely cooperates with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-TestBan Treaty Organization. And it has taken on additional tasks in the international community’s struggle to ban anti-personnel mines, most recently under the new Ottawa Convention. A third component consists of practical measures carried out in post-conflict settings. These include disarming former combatants and reintegrating them into civil society, and cleaning up the remnants of weapons. In Mali, a request for assistance in the collection of arms several years back, an effort renowned for the great bonfire of arms two years ago in Timbuktu, has developed into an integrated security and development project. And fourth, we engage in post-conflict enforcement of disarmament to ensure that hostilities do not arise again. The work in Iraq under the auspices of the Security Council exemplifies this work. I have offered this short survey not just to underline the variety of United Nations disarmament activities, but to ask the Board to examine how this work is carried out and whether it can be done more effectively and efficiently. You have a full agenda here in Geneva. I would welcome your views about streamlining and making more effective the work of the First Committee and Disarmament Commission, and how to bridge the gap between the views on the agenda, objectives and dates for convening a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. I urge you to give some thought to the situation in the Conference on Disarmament, which is searching for ways to continue the process of negotiating disarmament agreements. The Conference’s potential in this regard remains a source of hope. The Conference deserves our support and I encourage its members, no matter how painstaking the process may be, to persevere in their efforts. You will also be hearing from UnderSecretary-General Dhanapala about his vision for the Department for Disarmament Affairs. And as you assess his reorganization plans, perhaps it is only fair that the Board also take a hard look at its own work.

358 • 17 March 1998

Before I close, let me offer you this thought. Since the Berlin Wall came down, 4 million people have died in armed conflicts. A figure like that should, it seems to me, make us look at how effective [sic] the international community’s disarmament mechanisms are, not as an intellectual exercise, but with a view to making the United Nations better able to prevent conflict. If it cannot manage that, then the Organization must do everything possible to limit the damage and foster national reconciliation and reconstruction once the conflict is over. That—no more, no less—is what disarmament is all about. It is up to us to make the extra effort to turn this planet into a more peaceful, a safer and a more prosperous place. I wish you every success in your work.

18 March 1998 Letter (UN archives); UN Administrative Tribunal Letter from the Secretary-General to the president of the International Court of Justice, Stephen M. Schwebel. Excellency, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 18 February 1998 in which you make reference to General Assembly resolution 52/166 of 15 December 1997 which provides that the competence of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal may be extended to the staff of the Registry of the International Court of Justice upon the exchange of letters between the President of the Court and the Secretary-General establishing the relevant conditions. In this regard you propose that applications submitted to the United Nations Administrative Tribunal by the staff of the Registry by virtue of Article 11, paragraph 7, of the Staff Regulations for the Registry be subject to the conditions referred to in your letter. I am pleased to confirm that the conditions stipulated in your letter are acceptable and that, therefore, your letter and the present reply to it shall constitute the exchange of letters contemplated in General Assembly resolution 52/166 which will enter into force upon the date of this reply. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

20 March 1998 Secretary-General Speaks at Inauguration of UN House in Beirut

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6497); Middle East

Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the inauguration of the United Nations House, in Beirut. I am delighted to be with you in this magnificent house. First and foremost, I want to offer the heartfelt thanks of the United Nations to the Government of Lebanon. The move to this building would not have been possible without your good will, generosity and commitment. As I indicated at the outset, this, to me, is more than a building of bricks and mortar. As many of you will know, we in the New York Headquarters frequently refer to the building in which we work as our “house”. That is no coincidence. The idea of a house of all nations, held together by a common bond and structure, helps us to visualize the very concept upon which the United Nations was built. The house in Beirut, which will bring together staff from many parts of the United Nations family, is an extension of that vision. It is an extension of the principles I spelled out for a revitalized and reformed United Nations last year. For the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), this is nothing less than a homecoming. During the quarter of a century it has been in existence, the Commission has moved no fewer than six times. Indeed, the life of the Commission has been a veritable Odyssey through the Middle East, reflecting the changes and unrest in the region. Today, 25 years after it was first established in this city as the successor to the United Nations Economic and Social Office in Beirut, ESCWA has returned for good. It has come home. And I have every faith that this will be the permanent headquarters it is intended to be. I do not say that lightly. I see this homecoming as a symbol of the peace, stability and peaceful coexistence of cultures that has come back to Lebanon. I see it as a manifestation of how this unique city is returning to its former glory as an economic, cultural and political centre of the region. And I see it as a beacon of hope that peace and stability may one day take hold in this whole region of the Middle East. Like all truly great cities, Beirut has a soul that remains undefeated by any destruction, any division or discord that may have befallen it over the years. Since my arrival here, I have seen the tremendous progress which you—the people and Government of Lebanon—have made to overcome the ravages of civil war. I have seen what a talent-

20 March 1998 • 359 ed, diligent and vibrant people can achieve through sheer willpower and ingenuity. I have seen your impressive achievement in rebuilding your infrastructure, and the promising strides you are making to repair and develop your social structure. On behalf of the United Nations, I pledge that we will do all we can to continue to support you on that journey. Today, as I approached the great horse-shoe that forms the structure of this building, I could see something else: the gateway to a promising future for the entire region—a future that I hope can be built with the help of the United Nations. This is a highly sensitive time in the history of the Middle East. We may at times feel daunted by the difficulties facing us on the road to peace, stability and prosperity—and perhaps understandably so. Let us not forget that the current peace process, which was initiated at the Madrid Conference in 1991, still gives the region the best chance for peace it has ever had. We recall, though it is painful, the price paid by the people of this country—by innocent men, women and children—for the heart-rending civil war that harrowed this nation for all too long; we recall the plight of millions of refugees which continues to this day; we recall the tragedy of Qana less than two years ago. Such events are difficult to understand, harder to accept and impossible to forget. It must never happen again. It is true that the peace process has run into a number of unforeseen difficulties. But this should not be an excuse for abandoning our vision; nor should it be a reason for despair. On the contrary, we must redouble our efforts to restore all the impetus towards peace. As we have seen in the past few weeks, the success of such efforts depends on the will of the parties. I would like to take this opportunity to share with you the nature, the demands and the promise of the agreement I reached with the Government of Iraq. It was after all events in Iraq that compelled me to postpone my visit here, originally due to have taken place last month. I went to Baghdad, with the full authorization of all members of the Security Council, in search of a peaceful solution to the crisis. That crisis has, at least for now, been averted. The mandate of the Security Council has been reaffirmed. The access of the United Nations inspectors has not been only restored, but expanded to include any and all sites. The authority of the

Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) has been acknowledged and strengthened. Whether the threat to international peace and security has been averted for all time is now in the hands of the Iraqi leadership. It is now for them to comply in practice with what they have signed on paper. If they do, it will bring nearer the day when Iraq can fully rejoin the family of nations. In the meantime, the expanded “oil-for-food” programme should help alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people. The agreement reached in Baghdad was neither a “victory” nor a “defeat” for any one person, nation or group of nations. Certainly the United Nations and the world community lost nothing, gave away nothing and conceded nothing of substance. But by halting, at least for now, the renewal of military hostilities in the Persian Gulf, it was a victory for peace, for reason, for the resolution of conflict by diplomacy. We hope for more such resolutions by diplomacy. Recently, the United Nations Security Council voted to renew the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in southern Lebanon. The Council called once again for the full implementation of Security Council resolutions. Yesterday, we marked the twentieth anniversary of resolution 425 (1978). Too many anniversaries have already passed without its implementation. I hope that the day will soon come when resolution 425 is fully implemented, in recognition of the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon. As we stand here in the old quarter of Beirut, we are surrounded by reminders; painful reminders of a difficult past, but also reassuring reminders of an ancient culture, so rich and strong in traditions. The Middle East is the cradle of civilization, with a history stretching back thousands of years. Of all the regions of the world, it is perhaps the most compact and well-defined, characterized by a coherence of language, geography, culture, history, customs and values. And yet, it suffers from a lack of economic and commercial ties among the countries of the region. This is to a large extent what the future of the region should be built on: its ability to establish real and strong economic cooperation. No country today can pursue development in isolation. Globalization is a fact of life. And one of the keys to being a successful player lies in regional cooperation. Only by building up its

360 • 20 March 1998

intraregional cooperation and trade, can the Middle East reach its full potential in the world economy. The ESCWA, as an impartial body promoting universal values, is uniquely qualified to help meet emerging regional and geo-economic challenges. The ESCWA’s position between Europe and Africa makes it a natural gateway between regions. In pursuit of joint action for the benefit of Member States, it extends one hand to the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), and the other to the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). Its work addresses the priority areas of water, energy and transport; it aims to help harmonize policies, legislation and norms; it strives to assist the setting of standards for improving the quality of life. Economic interests can and should play a constructive role in the pursuit of peace and development. After five lost decades of war, conflict and destruction, we are now at long last on the threshold of a new era; an era of cooperation, construction and development that should benefit all peoples in the Middle East. Here, Beirut has a leading role to play. This city has a special place as a hub and heart of the region; this nation’s people is second to none when it comes to business and entrepreneurial leadership. Look around you. It is everywhere. I am confident that you will let your talent inspire the region and the world. And I hope the United Nations can be an effective partner in that process. More than anything, I want to pay tribute today to what you, the people and Government of Lebanon, have already done for yourselves. I would like to do so by recalling a visit to Beirut by one of my predecessors. It happens to have taken place four decades ago this year. When Lebanon teetered on the brink of a civil war in June 1958, Dag Hammarskjold flew in from Cairo to have lunch with Premier Sami es-Sohl. At the end of their meal a huge cake was brought in. On the frosting, around the Lebanese national coat of arms, the cake bore this inscription: “United Nations, save Lebanon”. Hammarskjold responded—loudly, so that the press could hear: “Excellency, I cannot accept this inscription, because it is for Lebanon to save Lebanon”. Lebanon has taken this advice. This nation has saved itself. It has saved its people. And it is saving its future generations. The near miraculous outcome of this rebirth, that unfolds before our

eyes even today, is the result of your own work; your own resilience, convictions and courage. All men and women of hope, wherever they may live, are citizens of Beirut. Therefore, as a hopeful man, I take heart from the words, “Ana Beiruti”. I have every faith that this house will be the enduring and unseverable link between the United Nations and the region. It is my sincere hope that it will also come to embody the shared spirit, the sense of purpose and synergy that exists between us. Thank you.

23 March 1998 Secretary-General Welcomes Step Toward Normalization of Situation in Cambodia

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6498); Cambodia The Secretary-General welcomes the complete amnesty granted by King Norodom Sihanouk to Prince Norodom Ranariddh with the full agreement of their Excellencies Ung Huot and Hun Sen. This is a major step towards the normalization of the situation in Cambodia. It is hoped that it will significantly improve the climate for free and fair elections. As was noted in the recent meeting in Manila of the Friends of Cambodia, the amnesty is an important point in the “Four Pillar Plan” put forward by Japan and endorsed by the Friends. In this connection, the Secretary-General is instructing his Representative in Cambodia to monitor the safety of, and full resumption of political activities by Prince Ranariddh when he returns to Cambodia, in keeping with the letter of guarantees of 22 October addressed to him by Mr. Ung Huot and Samdech Hun Sen.

23 March 1998 Secretary-General Reaffirms UN Support for Palestinian Cause

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6501); Palestinian National Council Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Palestinian National Council, in Gaza. I am honoured and delighted to stand among you today as the first Secretary-General of the United Nations to visit the Palestinian Authority. On behalf of the United Nations, I wish to salute the courage and the persistence of President Arafat and of the entire Palestinian people. By making the bold and difficult choices for peace, you have set

23 March 1998 • 361 sail towards the horizon. History will not deny you a harbour and a home. The voyage that has carried us to this point is a voyage that we have travelled together. At every juncture and every passage, with every challenge and every success, the United Nations has stood by the proponents of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Why? Because we could do no other. Your cause—genuine self-determination for the Palestinian people—is our cause. It is the expression of the most sacred, most enduring and universal principles of our Charter. Today in Gaza, I can declare to you that the bonds between the Palestinian people and the United Nations are stronger than ever. Our commitment to your cause is undiminished, our hopes for your future undimmed. A just and lasting settlement to your challenge—peace with justice for the Palestinian people—will mark a milestone of peace in the history of the United Nations. It must be a settlement based on the principle of land for peace founded on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. Though you have come a long way towards realizing your dream, I know it remains a dream deferred. Though you have made great strides in completing your partnership with Israel, I fear it is a partnership which faces serious challenges. You complain that Israel is not fulfilling her obligations under the Oslo Accords. The Israeli Government, on the other hand, complains that the Palestinian Authority is not doing everything within its power to fulfil its side of the bargain. During my talks of the past few days, I have heard repeated expressions of doubt and scepticism about Israel’s good faith. I shall be hearing the Israeli perspective over the next couple of days. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the respective positions of the two sides, there is clearly a crisis of confidence. But do not despair. Do not waver. And do not falter. Do not succumb to the ways of violence. Do not accept the claims of hatred or the cries of war. They will not prevail. They will only delay the peace that you seek. As long as security is not genuine and is not permanent for one side, it cannot be for the other. I cannot repeat this too often or too strongly. For the resort to violence and the use of terror has set back the achievement of your aspiration for far too long. Neither your friends—and you have many— nor your neighbours will be able to provide the support and the aid you deserve as long as violence is tolerated and not rejected by all.

Only peace, only compromise, only the understanding that two peoples must live—and not die—side by side, will bring peace to this land. Let me repeat: Only peace, only compromise, only the understanding that two peoples must live—and not die—side by side, will bring peace to this land and self-determination for your people. And that peace will only come about if both sides adhere faithfully to the commitments they have made and carry the process through to its conclusion—a comprehensive peace settlement. Chairman Arafat, allow me to salute your leadership today as your people are closer than ever to realizing the dream of self-determination. For 30 years, President Arafat has led the quest for the recognition of the Palestinian people. To know that one is a master of one’s fate, that one’s culture and humanity have a place where they are sacred, and that place can be called home—these are the very essences of human aspiration. With the wisdom and courage of age and experience, President Arafat joined hands five years ago with Yitzhak Rabin to begin the voyage of peace to realize those aspirations. Since then, progress that no one could have imagined a decade ago has taken place. New bridges of trust and coexistence have been built. New terms of cooperation and new forms of interaction are taking root. A greater number of Palestinians than ever before know the meaning of self-rule. Israelis and Palestinians are working together as never before, educating each other, aiding each other, recognizing each other as indispensable partners. These are the early fruits of peace. But they are only the beginning. We at the United Nations are determined to see this beginning as the foundation of lasting, peaceful and sustainable development for the Palestinian people. Our commitment to your prosperity is as old as the Organization itself. At United Nations Headquarters in New York, the Palestinian cause has been promoted and its claims have been heard as nowhere else in the world. In the Middle East, our commitment has been reflected in the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) over the past 50 years. It has provided education, health care and relief assistance to more than 3 million Palestinians over four generations, operating in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Allow me to say

362 • 23 March 1998

today how proud I am of UNRWA’s work and to express my gratitude to President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, for your cooperation. Together, we are educating almost 500,000 pupils in 650 schools. We operate more than 120 health care facilities which handle almost 7 million patient visits annually. We provide food services to 200,000 refugees and promote self-reliance through poverty alleviation schemes. Perhaps most importantly, UNRWA is deeply involved in bringing the fruits of the peace to the Palestinian people through projects and investment programmes. We all know that the absence of conflict is not enough. A peace that exists only on paper—whether here or anywhere else in the world—will not last. It must be lived and experienced every day by every Palestinian. That is why I am so concerned with the current crisis in UNRWA’s funding and why we will do everything to bring it to an end. The UNRWA is simply too important to the future of this region to be neglected. It must be restored to its full strength over time. In my meetings with leaders from all parts of the world, I have very strongly urged them to provide UNRWA with the means to effectively carry out its mission. Until that time, I am grateful for your understanding and patience. The Oslo process also ushered in a new era in the work of the United Nations in the Middle East and among the Palestinian people. Drawing on UNRWA’s long history, we have expanded our presence in West Bank and Gaza from three organizations in 1993 to 15 in 1997. The combined total of funds disbursed through United Nations channels was $254 million in 1996. Through the joint efforts of the United Nations Special Coordinator and the Special Representative of the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations development activities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are being coordinated and strengthened to ensure the greatest efficiency and effectiveness. We are determined that our assistance reach and improve the lives of as many men, women and children as possible. That is what we can do. The rest is for you to accomplish. You and no one else can bring to life a Palestinian policy that provides the peace and prosperity that your people deserve. You and no one else can ensure that human rights are upheld and respected, not only for those Palestinians outside your jurisdiction but also for

those within. You and no one else can ensure that sustainable economic growth will benefit all through the practice of good governance at all levels of leadership. These are your burdens, and your challenges. I have no doubt that you will meet them. As we turn another corner in the long passage to peace, let us recall that it was above all dialogue, and not force, that got you to this point. Let us recall that it was negotiations, not ultimatums, that narrowed the divide and facilitated the first steps. Let us recall that it was the courage to recognize in yesterday’s adversary tomorrow’s partner that made the dream as real as it has ever been. The voices of the vast majority of men and women, young and old, Palestinians, Israelis and others around the world, are calling for peace. They have seen its promise and witnessed its glories. This is not the time to turn your backs on peace. Too much is at stake. Too much has been achieved. I would like to conclude by taking this opportunity to make clear to you the nature, the demands and the promise of the agreement I reached with the Government of Iraq. I went to Baghdad, with the full authorization of all members of the Security Council, in search of a peaceful solution to the crisis. That crisis has, at least for now, been averted. The mandate of the Security Council has been reaffirmed. The access of United Nations inspectors has not only been restored, but expanded to include any and all sites. The authority of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission has been acknowledged and strengthened. Whether the threat to international peace and security has been averted for all time is now in the hands of the Iraqi leadership. It is now for them to comply in practice with what they have signed on paper. If they do, it will bring nearer the day when Iraq can fully rejoin the family of nations. In the meantime, the expanded “oil-for-food” programme should help alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people. The agreement reached in Baghdad was neither a “victory” nor a “defeat” for any one person, nation or group of nations. Certainly, the United Nations and the world community lost nothing, gave away nothing and conceded nothing of substance. But by halting, at least for now, the renewal of military hostilities in the Gulf, it was a victory for

25 March 1998 • 363 peace, for reason, for the resolution of conflict by diplomacy. If this agreement is fully implemented and leads over time to a new day in the Gulf—if this exercise in diplomacy, backed by fairness, firmness and force, stands the test of time—it will serve as an enduring and invaluable precedent for the United Nations and the world community. But it can do even more. It is also my hope that this agreement, in a small but substantial way, may also create a new belief in the possible in the Middle East peace process—a belief that diplomacy and negotiations, if entered into in good faith and practised with care and commitment, can resolve the longest and most intractable of conflicts. The United Nations, founded even before the close of the Second World War over 50 years ago, has an inherent obligation to remember that even the deepest enmities among nations do not last forever. It is this obligation that makes us persist in the face of opposition, and leads us to believe that a just and lasting peace—here, as everywhere—is not only needed, but possible.

25 March 1998 Secretary-General Says It Is Essential for Israel to Commit to a Comprehensive Peace

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6504/Rev.1); Israel Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Israel Foreign Relations Council and the UN Association of Israel, in Jerusalem. I am pleased to join you today on my first official visit to Israel as Secretary-General of the United Nations. I have been here many times over the years, most recently as Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations. Very early in my career, I served as a civilian official with the United Nations Emergency Force. So, in visiting Israel, I am again amongst people I know well, people with whom I know I can work in pursuit of the goals we share and hold dear; among friends. I have come at a time of considerable uneasiness in the region: over tension concerning Iraq, over the slow pace of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, over the absence of movement on the other tracks of the Middle East peace process. I have come to the Middle East to listen and to learn, to hear the concerns of the leaders and peoples of the region, to reflect together with you, and to reassure you of the support of the United Nations and of its Secretary-General, in helping to

resolve these complex issues. I know that Israelis and Arabs alike long to lead peaceful, stable lives, lives free of fear and upheaval. My first message to the Israeli public concerns the peace process. Almost two decades ago, your nation welcomed President Sadat to Jerusalem and made peace with a former enemy. And five years ago, almost no one, not even in this land of prophets and visionaries, would have predicted that such dramatic gains could be achieved in your relations with the Palestinians. But the political map of the Middle East has changed profoundly. Israelis and Palestinians have begun to treat one another as partners, not as enemies. Of course, many problems remain. No one said that forging a lasting peace would be easy. At such times, we must remember the comprehensive peace settlement that the Oslo process has brought firmly into view. The simple fact remains: the pre-Oslo status quo was untenable; there is no viable alternative to Oslo; and potentially grave consequences loom should the process fail. I am painfully aware that the Oslo accords have not marked the end of violence and terror among Israelis and Palestinians. More than 100 Israeli civilians, among them many women and children, have lost their lives in senseless and despicable acts of terrorism, including several devastating bomb attacks in the heart of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Many innocent Palestinians have also fallen victim to extremist violence; more than 40 were killed during prayers at the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, a site sacred to both Jews and Arabs. And only 28 months ago, on one of the saddest days in the recent history of the region, a man for whom I have enormous respect, admiration and affection, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, became a martyr of the peace process which he himself had led. That was indeed a mournful day for Israel, the region and the world. Israelis and Palestinians, I pray, will not allow the peace process, launched so valiantly by Yitzhak Rabin and his Palestinian partners, to be taken hostage by the enemies of peace. They will not, I pray, surrender to those extremist elements who kill and maim in order to wreck the peace process. So my first message is this: Israelis and Palestinians must persevere. There is no alternative, unless you want relations with your Palestinian partners, and perhaps others, to regress and revert to the enmity of old. My second message concerns United Nations

364 • 25 March 1998

itself and our long history together. It will surprise none of you to hear me describe the United Nations as an indispensable institution in today’s global era. The founding of Israel and the founding of the United Nations are connected in spirit and in history, in promise and in peril. Indeed, Israel’s birth was enshrined in a historic United Nations resolution: the partition plan of 1947. When war erupted with the proclamation of the State of Israel in 1948, the United Nations stood by Israel. The Security Council called for an immediate ceasefire and established a truce commission. The efforts of Ralph Bunche to help produce a negotiated solution won the Nobel prize for peace. Before and since, United Nations officials, civilian and military, made the ultimate sacrifice in search for peace between Israel and its neighbours. First among all, of course, was Count Folke Bernadotte. In the decades since, the United Nations has represented the international community’s abiding interest in a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. The Oslo negotiations are founded on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which are a cornerstone of Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. On the ground, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the Office of the Special Coordinator in the Occupied Territories, the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Children’s Fund are among the myriad of United Nations organizations providing much-needed humanitarian and economic assistance to the Palestinians. Our peacekeeping operations have, for decades, helped maintain stability in this area. I am well aware, however, that for many Israelis the image of the United Nations has not lived up to its founding spirit. I know that the United Nations is regarded by many as biased against the State of Israel. I know that Israelis see hypocrisy and double standards in the intense scrutiny given to some of its actions, while other situations fail to elicit the world’s outrage and condemnations. I know that Israelis are offended when other nations’ delegates leave the room as Israelis rise to speak. Abba Eban, one of the most eloquent and effective diplomats ever to grace the United Nations halls, was at one point so discouraged by events at the United Nations that he wrote, “The world seemed to belong to our foes”. I would like to respond to your concerns with

a solemn pledge: I believe that it is time to usher in a new era of relations between Israel and the United Nations. Everyone stands to benefit: Israelis, Palestinians, the rest of the Arab world, and the international community in general. My contacts with Israelis over the years convince me that we can, together, overcome the suspicion and misunderstanding. One way to write that new chapter would be to rectify an anomaly: Israel’s position as the only Member State that is not a member of one of the regional groups, which means it has no chance of being elected to serve on main organs such as the Security Council or the Economic and Social Council. This anomaly should be corrected. We must uphold the principle of equality among all United Nations Member States. The normalization of Israel’s status within the United Nations would help normalize Israel’s view of the United Nations. The United Nations is not just a political body, and there is much more on its agenda than Middle East issues. Israelis know this already, but increased participation can only promote a more balanced view of the United Nations work. I see great potential here. Israel already contributes more to the work of the United Nations than most people realize. I am thinking, for example, of Israeli experts serving on human rights bodies, on election observation teams, and of Israeli medical teams sent to help deliver emergency relief to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Israel has still more to gain by participation in all that the United Nations seeks to achieve in peace and development. But normalization cannot happen unless Israel has confidence on another, much deeper level. Israelis were understandably enraged last year when Israel was accused in the Commission on Human Rights, which, as you know, is a body made up of Member States, of injecting Palestinian children the AIDS virus. Such baseless allegations are totally unacceptable and deserve universal condemnation. I have said on more than one occasion that I would expect all such statements to be challenged whenever and wherever they are made. Having chaired the opening session of this year’s Human Rights Commission just last week, I am pleased to say that the allegation was once again condemned. Indeed, I would like to underline this message by citing the statement of Ambassador Miroslav Somol, the Chairman of last year’s Commission, which he delivered on 16 March: “It is essential

25 March 1998 • 365 that our debates are carried out in a manner observing basic standards of mutual respect. Allegations that contain racist, xenophobic, antiSemitic, discriminatory or other similar unacceptable features must be avoided because they are not compatible with the established working procedures or with a kind of code of conduct of this distinguished body. As the outgoing Chairman with specific experience in facing such a difficult situation and allegation, I would strongly appeal that all speakers, be it representatives of Member States, observers or non-governmental organizations, respect these limits in order to avoid hurting any nation, race, religion, or vulnerable group of people in discussion.” I hope this statement can put this issue behind us once and for all. Still, the broader fight against anti-Semitism must be addressed. This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We must use the occasion to denounce antiSemitism in all of its manifestations. This brings me to the lamentable resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1975, equating Zionism with racism and racial discrimination. That was, perhaps, the low-point in our relations; its negative resonance even today is difficult to overestimate. Fortunately, the General Assembly rescinded the resolution in 1991. I now come to the third and most difficult message of my visit. It is easy to talk of peace and to express regret about the past. It is not so easy to present challenges, especially to sovereign nations facing the kinds of difficulties that Israel faces. But at this crucial moment, that is precisely what I need to do. As Secretary-General of the United Nations, I am now, as I have always been, a friend of Israel. But I am also a friend of those with whom you may not always see eye to eye. Here is my challenge. I want Israel and its partners to make the difficult choices required for peace. As a friend, it gives me no pleasure to recite a list of the grievances which the international community has against Israel. But I think it is important for you, my Israeli friends, to try to understand that those grievances do not come out of a clear blue sky. Here is what the great majority of the Member States of the United Nations say: they regard Israel as having been responsible, directly or indirectly, for provocative acts that undermine goodwill and spark hostilities. In their view, Israel has not abided by Security Council resolutions. They point out that you have

been slow to fulfil your obligations under the Oslo agreements, and that you have made your implementation conditional in a way that the Oslo accords did not. They see that you have expanded old settlements, and started new ones. They are concerned by the closures, roadblocks and other restrictions that aggravate the economic and humanitarian crisis facing the Palestinians. They regret other actions that take from Palestinians their homes, their land, their jobs, their residence permits—their very dignity. Friends, I ask you to accept that the great mass of world opinion, including many countries that are sympathetic to Israel and to the Israeli dilemma, genuinely feels that Israel is doing a great disservice to its cause and to its standing by persisting with these practices. And that despite its position of strength—economically, militarily and scientifically—Israel has not seemed ready for reasonable compromise. The promise of 1993 has become the crisis of expectations of 1998, for both peoples. I ask Israel to accept that, just as you are entitled to ask your Palestinian partners to do their best to live up to their side of the bargain under the agreements reached, so they too are justified in asking you to fulfil your obligations. In my talks in the region, almost every Arab leader I have met has expressed strong support for a just and comprehensive peace with Israel. I take encouragement from that. But I have found those same leaders depressed about the stalled state of the peace process; sceptical about the good faith of the current Israeli Government; inclined to suspect that Israeli conditionality marks an unwillingness to carry out your side of the bargain. I have found, in short, a crisis of confidence. There is a way out of this crisis of confidence, a way well known to all. A road map exists. It is for you and your partners to follow it, past all obstacles and exits, to its logical, inevitable destination—a comprehensive peace settlement. And just as there is peril in driving too fast, so in this case is it dangerous to move too slowly. We are engaged in a process that will either move forward or will move backwards, but that cannot for long remain stalled. It is, therefore, essential that Israel—and her adversaries in the region—commit themselves to a comprehensive peace based on the principles enshrined in resolutions 242 and 338, and reflected in the Oslo accords—most fundamentally, land for peace. It is the only principle that has a chance of bringing peace to this land.

366 • 25 March 1998

At the same time, I would like to reiterate the unequivocal commitment of the United Nations, and my own personal commitment, to uphold the right of all peoples to live in peace, and to pursue their daily lives free from terror, threats and acts of aggression. I would like to take this opportunity to make clear to you the nature, the demands and the promise of the agreement I reached with the Government of Iraq. I went to Baghdad, with the full authorization of all members of the Security Council, in search of a peaceful solution to the crisis. That crisis has, at least for now, been averted. The mandate of the Security Council has been reaffirmed. The access of United Nations inspectors has been not only restored, but expanded to include any and all sites. The authority of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission has been acknowledged and strengthened. Whether the threat to international peace and security has been averted for all time is now in the hands of the Iraqi leadership. It is now for them to comply in practice with what they have signed on paper. If they do, it will bring nearer the day when Iraq can fully rejoin the family of nations. In the meantime, the expanded “oil-for-food” programme should help alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people. The agreement reached in Baghdad was neither a “victory” nor a “defeat” for any one person, nation or group of nations. Certainly, the United Nations and the world community lost nothing, gave away nothing and conceded nothing of substance. But by halting, at least for now, the renewal of military hostilities in the Gulf, it was a victory for peace, for reason, for the resolution of conflict by diplomacy. In closing, I would like to congratulate you on the occasion of Israel’s fiftieth anniversary. You have chosen to describe this anniversary as marking “an era of hope for peace”. For my part, I sincerely hope that, in this new era, the United Nations will be seen in Israel as a vehicle for realizing the universal values of the Jewish people. I emphasize the universality of those values because I believe that the values of tolerance and mercy, of respect and the dignity of all peoples, are inherent to the human rights of the entire human race. They are rights that are longed for by all, and rights that belong to all. During this fiftieth anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I have said, and I have said often, that human rights are

African rights, Asian rights, American rights and European rights. They are also Palestinian rights and Israeli rights. I have said also that true faith elicits respect, while fanaticism breeds hatred. The problem, in my view, is not faith. The problem, all too often, is the faithful. I have illustrated my appeals to human rights and my fervent belief in their universality by citing a call from the depth of the unique and universal horror of the Holocaust. Allow me to quote Martin Niemoller: “In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. They came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.” I come today to speak up—for Israel, for the Palestinians, for peace. For when we speak up, individually and collectively, with one voice or with a multitude of voices, we can and we must overwhelm the sounds of war. We can and we must overcome the seeds of intolerance. We can and we must forge the peace and justice that all peoples seek, that all peoples deserve.

26 March 1998 Letter (UN archives); UN budget Internal note to the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, from under-secretary-general for management, Joseph E. Connor. Mr. S. Iqbal Riza, As you know, one of the major new initiatives of the Secretary-General is to introduce Resultsbased Budgeting. In this regard, the Management Policy Office is arranging a presentation by Warren Sach, Director of Programme Planning and Budget Division on this issue. There are some interesting features of resultsbased Budgeting which will impact management and staff alike and I hope that you would be able to attend. I would also ask you to circulate the attached and encourage your staff to participate in this discussion as there will be an opportunity to pose questions on the matter.

28 March 1998 Secretary-General Meets with the Leader of the Turkish Cypriot Community

30 March 1998 • 367 Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6507); Cyprus The Secretary-General is very glad to have had this meeting with His Excellency Rauf Denktash, the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community. The Secretary-General thought it important that Mr. Denktash should have an opportunity to express his views directly to him. Mr. Denktash has given the Secretary-General a full and frank account of his position and concerns. The Secretary-General in turn expressed his disappointment at the outcome of the visit to Nicosia by his Special Adviser, Diego Cordovez, and, in particular, that it was not possible to find a common basis on which to continue the process of negotiations between the leaders of the two communities. At Mr. Denktash’s request, the SecretaryGeneral shall be informing the Security Council of the outcome of their meeting. The Secretary-General has urged Mr. Denktash to resume the talks within the framework of the good offices mission. The talks between the two leaders are the only framework within which the two communities in Cyprus are treated on the basis of full political equality. The Secretary-General acknowledges Mr. Denktash’s concerns. But there is no alternative route to a peaceful settlement based on a bi-communal, bizonal federal State with full political equality for the two communities. The Secretary-General intends to ask Mr. Cordovez to continue to explore with the parties ways of establishing fair and effective modalities for the continuation of the talks. He is concerned that, otherwise, there is a real risk that the situation in the area will deteriorate, and that tension will increase. Meanwhile, he is encouraged that Mr. Denktash has reiterated to him his continued support for his good offices, and his wish for a peaceful settlement of the Cyprus problem.

30 March 1998 Letter (UN archives); UN budget Cover letter to the submission of the accounting report for the oil-for-food program during the period 10 December to 30 Junel 1997, to Vijay Krishna Shunglu, chairman of the UN Board of Auditors. These reports were submitted regularly from the Secretary-General to the Board of Auditors.

Dear Mr. Chairman, In accordance with financial regulation 11.4, I have the honour to submit the accounts of the United Nations Escrow Account established pursuant to Security Council resolution 986 (1995) for the period of 10 December 1996 to 30 June 1997, which I hereby approve. The financial statements were drawn up and certified as correct by the Controller on 24 October 1997 and sent to the Board of Auditors for their review. Copies of these financial statements are also being transmitted to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions.

30 March 1998 Secretary-General Says Russian Federation Was an Indispensible Anchor in Resolution of UNSCOM

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6509); UN Special Commission Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the State Duma, in Moscow. I am very pleased to be back in Moscow at this time; and I am also greatly honoured to have this opportunity to address the State Duma of the Russian Federation which, since its very first days, has demonstrated unwavering support for the United Nations. Russia’s permanent membership of the Security Council has provided your nation with a unique role and responsibility throughout the history of the United Nations. It is a role that Russia, most recently during the Iraq crisis, has filled admirably. As the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in Iraq began to meet greater and greater difficulty in completing its mission, and the threat of military action loomed ever larger, it became clear that a diplomatic intervention was needed. It was my privilege to work closely with the Russian Government throughout the difficult and complicated negotiations which led to the solution that the world was hoping for and, thus, forestalled a potentially devastating military confrontation. President Yeltsin, Foreign Minister Primakov and his deputy, Mr. Posuvalyuk, worked tirelessly in the weeks ahead of my mission to Baghdad to convince the Iraqi leadership to allow UNSCOM to finish its disarmament mission. Their efforts helped lay the foundations for our common achievement; and they have since reiterated and underscored the need for Iraq’s full and unconditional compliance with the demands of the Security Council.

368 • 30 March 1998

I am in their debt. Together, we proved, once again, the wisdom of the credo saying that prevention is always better than cure. Immediately upon my return from Baghdad, I had the opportunity to discuss my mission with a delegation from the Duma, led by Mr. Vladimir Lukin [chief of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Lower House of the Duma]. I was encouraged by his expression of support. Now, I am very pleased to have this opportunity today to brief a cross-section of the membership of the Duma about my mission. For the Middle East, as a whole, this is a time of challenge and fragile progress that requires patience, determination and courage. If the agreement that I reached with the Iraqi leadership is sustained, there will be concrete progress towards long-term peace and stability in the Gulf subregion of the Middle East. Now, we must see similar progress on the Arab-Israeli front which is as vital to the future of the region as it has ever been. My visit to the region last week confirmed that no one is under any illusion about the steps that must be taken, or about the compromises that must be made, or about the concessions that must be granted, if peace is to flourish. It must be a peace that restores dignity, self-determination and security to all sides. Only then will all the peoples of the Middle East have a stake in this peace—a stake worth fighting for, a stake worth living for. I would like to take this opportunity to make clear to you the nature, the demands and the promise of the agreement I reached with the Government of Iraq. I went to Baghdad, with the full authorization of all members of the Security Council, in search of a peaceful solution to the crisis. That crisis is over. The mandate of the Security Council has now been reaffirmed. The access of United Nations inspectors has not only been restored, but expanded to include any and all sites. Indeed, in the weeks since the agreement, UNSCOM has, for the first time in seven years, been able to enter a number of sites declared by the Iraqis to be “sensitive”, including so-called presidential sites. Whether the threat to international peace and security has been averted for all time is now in the hands of the Iraqi leadership. Iraq’s complete compliance with the Security Council’s demands is the one and only aim of this agreement. Nothing more and nothing less will make possible the completion of the United Nations-mandated disarmament process and, thus, speed the lifting of sanctions in accordance with the previous

resolutions of the Security Council. This agreement tests as never before the will of the Iraqi leadership to keep its word. But it also serves as a call for the region and the international community to look to the future, beyond the horizon and to the time when the disarmament process in Iraq has been completed. All of us can agree that sanctions have added greatly to the Iraqi people’s suffering; that the expansion of the “oil-for-food” programme will reduce that suffering without diluting the disarmament regime; and that someday, sooner or later—and we pray sooner—a fully disarmed and peaceable Iraq would be able once again to take its rightful place among the family of nations. The agreement reached in Baghdad was neither a “victory” nor a “defeat” for any one person, nation or group of nations. Certainly, the United Nations and the world community lost nothing, gave away nothing and conceded nothing of substance. But by halting, at least for now, the renewal of military hostilities in the Gulf, it was a victory for peace, for reason, for the resolution of conflict by diplomacy. If this agreement is fully implemented and leads over time to a new day in the Gulf, if this exercise in diplomacy, backed by fairness, firmness and force, stands the test of time, it will serve as an enduring and invaluable precedent for the United Nations and the world community. It will prove that acting united, the world can prevent conflict. I know that the international community can count on the State Duma to support the current efforts towards the realization of this goal. For the United Nations, there is no higher goal, no deeper commitment and no greater ambition than preventing armed conflict. The Russian Federation has, over the last decade, become an indispensable anchor of all that the United Nations seeks to achieve in the area of peace and security. In peacekeeping, Russian soldiers have served courageously both in United Nations operations worldwide and under Commonwealth of Independent States’ (CIS) auspices, as in Georgia and Tajikistan, to ensure the peace. Allow me today to pay tribute to these soldiers of peace, to their devotion, selflessness and courage, and let me especially salute those Russian peacekeepers who made the ultimate sacrifice for peace. Russia currently contributes more that 1,000 troops, police officers and observers to United Nations operations in Angola, Bosnia, Croatia, Georgia, Western Sahara, the Middle East and along the Iraq-Kuwait border. The world is in their debt.

6 April 1998 • 369 As the international community seeks to solve the conflicts and disputes of the future, we will rely, more than ever, on the commitment of States such as Russia to strengthen the credibility and legitimacy of United Nations action. At the same time, we at the United Nations are well aware of the economic hardships that currently face the Russian people. Allow me, therefore, to express a special appreciation for the determination of the Russian Parliament to meet its commitments to the United Nations. In a world of plural interests and plural powers, we must recognize that much more can be achieved by acting together than by acting alone. The resolution of the UNSCOM crisis is only the most recent example. Let us, together, make it a true model for the future.

2 April 1998 Secretary-General Encouraged by Israel’s Decision to Withdraw from Southern Lebanon

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6513); Israel The Secretary-General and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel spoke on the telephone last night after the formal decision by the Government of Israel to pull its forces out of southern Lebanon. The Secretary-General had raised the issue of Israel’s compliance with Security Council resolution 425 (1978) in his meetings with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence, Yitzhak Mordechai, of Israel, as well as other concerned parties, during his recent visit to the region. The Secretary-General is encouraged that a decision has finally been taken by the Government of Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. The implementation of this withdrawal will require discussions with all concerned in order to be fully effective. The Secretary-General urges all parties to cooperate in this process. The Secretary-General expresses his satisfaction that a Security Council resolution adopted more than 20 years ago is at last on the verge of implementation.

6 April 1998 Letter (UN archives); UN budget Letter from the US permanent representative to the UN, Bill Richardson.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General, I wish to take this opportunity to refer to the issue of official UN holidays which was considered at the General Assembly’s 82nd Plenary Meeting on March 31. Although we joined consensus on the decision which increased the number of officially-observed UN holidays to ten, I expressed my government’s strong reservations with this decision. We joined consensus on the basis of assurances received from senior UN officials that the total number of hours which the staff worked during the year would not change with the increase in holidays. It was with that understanding that we accepted the Secretariat’s assurances that there would be no budgetary implications to the holiday increase. Under-Secretary-General Yongjian Jin’s response to the pointed question raised by Japan on this issue was vague, yet he assured the member states that adoption of this decision would not have any budgetary implications. I would appreciate, therefore, if you could confirm Mission’s understanding that the number of staff work hours will not decrease with the increased number of UN holidays.

6 April 1998 Letter (UN archives); UN confidentiality Internal note from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, to the under-secretary-general for oversight services, Karl Paschke. NOTE TO MR. PASCHKE

Confidentiality in the Secretariat

Recently, there have been a series of incidents involving transmission of sensitive documents and information to Missions, the media and unauthorized persons. As brought to your attention in another context, some of these incidents gave the impression of efforts calculated to obstruct or damage the Secretary-General’s efforts on a highly sensitive political issue. As you well know, assuring the confidentiality of official documents in the United Nations Secretariat has been a perennial problem to which no effective and durable solution has yet been found. I trust you will agree that, nevertheless, we should not give up and should make another concerted and determined effort to establish a practical system of classification, archiving and accountability of sensitive documents. I would be grateful if your office could under-

6 April 1998 • 369 As the international community seeks to solve the conflicts and disputes of the future, we will rely, more than ever, on the commitment of States such as Russia to strengthen the credibility and legitimacy of United Nations action. At the same time, we at the United Nations are well aware of the economic hardships that currently face the Russian people. Allow me, therefore, to express a special appreciation for the determination of the Russian Parliament to meet its commitments to the United Nations. In a world of plural interests and plural powers, we must recognize that much more can be achieved by acting together than by acting alone. The resolution of the UNSCOM crisis is only the most recent example. Let us, together, make it a true model for the future.

2 April 1998 Secretary-General Encouraged by Israel’s Decision to Withdraw from Southern Lebanon

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6513); Israel The Secretary-General and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel spoke on the telephone last night after the formal decision by the Government of Israel to pull its forces out of southern Lebanon. The Secretary-General had raised the issue of Israel’s compliance with Security Council resolution 425 (1978) in his meetings with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence, Yitzhak Mordechai, of Israel, as well as other concerned parties, during his recent visit to the region. The Secretary-General is encouraged that a decision has finally been taken by the Government of Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. The implementation of this withdrawal will require discussions with all concerned in order to be fully effective. The Secretary-General urges all parties to cooperate in this process. The Secretary-General expresses his satisfaction that a Security Council resolution adopted more than 20 years ago is at last on the verge of implementation.

6 April 1998 Letter (UN archives); UN budget Letter from the US permanent representative to the UN, Bill Richardson.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General, I wish to take this opportunity to refer to the issue of official UN holidays which was considered at the General Assembly’s 82nd Plenary Meeting on March 31. Although we joined consensus on the decision which increased the number of officially-observed UN holidays to ten, I expressed my government’s strong reservations with this decision. We joined consensus on the basis of assurances received from senior UN officials that the total number of hours which the staff worked during the year would not change with the increase in holidays. It was with that understanding that we accepted the Secretariat’s assurances that there would be no budgetary implications to the holiday increase. Under-Secretary-General Yongjian Jin’s response to the pointed question raised by Japan on this issue was vague, yet he assured the member states that adoption of this decision would not have any budgetary implications. I would appreciate, therefore, if you could confirm Mission’s understanding that the number of staff work hours will not decrease with the increased number of UN holidays.

6 April 1998 Letter (UN archives); UN confidentiality Internal note from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, to the under-secretary-general for oversight services, Karl Paschke. NOTE TO MR. PASCHKE

Confidentiality in the Secretariat

Recently, there have been a series of incidents involving transmission of sensitive documents and information to Missions, the media and unauthorized persons. As brought to your attention in another context, some of these incidents gave the impression of efforts calculated to obstruct or damage the Secretary-General’s efforts on a highly sensitive political issue. As you well know, assuring the confidentiality of official documents in the United Nations Secretariat has been a perennial problem to which no effective and durable solution has yet been found. I trust you will agree that, nevertheless, we should not give up and should make another concerted and determined effort to establish a practical system of classification, archiving and accountability of sensitive documents. I would be grateful if your office could under-

370 • 6 April 1998

take a preliminary study of the feasibility of dealing with this problem. Particular attention would be required to identifying practicable measures for ensuring the confidentiality of sensitive memoranda, notes of meetings, code cables and other confidential papers. Other points which would need special attention are the code cable office, photocopying, copies sent for translation and interpretation, distribution of information copies and accountability for them, and accessibility for reference after archiving. Thank you.

office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

After carefully assessing political developments in Cambodia, particularly the progress that the Cambodian authorities have made in establishing a framework for multi-party elections, and following the return of Prince Norodom Ranariddh, the Secretary-General has decided to accept the invitation from the Royal Government of Cambodia to play a coordinating role in the international observation of elections scheduled for 26 July. The decision was conveyed to His Majesty King Norodom Sihanouk and Their Excellencies Prince Ranariddh, Hun Sen and Ung Huot by letters dated 2 April. The SecretaryGeneral noted in his response that he had made his decision, notwithstanding continuing concerns on a number of issues which, if not addressed, might hinder the prospect for free and fair elections and their credibility thereafter. An accompanying memorandum spells out the main elements of the United Nations’ role and the conditions of its participation.

Excellency, I have the honour to refer to Security Council resolution 1160 (1998) of 31 March, by operative paragraph 14 of which the Council requested me to keep it “regularly informed and to report on the situation in Kosovo and the implementation of this resolution no later than 30 days following the adoption of this resolution and every 30 days thereafter”. In this regard, you will recall that, on 10 March 1998, the Secretariat informed the members of the Council that the United Nations did not have a political presence in Kosovo which would enable it to provide first hand information on the situation in the area. Such United Nations personnel as there is is devoted exclusively to humanitarian assistance. As there has been no change in this regard, the Secretariat is still not in a position to independently assess the situation on the ground and to report to the Council thereon. By means of this letter, I would therefore like to inform you that, in discharging this part of my mandate, as well as in assessing whether the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has complied in a constructive manner with conditions put forward by the Contact Group, I will be relying exclusively on the information and assessments of the Contact Group, the OSCE and the European Union, as foreseen by operative paragraph 16 of the above-mentioned resolution. I should therefore be grateful if, in your capacity as the Coordinator of the Contact Group, you could forward to me the Group’s assessment of the situation in Kosovo by 20 April 1998, and thereafter at 30 day intervals, so as to allow me to fulfill my reporting obligations to the Security Council. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

8 April 1998

13 April 1998

8 April 1998 Secretary-General Accepts Invitation to Play Coordinating Role in Cambodian Elections

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6518); Cambodia

Letter (EOSG); Yugoslavia Letter sent to Bill Richardson, permanent representative of the United States to the United Nations and in his role as coordinator of the Contact Group on the former Yugoslavia. An identical letter was sent to Sir John Weston, permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations. The United Kingdom held the presidency of the European Union at the time. A similar letter was sent to Bronislaw Geremek, chairman-in-

Report on the Causes of Conflict and the Promotion of Durable Peace and Sustainable Development in Africa

Report (SC, GA, S/1998/318, A/52/871); Africa I. Introduction

1. On 25 September 1997, the Security Council convened at the level of Foreign Ministers to consider the need for a concerted international effort to promote peace and security in Africa. The

13 April 1998 • 371 Council observed that despite the progress achieved by some African States the number and intensity of armed conflicts on the continent remained a matter of grave concern, requiring a comprehensive response. The Council requested that I submit a report regarding the sources of conflict in Africa, ways to prevent and address those conflicts, and how to lay the foundation for durable peace and economic growth following their resolution. In accordance with the wishes of the Council, and because the scope of the challenge extends beyond the purview of the Security Council alone, I hereby submit this report not only to the Security Council but also to the General Assembly and other components of the United Nations system that have responsibilities in Africa, including the Bretton Woods institutions. 2. Africa as a whole has begun to make significant economic and political progress in recent years, but in many parts of the continent progress remains threatened or impeded by conflict. For the United Nations there is no higher goal, no deeper commitment and no greater ambition than preventing armed conflict. The prevention of conflict begins and ends with the promotion of human security and human development. Ensuring human security is, in the broadest sense, the cardinal mission of the United Nations. Genuine and lasting prevention is the means to achieve that mission. 3. Conflict in Africa poses a major challenge to United Nations efforts designed to ensure global peace, prosperity and human rights for all. Although the United Nations was intended to deal with inter-State warfare, it is being required more and more often to respond to intra-State instability and conflict. In those conflicts the main aim, increasingly, is the destruction not just of armies but of civilians and entire ethnic groups. Preventing such wars is no longer a matter of defending States or protecting allies. It is a matter of defending humanity itself. 4. Since 1970, more than 30 wars have been fought in Africa, the vast majority of them intraState in origin. In 1996 alone, 14 of the 53 countries of Africa were afflicted by armed conflicts, accounting for more than half of all war-related deaths worldwide and resulting in more than 8 million refugees, returnees and displaced persons. The consequences of those conflicts have seriously undermined Africa’s efforts to ensure long-term stability, prosperity and peace for its peoples. 5. By not averting these colossal human tragedies, African leaders have failed the peoples of Africa; the international community has failed

them; the United Nations has failed them. We have failed them by not adequately addressing the causes of conflict; by not doing enough to ensure peace; and by our repeated inability to create the conditions for sustainable development. This is the reality of Africa’s recent past. It is a reality that must be confronted honestly and constructively by all concerned if the people of Africa are to enjoy the human security and economic opportunities they seek and deserve. Today, in many parts of Africa, efforts to break with the patterns of the past are at last beginning to succeed. 6. It is my aspiration, with this report, to add momentum to Africa’s renewed quest for peace and greater prosperity. The report strives to do so by offering an analysis of conflicts in Africa that does justice to their reality and seeks answers in their sources. It strives to do so by proposing realistic and achievable recommendations which, in time, may reduce if not entirely end those conflicts. It aims to summon the political will of Africans and non-Africans alike to act when action is so evidently needed—the will without which no level of assistance and no degree of hope can make the difference between war and peace in Africa. ... V. Summoning the Necessary Political Will

104. With sufficient political will—on the part of Africa and on the part of the international community—peace and development in Africa can be given a new momentum. Africa is an ancient continent. Its lands are rich and fertile enough to provide a solid foundation for prosperity. Its people are proud and industrious enough to seize the opportunities that may be presented. I am confident that Africans will not be found wanting, in stamina, in determination, or in political will. Africa today is striving to make positive change, and in many places these efforts are beginning to bear fruit. In the carnage and tragedy that afflicts some parts of Africa, we must not forget the bright spots or overlook the achievements. 105. What is needed from Africa. With political will, rhetoric can truly be transformed into reality. Without it, not even the noblest sentiments will have a chance of success. Three areas deserve particular attention. First, Africa must demonstrate the will to rely upon political rather than military responses to problems. Democratic channels for pursuing legitimate interests and expressing dissent must be protected, and political opposition respected and accommodated in constitutional forms. Second, Africa must summon the will to take good governance seriously, ensuring respect

372 • 13 April 1998

for human rights and the rule of law, strengthening democratization, and promoting transparency and capability in public administration. Unless good governance is prized, Africa will not break free of the threat and the reality of conflict that are so evident today. Third, Africa must enact and adhere to the various reforms needed to promote economic growth. Long-term success can be achieved only if African Governments have the political will to enact sound economic policies, and to persevere in their implementation until a solid economic foundation has been established. 106. What is needed from the international community. Political will is also needed from the international community. Where the international community is committed to making a difference, it has proved that significant and rapid transformation can be achieved. With respect to Africa, the international community must now summon the political will to intervene where it can have an impact, and invest where resources are needed. New sources of funding are required, but so too is a better use of existing resources and the enactment of trade and debt measures that will enable Africa to generate and better reinvest its own resources. Concrete action must be taken, as it is in deeds rather than in declarations that the international community’s commitment to Africa will be measured. Significant progress will require sustained international attention at the highest political levels over a period of years. To maintain the momentum for action in support of Africa, I call upon the Security Council to reconvene at ministerial level on a biennial basis so as to assess efforts undertaken and actions needed. I also urge that consideration be given to the convening of the Security Council at summit level within five years, for this purpose. VI. Conclusion

107. In this report I set out to provide a clear and candid analysis of the sources of conflicts in Africa and the reasons why they persist. I have recommended actions and goals that are both realistic and achievable, to reduce conflict and in time help to build a strong and durable peace. I have urged Africans and non-Africans alike to summon the political will to rise to the challenge which together we must all confront. The time is long past when anyone could claim ignorance about what was happening in Africa, or what was needed to achieve progress. The time is also past when the responsibility for producing change could be shifted on to other shoulders. It is a responsibility that we must all face. The United Nations stands ready to play its part. So must the world. So must Africa.

15 April 1998 Letter (EOSG); Central African Republic Letter to the president of the Security Council, Hisashi Owada. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to Security Council resolution 1159 (1998) dated 27 March 1998 concerning the establishment of a United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic (MINURCA). Following the usual consultations, I propose that Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, France, Gabon, Mali, Senegal and Togo be included in the list of countries contributing military personnel to MINURCA. I should be grateful if you would bring this matter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

15 April 1998 Letter (EOSG, S/1998/330); Iraq Pursuant to paragraphs 12 and 13 of Security Council resolution 1153 (1998) of 20 February 1998, I have the honour to submit to the Security Council the executive summary of the report of the group of experts established pursuant to paragraph 12 of the resolution to determine, in consultation with the Government of Iraq, whether Iraq is able to export petroleum or petroleum products sufficient to produce the total sum referred to in paragraph 2 of the resolution, not exceeding a total of US$5.256 billion (see annex). The group of experts visited Iraq from 12 to 22 March 1998 and were accompanied by two United Nations oil overseers. The full report of the group of experts is being made available to the members of the Council. After the adoption of Security Council resolution 1153 (1998), I was informed by the Government of Iraq that it had no objection to increasing revenues from the sale of its petroleum. The Government emphasized, however, that in view of the present technically precarious condition of the structure for the production, processing and transportation of its petroleum, and in view of the extremely low level of petroleum prices at present, it was not at all possible to guarantee that Iraq had the capacity to achieve the increase in production required to realize the maximum sum indicated in the resolution.

15 April 1998 • 373 According to the Government, assuming that the requirements for spare parts and repairs are met urgently, the new sum will not exceed $4 billion, and it is highly probable that it will be between $3.5 billion and $4 billion. It may be recalled that the price per barrel was $18 when the Memorandum of Understanding was first implemented, compared with the present price of $10.50 per barrel for Iraqi crude oil. In paragraph 13 of its resolution 1153 (1998), the Security Council requested the SecretaryGeneral to report to it if Iraq was unable to export petroleum or petroleum products sufficient to produce the total sum ($5.256 billion) and, following consultations with the relevant United Nations agencies and the Iraqi authorities, to make recommendations for the expenditure of the sum expected to be available, consistent with the distribution plan referred to in paragraph 5 of the resolution. The group of experts is less optimistic than the Government of Iraq is regarding the Government’s capacity to meet the $4 billion target during the period envisaged. Its overall impression is that the oil industry of Iraq is in a lamentable state and that the developed oilfields have had their productivity seriously reduced, some irreparably, during the past two decades. In its view, the oil processing and treatment facilities, refineries and storage terminals in the country have been severely damaged and continue to deteriorate, and that this deterioration, particularly in the oilfields, will accelerate until significant action is taken to contain and relieve the problems. The group of experts has strong doubts that the production profile of 3 million barrels per day, as projected by the Government, will be sustainable for the period envisaged. It has also stated that a sharp increase in production without concurrent expenditure on spare parts and equipment would severely damage oil-containing rocks and pipeline systems, and would be against accepted principles of “good oilfield husbandry”. According to the group of experts, should the current average price of $10.50 per barrel for Iraqi crude oil remain unchanged, based on the existing export capacity of 1.6 million barrels per day, revenues in the amount of only $3 billion could be achieved during a 180-day period, starting in June 1998, provided the spare parts required are ordered immediately. During a 180-day period starting in December 1998, Iraq could export 1.7 million barrels a day, generating $3.9 billion based on a price of $12.50 per barrel. The two United Nations oil overseers who

accompanied the group of experts have also indicated that the Iraqi oil industry is in desperate need of spare parts in order to comply with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1153 (1998). They share the view of the group of experts that the request by the Ministry of Oil for $300 million for spare parts—$210 million for upstream operations and $90 million for downstream operations—is reasonable and that it reflects only the most essential and urgent needs of the Iraqi oil industry. The list of the spare parts needed is provided in annex IV to the report of the group of experts. The United Nations oil overseers have indicated that the current condition of the “downstream” storage and transportation sectors of the Iraqi oil industry seriously affects the ability to produce petroleum and petroleum products for export under the provisions of the programme. The group of experts is presently carrying out a comprehensive review of the list of spare parts provided by the Government with a view to fully verifying the price, delivery time and relevance of all the items concerned. Owing to time constraints, the review could not be completed before the present letter was finalized, although it is expected to be completed very soon. Once the review has been completed, copies of the list with comments thereon by the experts will be made available to the Security Council Committee established by Council resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990. The group of experts visited suitable warehouses in both the northern and southern parts of Iraq, and has provided in the main report details of the methodology of monitoring the arrival, storage and utilization of the spare parts. The two United Nations oil overseers share the view of the group of experts in that regard. In view of the determination made that under the existing circumstances Iraq is unable to export petroleum or petroleum products sufficient to produce the total sum of $5.256 billion referred to in resolution 1153 (1998), it is recommended that the Security Council decide that the authorization given to States by paragraph 1 of its resolution 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995 shall permit the import of petroleum and petroleum products originating in Iraq, including financial and other essential transactions directly relating thereto, sufficient to produce a sum, in the next 180-day period, of up to $4 billion, on the understanding that as and when the increased funds become available, they will be utilized on a priority basis as reflected in the approved distribution plan prepared pursuant to paragraph 5 of resolution 1153 (1998). As the rev-

374 • 15 April 1998

enues generated will depend not only on increased exports of oil but also on the market price of oil exported, the Council may in addition wish to decide to review further the level of the sum authorized during its interim review of the report of the Secretary-General to be submitted pursuant to paragraph 10 of resolution 1153 (1998), also taking into account the progress made in the ordering and arrival of spare parts and repairs. With respect to spare parts, it may be recalled that in paragraph 12 of its resolution 1153 (1998), the Security Council expressed its readiness to take a decision, on the basis of the recommendations of the Secretary-General, regarding authorization of the export of the necessary equipment to enable Iraq to increase the export of petroleum or petroleum products and to give the appropriate direction to the Committee established by resolution 661 (1990). I wish to recommend to the Council that it authorize the export to Iraq of the equipment necessary to enable Iraq to increase most urgently the export of petroleum or petroleum products. As indicated above, the total cost of the spare parts and equipment needed is estimated at $300 million ($210 million for upstream requirements and $90 million for downstream requirements). For covering the cost of the spare parts and equipment, the Council may wish to apply the procedures outlined in paragraph 10 of resolution 986 (1995). In order to expedite the approval process for the spare parts and equipment, it is recommended to the Security Council that it consider the possibility of authorizing the United Nations oil overseers to approve contracts for spare parts, once the list is reviewed and finalized by the Security Council Committee, pursuant to the same procedures currently applied for oil contracts, on the understanding that the required expertise and technical support will be made available to the oil overseers, as appropriate. An effective monitoring of spare parts, from approval to delivery in Iraq, storage and utilization, will be ensured. Should this recommendation be acceptable to the Council, I will submit to the Security Council Committee, after the comprehensive review of the list of spare parts referred to above, details for the monitoring of spare parts inside Iraq. At my invitation, a delegation from Iraq led by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Mr. Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf, visited New York from 9 to 13 March 1998 to review with the Secretariat the implementation of resolution 1153 (1998) and the preparation of the distribution plan.

At present, consultations are under way between the United Nations and the technical ministries in Iraq regarding the preparation of the draft distribution plan. After the Security Council’s decision on the level of the sum to be available in the next phase for the humanitarian programme, the Government of Iraq will submit the draft distribution plan for my consideration and approval. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the group of experts, the United Nations oil overseers and Saybolt Nederland B.V. for their valuable contribution as well as to the Government of Iraq for its full cooperation with the group of experts. ANNEX: REPORT OF THE GROUP OF EXPERTS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 12 OF SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1153 (1998)

Executive Summary 1.1 Terms of Reference

1. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Security Council resolution 1153 (1998) of 20 February 1998 read as follows: 12. Requests the Secretary-General to establish a group of experts to determine in consultation with the Government of Iraq whether Iraq is able to export petroleum or petroleum products sufficient to produce the total sum referred to in paragraph 2 above and to prepare an independent report on Iraqi production and transportation capacity and necessary monitoring, also requests him in the light of that report to make early and appropriate recommendations and expresses its readiness to take a decision, on the basis of these recommendations and the humanitarian objectives of this resolution, notwithstanding paragraph 3 of resolution 661 (1990), regarding authorization of the export of the necessary equipment to enable Iraq to increase the export of petroleum or petroleum products and to give the appropriate directions to the Committee established by resolution 661 (1990); 13. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council, if Iraq is unable to export petroleum or petroleum products sufficient to produce the total sum referred to in paragraph 2 above, and following consultations with relevant United Nations agencies and the Iraqi authorities, making recommendations for the expenditure of the sum expected to be available, consistent with the distribution plan referred to in paragraph 5 above.

15 April 1998 • 375 1.2 Introduction

2. At the request of the Secretary-General, a group of experts visited Iraq to ascertain the current export capacity of crude oil and petroleum products, and also to review and assess the potential for increased exports of crude oil and petroleum products. 3. The group consisted of six experts, each with a specific oil industry background. Two of the United Nations oil overseers accompanied the group. The group visited Iraq from 12 to 22 March 1998, to observe the condition of the production and transportation facilities necessary for the export of petroleum and petroleum products. 4. The scope and purpose of the site visits were: • To establish current crude production capacity; • To establish the condition of the oilfields and relevant production capabilities; • To establish the condition of crude oil processing and treatment facilities; • To establish the status of the storage terminals and transportation infrastructure; • To identify the necessity, cost and implementation time-frame for required spare parts and repairs; • To inspect local refineries. All elements have been examined and the results are given in detail in the report. 1.3 Methodology

5. In order to satisfy the terms of reference, the group of experts needed to maximize the collection and verification of data within the timeframe allocated. This was achieved, after initial meetings with the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad, by visits to the North Oil Company, based in Kirkuk, the South Oil Company, based in Basrah, and numerous site inspections in both areas—including a cross-section of production facilities, processing plants, tank farms, pumping stations, metering sites and refineries. The group of experts separated into two teams at various locations in order to facilitate greater coverage. 6. Owing to the lack of measurement equipment operating at all stages of production and transportation (except at the export installations of Ceyhan and Mina Al-Bakr) estimates were made based on: • Physical inspection coupled with on-site discussion with experienced operators; • Information supplied at various meetings and

briefing sessions with the Oil Ministry, North and South Oil Companies, and refinery/plant visits; • Analysis of historical data; • On-site application of the group’s accumulated experience and subsequent discussion. At all stages the group noted the physical condition of plant as seen, and obtained photographic and video records. 1.4 General Observations

7. The group of experts’ overall general impression is that the oil industry of Iraq is in a lamentable state. The developed oilfields have had their productivity seriously reduced, some irreparably, during the past two decades. The oil processing and treatment facilities, refineries and storage terminals in the country have been severely damaged and continue to deteriorate. This deterioration, particularly in the oilfields, will accelerate until significant action is taken to contain and relieve the problems. 8. Although measurement devices are nonexistent at Iraq’s oil producing fields, the team has identified oilfield production and treatment as one major constraint with respect to increased production. Because of the age and precarious physical condition of the main fields there is strong doubt among the experts that the production profile of 3 million barrels per day (bpd), as the Government of Iraq is endeavouring to achieve, will be sustainable for the period under review. A sharp increase in production without concurrent expenditure on spare parts and equipment would severely damage oil-containing rocks and pipeline systems, and would be against accepted principles of “good oilfield husbandry”. 9. A second major constraint is that the transportation system and intermediary storage within Iraq are significantly compromised and need repairs at critical points. Significant issues are the degradation of the 40-inch pipeline, major losses in pumping capability and reduced intermediary storage capacity in the north, with identical problems in the south. 10. A third constraint is the need for proper coordination of loading schedules at the offshore terminal at Mina Al-Bakr, supported by efficient and reliable tugboats and mooring boats. 11. Provided that the pipeline infrastructure and intermediary storage to the loading facilities in Ceyhan and Mina Al-Bakr are brought up to standard, there may be no need to utilize other existing pipelines for increasing export volumes.

376 • 15 April 1998 1.5 The Current Overall Capacity as Advised by the Ministry of Oil

12. According to the Ministry of Oil, the following is the present capacity in barrels per day before repairs and improvements are undertaken: Production Local consumption Available for export

2,330,000 bpd 700,000 bpd 1,630,000 bpd

1.6 Historical Data of Oil Exports Under the Oil-for-Food Programme

13. All exports under the oil-for-food programme have been monitored by Saybolt, and the table below shows the rates of exports per day under the current mechanism: Phase I average export Phase II average export Phase III February 1998 average export Phase III March 1998 average export

664,000 bpd 1,124,000 bpd 1,121,000 bpd 1,223,000 bpd

1.7 Proposals to Increase Production

14. At the first meeting between the group of experts and officials of the Ministry of Oil, it was stated by the officials that the targets proposed and already submitted to the United Nations were: Time-frame Current production Achievable within two to three months Achievable within six months Achievable within 18 months

Production 2,300,000 bpd 2,650,000 bpd 3,000,000 bpd 3,500,000 bpd

The expenditure required to reach these targets would be: US$340 million to reach 3 million bpd production within six months, $400 million to sustain 3 million bpd production over a 12 month period, $300 million extra to reach 3.5 million bpd production within 18 months. 15. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Oil was also cognizant of the high level of proposed expenditure, and its effect on the availability of funds for humanitarian aid, and had produced a revised spare parts estimate, indicating the lowest possible figure to achieve 3 million bpd production within six months. The revised figure was $210 million. 16. In addition, the Ministry produced spare parts documentation requesting a further expenditure of $90 million related to “downstream” operations. The downstream operation comprises the operation from refinery to consumer. The requirements vary for spare parts and repairs for petrol stations, liquified petroleum gas filling units, etc. While not strictly relevant to the group of experts’

objectives in relation to the increase of oil exports, these requirements have been noted, and the request is considered to be reasonable. 17. The increase in production from 2.3 million bpd to 3 million bpd over six months is planned for both the north and south, as follows: Current North 1,000,000 bpd South 1,300,000 bpd Total 2,300,000 bpd

Three months

Six months

1,055,000 bpd 1,600,000 bpd 2,650,000 bpd

1,162,000 bpd 1,800,000 bpd 2,962,000 bpd

18. The accurate verification of production figures is not currently possible, as the oil industry in Iraq has no functioning internal monitoring system in operation. Wellhead production is not measured, movement between terminals is only estimated or is based on non-calibrated meters and/or storage tanks, and the whole operation is close to collapse. 1.8 Export of Petroleum Products and Local Consumption

19. The Government of Iraq indicated to the group of experts that the export of petroleum products would not be considered, mainly in view of the poor quality of the products and the lack of refining capacity. It is considering, however, the initial export of some 30,000 to 50,000 bpd of straightrun fuel oil (atmospheric residue) by direct injection into the Kirkuk-Yumurtalik pipeline in Iraq, before the metering station at Zakho, thus mixing it with Kirkuk crude exports. If marketable, this may be increased to 100,000 bpd. 20. Observation of the working refineries in Iraq has shown that the condition of the refineries in general is indeed poor. Significant pollution and environmental damage has also been noted. The current refining capacity and consumption is about 700,000 bpd, consisting of 620,000 bpd of local refining capacity and 80,000 bpd exported to Jordan. Local consumption is deducted from overall production to derive the potential export volume/value. 1.9 Group of Experts’ Estimate of Local Consumption

21. The estimate of quantity available for export automatically requires an estimate of local consumption. The group of experts has estimated local consumption to be 630,000 bpd. This has been calculated by reference to production throughputs provided by refinery staff and plant operators interviewed during site visits. The estimate is summarized in the relevant appendix to the report.

16 April 1998 • 377 1.10 Group of Experts’ Opinion on Spare Parts and Repairs

22. In view of the deplorable state of the oil industry, the group discussed with the relevant authorities of the Government of Iraq the priorities for essential action. As indicated, the group had received a list of spare parts based on a minimum spare parts requirement of $210 million. An initial investigation into the key items affecting shortterm production increase and transportation suggested delivery times of two to six months and prices marginally higher than estimated. A fully comprehensive review of the lists, in respect of prices, relevance and delivery time, is expected to be completed soon. 23. With regard to the monitoring of incoming spare parts and repairs, the group visited suitable warehouses in both the northern and southern parts of Iraq. The methodology of monitoring the arrival, storage and utilization of the spare parts is described in more detail in the report. 1.11 Conclusions

24. Without rapid and adequate investment in spare parts and repair of the production wells, plus the development of a number of smaller fields, the gap between the existing decline curve and the projected increment in crude oil production will grow wider for each month that financing is delayed. 25. The oil industry of Iraq has the expertise and technical knowledge to increase production gradually over the next 18 months. 26. The incremental increase in the “production versus time” scenario proposed by the Ministry of Oil is a reasonable one, representing a viable optimization of the large number of petroleum-engineering variables in the equation. The Iraqi-proposed profile, however, is deemed optimistic with regard to the gross volumes predicted, as well as unrealistic in terms of timing (see table below). Profile

Current production

After three months

After six months

Ministry of Oil 2,300,000 bpd 2,650,000 bpd 2,962,000 bpd Group of experts 2,160,000 bpd 2,130, 000 bpd 2,360,000 bpd

27. Current production as indicated above by the group of experts is 2,160,000 bpd. This results in a daily export capacity of 1,530,000 bpd, taking into consideration that, according to the group’s estimate, 630,000 bpd is used for local consumption. 28. As described above, Iraq is presently

exporting approximately 1,200,000 bpd. With a current capacity of 1,530,000 bpd, an immediate increase of 300,000 bpd is realistic and, once spare parts arrive and repairs begin, a gradual increase will be noticeable after four to six months. 29. The forecast in production versus time is based on the utilization of spare parts estimated at $210 million. 30. However, to ensure gradually increasing and sustainable crude oil production and the improvement of the oil industry of Iraq in general, with due regard to environmental and pollution issues, the group of experts estimates that the total expenditure required will be approximately $1.2 billion to reach production levels of 3 million bpd. 31. Based on the above, it is difficult to predict accurately the proceeds of the export figures as stated in the table, since they will be heavily influenced by the world oil market. It seems very unlikely, however, that proceeds of $5.256 billion during the 180-day period will be reached, since this would require an average oil price over the period of $16.90 per barrel of exported Iraqi oil. 32. On the basis of the group of experts’ estimate of total production less local consumption (after arrival of spare parts), sales during a period of 180 days, based on prices of $12.50 and $14.50 per barrel of exported Iraqi oil, are envisaged as follows: $12.50 per barrel

$14.50 per barrel

$3.9 billion

$4.5 billion

$5.0 billion

$5.8 billion

Sales after six months Sales after nine months

33. The group of experts’ assessment, taking into account the numerous technical variables involved and given the availability of the necessary spare parts and repairs indicated and amounting to an estimated $210 million, is that the Government of Iraq’s volume targets are optimistic, and that the time-frame for reaching its predicted figures, and therefore export targets, will slip. However, these production/time variations have significantly less effect on the dollar value of exports than the current price differentials in crude oil.

16 April 1998 Letter (UN archives); regional organizations Internal note from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, to the under-secretary-general for political affairs, Kieran Prendergast. A note from Riza to to the Secretary-General dated 2 April 1998 follows.

378 • 16 April 1998 NOTE TO MR. PRENDERGAST

Meeting with Regional Organizations

The Secretary-General has reviewed your note of 26 February. He would wish all the organizations listed in para 1(ii) of your memorandum to be invited, including NATO and WEU. He considers the United Nations relations with NATO to be of particular importance. He also approves invitations for both the Council of Europe and the Francophonie. “Conflict Prevention” as the topic of the meeting has his approval. Thank you. * * *

considered for invitation. The Secretary-General of the former has indicated his hope for an invitation and the Council has recently cooperated with the United Nations in the Balkans. I myself am not so sure about inviting the Francophonie given its nature (linguistic commonality), its very recent activation and the absence of any signs so far of how it would develop. Your guidance requested. I believe that given our recent cooperation with NATO in the Balkans it would be appropriate to invite them. Francophonie is transforming itself along the lines of Commonwealth; it should be invited along with the Council of Europe and WEU. Thanks. —K.A., 16/4

2 April 1998 NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (ON RETURN)

Meeting with Regional Organizations

You may recall that late last year, you had approved the arrangements for a meeting with Regional Organizations cooperating with the UN in the peace and security field (previous meetings had been held in August 1994 and February 1996). Mr. Prendergast had proposed the first half of May, but this became impractical in view of your travel programme as it developed. We are now considering organizing this meeting either in the second half of July or the second or third week of September. The topic recommended by Prendergast is “Conflict Prevention”, covering both early warning and preventive diplomacy. Your approval on both points is requested. As for the organizations to be invited, the February 1996 meeting was attended by thirteen regional organizations and arrangements: ASEAN, CARICOM, CIS, Commonwealth, ECOWAS, EU, LAS, NATO, OSCE, OAU, OAS, OIC and WEU. Mr. Prendergast recommends that all be invited again except WEU and NATO. The rationale is that WEU no longer has a programme in cooperation with the United Nations. As for NATO, Mr. Prendergast sees this as a military organization whose participation is not necessary in a meeting focusing on “Conflict Prevention”. My own view is that the relationship with NATO is important irrespective of other considerations and that they should be invited. Mr. Prendergast also recommends that the Council of Europe and the Francophonie should be

16 April 1998 Secretary-General Says Proposals in His Report on Africa Require New Ways of Thinking and Acting

Presentation to the Security Council (EOSG, SG/SM/6524, SC/6503); Africa Statement delivered by the Secretary-General to the Security Council. On 25 September 1997, the Security Council convened at the ministerial level to consider the need for a renewed and concerted international effort to promote peace and security in Africa. The Council requested that I submit a report on the sources of conflict in Africa and how they may best be addressed. I am pleased to submit that report today. Allow me, however, to begin by expressing my deepest gratitude to the members of the Security Council for taking this unprecedented step for Africa. Of course, not all of Africa is in crisis; not all of Africa is facing conflict. Indeed, Africa itself has begun to make significant economic and social progress in recent years. But by showing the Council’s concern for Africa’s remaining conflicts, you have signalled your readiness to further that progress and make it last for all of Africa. The report that I present today is guided, above all, by a commitment to honesty and clarity in analysing and addressing the challenge of conflict in Africa. For too long, conflict in Africa has been seen as inevitable or intractable, or both. It is neither. Conflict in Africa, as everywhere, is caused by human action, and can be ended by human action.

16 April 1998 • 379 This is the reality that shames us for every conflict that we allow to persist, and emboldens us to believe that we can address and resolve every conflict that we choose to confront. For the United Nations there is no higher goal, no deeper commitment and no greater ambition than preventing armed conflict so that people everywhere can enjoy peace and prosperity. In Africa, as elsewhere, the United Nations increasingly is being required to respond to intra-State instability and conflict. In those conflicts, the main aim, to an alarming degree, is the destruction not of armies but of civilians and entire ethnic groups. Preventing such wars is no longer a question of defending States or protecting allies. It is a question of defending humanity itself. Since 1970, Africa has had more than 30 wars fought on its territory, the vast majority of which have been intra-State in origin. Fourteen of Africa’s 53 countries were afflicted by armed conflicts in 1996 alone. These accounted for more than half of all war-related deaths worldwide, resulting in more than 8 million refugees, returnees and displaced persons. The consequences of these conflicts have seriously undermined Africa’s efforts to ensure long-term stability, prosperity and peace for its peoples. No one—not the United Nations, not the international community, not Africa’s leaders—can escape responsibility for the persistence of these conflicts. Indeed, colossal human tragedies have taken place in Africa over the last decade—tragedies that could and should have been prevented. Not enough was done to address the causes of conflict. Not enough was done to ensure a lasting peace. Not enough was done to create the conditions for sustainable development. This is the reality of Africa’s recent past. It is a reality that must be confronted honestly and constructively by all concerned if the people of Africa are to enjoy the human security and economic opportunities they seek and deserve. Today in many parts of Africa, efforts to break with these past patterns are at last beginning to succeed. It is my aspiration that this report add momentum to Africa’s renewed quest for peace and greater prosperity. The report strives to do so by offering an analysis of Africa’s conflicts that does justice to their reality and seeks answers in their sources. It strives to do so by proposing realistic and achievable recommendations which, over time, may reduce if not entirely end Africa’s conflicts. And it

aims to summon the political will of Africans and non-Africans alike to act when action so evidently is needed—the will without which no level of assistance and no degree of hope can make the difference between war and peace in Africa. The sources of conflict in Africa are as varied and complex as the continent itself. In this report, I have sought to identify the kinds of actions that most effectively and most lastingly may address those conflicts and resolve them. The significance of history and of factors external to Africa cannot be denied. But more than three decades after African countries gained their independence, there is a growing recognition among Africans that the continent must look beyond its colonial past for the sources and the solutions to its current conflicts. The proposals that I set forth today require, in some cases, new ways of thinking about conflict in Africa. In others, they require new ways of acting. Whether in peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance or post-conflict peace-building, genuine and sustainable progress depends on three critical factors: a clear understanding of the challenge; the political will to respond to that challenge; and the resources necessary to provide the adequate response. Equally important is the understanding that peace and development remain inextricably linked—one feeding on the other, enabling the other and securing the other. The renunciation of violence as a means of gaining and holding power is only the beginning. Then must follow a renewed commitment to national development founded on sober, sound and uncorrupted economic policies. A number of African States have made good progress in recent years, but others continue to struggle. Poor economic performance and inequitable development have resulted in a nearpermanent economic crisis for some States, greatly exacerbating internal tensions and greatly diminishing the government’s capacity to respond to those tensions. Good governance is now more than ever the condition for the success of both peace and development. It is no coincidence that Africa’s renaissance has come at a time when new and more democratic forms of government have begun to emerge and take root. What we have learned over the last decades is that with political will, rhetoric can truly be transformed into reality. Without it, not even the noblest sentiments will have a chance of success. With sufficient political will—on the part of Africa and on the part of the international community—peace

380 • 16 April 1998

and development in Africa can be given a new momentum. Africa is an ancient continent. Its lands are rich and fertile enough to provide a solid foundation for prosperity. Its people are proud and industrious enough to seize the opportunities that may be presented. I am confident that Africans will not be found wanting—in stamina, in determination or in political will. Africa today is striving to make positive change, and in many places these efforts are beginning to bear fruit. In the carnage and tragedy that afflicts some parts of Africa, we must not forget the bright spots or overlook the achievements that have been made. What is needed is for those achievements to grow and multiply throughout Africa. Three areas deserve particular attention. First, Africa must demonstrate the political will to rely upon political rather than military responses to problems. Democratic channels for pursuing legitimate interests and expressing dissent must be protected, and political opposition respected and accommodated in constitutional forms. Second, Africa must summon the political will to take good governance seriously—ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law, strengthening democratization and promoting transparency and capability in public administration. Unless good governance is prized, Africa will not break free of the threat and the reality of conflict which are so evident today. Third, Africa must enact and adhere to the various reforms needed to promote economic growth. Long-term success can only be achieved if African governments have the political will to enact sound economic policies, and to persevere in their implementation until a solid economic foundation has been established. Political will is also needed from the international community. Where the international community is committed to making a difference, it has proven that significant and rapid transformation can be achieved. With respect to Africa, the international community must now summon the will to intervene where it can have an impact, and invest where resources are needed. New sources of funding are required, but so too is a better use of existing resources and the enactment of trade and debt relief measures that will enable Africa to generate and better reinvest its own resources. Concrete steps must be taken and I have made a number of concrete recommendations towards this end.

Let us never forget that it is the persistence of poverty that is impeding the full promise of peace for all of Africa’s peoples. Alleviating poverty must be the first aim of all our efforts. Only then— only when prosperity and opportunity become real—will every citizen, young or old, man or woman, have a genuine and lasting stake in a peaceful future for Africa—politically, economically and socially. In this report, I set out to provide a clear and candid analysis of the sources of Africa’s conflicts and why they persist. I have recommended actions and goals to reduce conflict and in time help to build a strong and durable peace. I have urged Africans and non-Africans alike to summon the political will to rise to the challenge which together we must all confront. The time is long past when one could claim ignorance about what was happening in Africa, or what was needed to achieve progress. The time is also past when the responsibility for producing change could be shifted on to other shoulders. It is responsibility that we all must face. Allow me to conclude by saying that the United Nations not only seeks but welcomes this responsibility. For we wish, above all, that this report will mark a new beginning in the relations between the United Nations and Africa. Let us make that beginning. Today. Together.

16 April 1998 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6523) SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I have just completed my briefing to the Security Council on my report on the sources of conflict in Africa, and how we, together, can help bring them to an end. Let me say that the report is addressed not only to the Council but to all the United Nations and anyone concerned with Africa’s remaining conflicts, in Africa and around the world. It is a challenge that we must all face. For too long, conflict in Africa has been seen as inevitable or intractable, or both; I believe it is neither. Conflict in Africa, as everywhere, is caused by human action and can be ended by human action. Of course, not all of Africa is in crisis, not all of Africa is facing conflict. Indeed, Africa itself has begun to make significant economic and social progress in recent years. This report seeks to contribute to Africa’s renewed quest for peace by offering a clear, candid analysis of their sources, by proposing realistic and achievable recommen-

18 April 1998 • 381 dations which, over time, may reduce, if not entirely end, Africa’s conflicts by summoning the political will of Africans and non-Africans alike— the will without which no level of assistance and no degree of hope can make a difference between war and peace in Africa. For the United Nations—but also for me, personally, as Secretary-General—there is no higher goal, no deeper commitment and no greater ambition than preventing armed conflict, so that people everywhere can enjoy peace and prosperity. With this report, the United Nations welcomes its responsibility for helping Africa meet its challenges. We must seek not to supplant Africa’s own efforts but to complement them, for we wish above all that this report will make a new beginning in the relationship between Africa and the United Nations, particularly on these issues. Thank you. I am now be [sic] ready to take your questions. QUESTION: It is probably too early for you to have had a reaction from the members of the Security Council, but in general what would you expect them to do at this point—let’s say the first step—to implement your report? S-G: The President of the Council announced this morning that in a week’s time, I think on 24 April, there will be another debate in the Council on the report, where Council members and other Member States and observers will address, will speak to the report. They will have had time to study it, and we will get their reactions and responses then. And I hope they will find the report solid and frank and the analysis serious, and it will help in our efforts to assist Africa. QUESTION [translated from French]: In your report you talk about the role of arms merchants. At present, at least four States among the five permanent members sell arms. How do you think reductions in arms sales can be promoted? S-G: I believe that, first of all, we must begin by reading the report, and if we really want to help Africa we must find a means of not selling so many arms to the Africans. And Africans themselves need to avoid this trend towards the accumulation of arms—because there are two sides to this. And I hope that they will work with us to resolve the situation. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, in the report you gave a great deal of attention to mediation efforts, coordination and preventive work. What value do you see in any regional approach that might involve a standing regional envoy who

might be able to coordinate all aspects of security arrangements in this sense—Ambassador Sahnoun [inaudible] [special envoy of the SecretaryGeneral in Africa] throughout the continent. S-G: I think there has been quite a lot of development in Africa on that front. We are all familiar with what ECOWAS [Economic Community of West African States] did with its ECOMOG force in Liberia. The SADC [South African Development Community] in South Africa has also played a very effective role in conflict resolution. And other efforts have taken place in Africa, particularly in the Central African region: one saw the role of President Bongo [of Gabon] and other leaders in attempting to resolve the conflicts in Brazzaville. In Liberia and in Sierra Leone armies and peacekeeping forces had to be introduced. It was an African force, and they were able to resolve the conflict. And I think what happened in Sierra Leone is particularly important. We sent a powerful message around the continent that juntas will not be allowed to dislodge democratically elected governments and be comfortable in office. And I hope that message is not lost on anyone. The OAU [Organization of African Unity] has its own machinery for conflict resolution, and it works effectively with leaders around the region. And attempts are being made to strengthen African capacity for peacekeeping. That should not free the United Nations from its responsibility for international peace and security, but if there is a strong African capacity it helps in ensuring peace and security around the continent. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, [inaudible] the Security Council is acting from the point of view of the decision maker. And on the sanctions, you mentioned that you want these to be directed to targeted decision makers and their [inaudible] and their movement. How would you expect them to look at your recommendations, or would you get any other action on that [inaudible]? S-G: No, it’s too early to know how the Council will react. But we think the recommendations will be helpful if they are more targeted to those in leadership. We all have agreed that sanctions are a blunt instrument and sometimes hurt the innocent and those for whom they were not intended. In fact, that is one of the reasons why right from the beginning, the Council introduced the oilfor-food scheme for Iraq: to be able to assist the general population. But if we can target, if we can have more targeted and specific sanctions, we may be able to avoid some of these problems. QUESTION: Your report addresses basically the

382 • 18 April 1998

conflict and resolution aspect in Africa. But one of the major problems that afflicts the region is an economic crisis. Your report doesn’t . . . S-G: No, I’m sorry, the report covers the economic aspects very strongly. Not only do we get into economic issues, but we have specific recommendations in this area. We deal with debt relief, we deal with regional projects and also there is a strong post-conflict building and economic aspect in the report. And I would suggest, since this just came out and probably one hasn’t had time to analyse it in all its detail—but it’s quite comprehensive and it covers economic aspects. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, in reference to your concrete recommendations regarding trade, debt relief and new sources of funding: in the post-cold-war era, funding from industrialized nations, including the United States, has declined. How important is it, in your mind, that the international community rethink the mix of private investment and government aid to help development in Africa? S-G: No, I think it is important, not only for the international community but for the African governments also, to think about it, and for the United Nations as well. And this is one of the reasons why we have encouraged partnerships with the private sector, with the non-governmental organizations, with civil society, to be able to move forward some of the economic and social projects. ODA [official development assistance] has diminished and is diminishing, and we cannot keep chasing diminishing donor assistance. In today’s world, it is the private sector that creates wealth, it is the private sector that has the money, the technology and the management, so we need to work with them to really try to get them to invest in some of these countries. This has become part of the United Nations modus operandi in quite a lot of the developing countries. That is one of the reasons why we are working with governments to strengthen their institutions, to come up with the right legal framework, to come up with their own regulations for privatization to ensure that they create the enabling environment that will foster investments, both domestic and international. It is these same conditions that encourage domestic investment that will attract international investment, so we are very much aware of this and we are working with governments in this respect. But of course we have to make sure that some of it is direct investment and not just capital that can move in and out at the whim of the—but your point is well taken.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, following up on this issue of economic development, we know that in Africa there are a lot of governments that are far from democratic and that there seems to be a lot of corruption. Are there any specific proposals you make for dealing with the corruption issue, which clearly has an impact on private investment? S-G: I think we discussed in the report the need for transparency, the need for good governance, the need for a society based on the rule of law—all these requirements would have an impact on the issue of corruption. In our own work on the ground, this is one of the issues that we tackle. And it’s not just the United Nations alone; the World Bank is working with us on this, and the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] and the OAU are also discussing it, and hopefully they will also come up with some standards for African government. QUESTION [translated from French]: Mr. Secretary-General, in your report you speak of mobilizing international support for peace efforts, and you give as an example Rwanda, where the international community procrastinated for quite a while. But it would seem that it doesn’t always procrastinate when an African country has oil and diamonds, as does Somalia, for instance. How can you get the international community to mobilize when we are dealing with a country like Rwanda, which has nothing? S-G [translated from French]: In that case, obviously, you need to start with the will to do something, with the will to assist, to accept the fact that if we do not help these countries, those conflicts will continue and that the result will be mass migrations of people who are going to try to leave, to seek jobs elsewhere, be it in one or another region. Therefore, we need to start with the will and the idea of accepting responsibility for others, that we can help them live their lives as they should. If that will is lacking, it is impossible to do much. Without real political will, there is not much that can be done. QUESTION: Going back to the questions of weapons, you refer to the arms embargoes and to the question of nations strengthening their national laws on embargoes. What could the Security Council do to strengthen enforcement of its own arms embargoes? S-G: That is a good question, and again it also comes back to this question of cooperation and will on the part of the Member governments to apply the decisions and resolutions of the Security

16 April 1998 • 383 Council. Application of these embargoes has not always been universal, and in some cases there has been major leakage. I would hope that if the Council acts, all Member States will respect the Council’s decision and apply the sanctions. QUESTION: You mention in the report Rwanda and Somalia as undermining confidence in the Organization. How would you say that the Organization will gain that back, for example in the Congo [Kinshasa] today? S-G: I don’t know that the Organization necessarily needs to gain back its confidence in the Congo [Democratic Republic of Congo]. The Organization is operating around the world and on many continents and is dealing with many issues. What is important is that we learn from the mistakes and the difficulties of the past, adjust our approaches and move forward. In fact, some of these lessons have been drawn, and this is reflected in the report, as are some of the solutions and the approaches that we are putting forward. We do have a difficult situation in the Congo [Democratic Republic of Congo], but it takes two to tango. Where the governments and the leaders have been cooperating and working with the United Nations and have had the will to work on either development issues, political settlements or the development of good governance, we have entered into partnership, and a lot has been done. Where that will is not there, there is not much one can do. You cannot impose it. And I think we have to be careful to not always put the blame on the United Nations. There is the other side, and in some areas it should take greater responsibility. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, some of your predecessors have made reports on Africa. Why do you believe this report will make a difference in peace and prosperity in Africa, and what sort of follow-up do you intend to do to gauge that progress? S-G: I think that first of all there is a new mood in Africa. There are lots of leaders in Africa today who are determined to take charge, who are working to improve economic conditions for their people and their nation, who are seeking to introduce democratic practices and a rule based on the rule of law. More and more African countries are beginning to accept that the only legitimate source of authority is one based on the will of the people. And I think, with that mood—with the Africans engaging themselves—we can work with them in partnership to foster this positive development. I think the international community has also recognized that, and I hope this candid report will

really engage us and encourage those who would want to work with Africa, and the African governments themselves, to embrace the assistance by the international community and work in partnership. What we have also done in this report is really [to] place people at the centre. We are talking about the African people, what should be done to help the Africans and what we and the African leaders and the Africans should do to move economic and social development forward while respecting their human rights and the rule of law. So I think in this new climate, if we can work in partnership, we can make real progress here. QUESTION: Do you have a timetable in mind for following up your report? S-G: No, I think these are not the kinds of issues for which you can have a timetable. But within the United Nations and within ourselves we are beginning to assign tasks: to department heads, to programme heads—who does what. But, of course, we would need to see how the Member States react after the Council reviews the report next week. The report is not only addressed to the Security Council, it is also addressed to the General Assembly and ECOSOC [Economic and Social Council], and those two bodies, in time, may also want to look at it and come up with suggestions about what can be done or what they, collectively, would want to do, or what individual governments would want to do in furthering the proposals and recommendations in the report. But what the United Nations can do—yesterday at a meeting we began to assign tasks to our heads of departments and agencies as to who should do what and how we should pool our efforts to make things happen. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, the Iraqi leadership warned today that it is running out of patience with the United Nations sanctions and that Baghdad’s relations with the Security Council are at stake if the Council does not act on paragraph 22 of resolution 687 by the end of this month. Are you worried that this is an ultimatum? Are you concerned about a cycle of escalation that might jeopardize the agreement that you have arrived at—the new relationship that Iraqis have with you? And, secondly, do you in fact plan to send United Nations representatives to the London conference, which the Iraqis have objected to? If you could clarify that for us, please. S-G: On your first question, I have not seen the full text of the statement. I am not sure how authoritative that statement is. You will recall that

384 • 16 April 1998

the agreement was negotiated with President Saddam Hussein himself and signed by the Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz. And I would hope that if there is going to be a change in policy it would come from that level and the same source. Yesterday I was also asked a question: that Dr. Rashid, the Oil Minister, had made a statement to some of the inspectors, and if this meant a change in policy on the Iraqi side. I think we need to be very careful not to jump to conclusions each time an Iraqi official makes a statement. I think we will need to sort of test it, verify it and make sure if this is the intention or the real decision of the Government. So far things have gone well, and we hope that they will continue to cooperate. I have had no official communication from the Government that they are ending their cooperation with the United Nations. With regard to the London conference, we will send someone to make a statement to present the facts as to how the scheme is run and how we approach the humanitarian problem in Iraq. But we are not co-sponsoring or deeply associated with the conference; but we will provide the facts and let them get on with it. QUESTION: Just as a follow-up to clarify. This is a statement that was made by the leadership, chaired by President Saddam Hussein; it is the top body of the Baath leadership party. The meeting was chaired by Saddam Hussein. S-G: I have not seen the statement. I will have to study it if it came from President Saddam Hussein, a meeting chaired by him. But I have not seen it, in all honesty. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, the United Nations has sent more than one [inaudible] to Afghanistan, from Benon Sevan to Mr. Mahmoud and from there on to Dr. Holl. And now Mr. Brahimi is engaged in the dialogue to bring a coalition government in Afghanistan—gender equality and human rights situation. Now, Bill Richardson is leading a United States team to Afghanistan today, and he will be negotiating on the same identical agenda which the United Nations has promoted in Afghanistan. Do you foresee any success after all this marathon? Do you feel that there can be any achievement when still we are in part one, asking for broad-based coalition government and gender equality? S-G: I think a lot depends on the leaders of Afghanistan. We have been patient and persistent and have worked with them over the years, and our efforts are continuing. We have also appealed to the neighbours to stop pouring arms into

Afghanistan and to stop arming the parties and to work with us in search of a political solution. If and when the parties decide that the solution is not in the battlefield but is around the negotiating table, and they engage us seriously, we will make progress. Mr. Brahimi is doing his best. I do not know the details of the proposal Ambassador Richardson has with him. You indicated that it is similar to what we have. I think he will be supporting the United Nations efforts. I do not know the details of what he is carrying with him. But I think if the faction leaders cooperate with us we can make progress. But so far we have not received the level of cooperation that will allow us to move forward, and we have appealed to them and also to the neighbours to work with us. And I hope that Mr. Brahimi will be successful in moving the parties forward. QUESTION: Do you mean to say that the United Nations is at the mercy of the parties in conflict in Afghanistan, or do you foresee that, with the help of Bill Richardson, the United Nations will now be able to progress inch by inch or foot by foot, something like that? S-G: I am not quite sure I understand your question. I think I have made quite clear the parameters within which we operate. I do not know what you expect the United Nations to do in a situation where the leaders’ will to settle is not there. The United Nations cannot impose peace. The United Nations cannot get the parties to sit around a table if they do not want to come. I think it is as simple as that. QUESTION [translated from French]: Mr. Secretary-General, we understand that you are going to announce the final withdrawal of the Human Rights Investigative Mission from Kinshasa. Can you tell us why you are taking this decision now, and not before, and if you see this as a failure for the United Nations? S-G [translated from French]: I had a long discussion with my colleagues, including Mrs. Robinson. I am waiting for certain elements in order to make a final decision, but the decision will be taken before the weekend. I think we have done the most we could. We have been extremely patient. We have done everything possible to find the truth. I also think it was right to do everything possible to really try to find out who killed whom and for what reason. Therefore, it is not a failure. We are going to continue the inquiry from outside if we decide to withdraw the team. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, you have

16 April 1998 • 385 just said in French that the team’s efforts have not been a failure in the Democratic Republic of the Congo . . . S-G: No, I am saying the team’s efforts have not been wasted. I am saying that we did really go the extra mile in search of the truth, and one should never apologize for going an extra mile and making an extra effort to get to the truth. The fact that they did not give us full cooperation—and, in fact, in some cases obstructed what we had to do—does not negate the efforts that we made. The search for the truth will continue through other means if we are not able to continue on the ground, and we will submit a report some time later. QUESTION: Two brief questions, one on Iraq and one on the Congo. Is it your understanding, just to clarify this, that the agreement you reached in Baghdad was that UNSCOM [United Nations Special Commission] could go back to these presidential sites whenever they wanted to, including in the monitoring phase? [And] what do you think the consequences will be of pulling out the United Nations investigative mission from the Congo? S-G: I think, on your first question, the answer is yes. The agreement allows UNSCOM to go in again and to go back again. And so it was not time-specific or one time only. In fact, it was on that issue that we spent more time trying to thrash it out until we got an agreement with the President himself. On the question of the team in Kinshasa, when you ask me what is the impact: I think the impact, perhaps, would underscore how difficult it is to get to the facts, how difficult it is to get governments to cooperate in these situations when human rights abuses are at stake. We will probably have to think of other sources of creative means in getting to the truth, in addition to insisting on having people on the ground. I think the fact that we got people on the ground and focused attention on the issue, and went, as I said, the extra mile, was a positive one that showed the determination of the Organization to get to the bottom of these things. I think there are future lessons that we will have to draw as to how we get to some of these and how we deal with recalcitrant governments in these situations.

16 April 1998 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Letter to the president of the Security Council, Hisashi Owada.

Dear Mr. President, You will recall that on 8 July 1997, members of the Security Council endorsed my proposal to set up an Investigative Team to help resolve the impasse which arose following the refusal of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) to allow the Joint Investigative Team appointed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to enter its territory to investigate allegations of serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the former Zaire. As the members of the Council are aware, the purpose of this proposal was to ensure that the investigations could be conducted with the cooperation of the DRC Government. Regrettably, since its arrival in Kinshasa in August 1997, the Team has met a series of obstacles on the part of the Congolese authorities despite repeated assurances of cooperation from the Government. I have kept the Council informed of these obstacles. The most recent incident in the pattern of obstruction was the expulsion from Goma and the subsequent detention of a member of the Team at Kinshasa airport on 7 and 8 April 1998. The DRC authorities seized, searched and photocopied official United Nations documents in the possession of the staff member, in complete disregard of the obligations of Member States under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. A strong protest against these actions is being lodged through the Permanent Representative of DRC. A particular concern is that, the documents seized, and then returned, contain the names of individuals who gave testimony to the investigators. There is now great concern for the safety of the individuals concerned. In the light of the continuous obstruction by the authorities of the Government of DRC in not allowing the Investigative Team to carry out its work, and following a careful assessment made by a mission I sent for this purpose, as well as full consideration of all alternatives, I reluctantly have decided to withdraw the investigative Team with immediate effect. The investigation of the allegations regarding gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in DRC will now revert to the Commission on Human Rights for appropriate consideration. In closing, I wish to pay tribute to the members and staff of the Investigative Team under the lead-

386 • 16 April 1998

ership of Mr. Atsu-Koffi Amega, who have displayed the highest standards of professionalism, personal dedication, and integrity throughout their difficult mission. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

17 April 1998 Secretary-General Withdraws Human Rights Team from the Democratic Republic of Congo

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6525); Democratic Republic of Congo The Secretary-General has decided, reluctantly and after full consideration of all alternatives, to withdraw the investigative team he had sent to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to look into allegations of serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in certain parts of that country. The establishment of the investigative team was intended to bridge the impasse which had arisen as a result of the refusal of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to allow a joint investigative mission of the Commission on Human Rights to investigate the allegations. The proposal of the Secretary-General to establish the investigative team was endorsed by the Security Council on 8 July 1997. The intention in establishing the team was to secure the cooperation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo authorities in the investigation. However, since its arrival there in August 1997, the investigative team constantly met a series of obstacles by the authorities, despite repeated assurances by the Government that the team would be allowed to carry out its work. Attempts by forensic experts to excavate suspected sites of mass graves were blocked. The authorities also harassed and intimidated witnesses who provided testimony to the investigators. In the most recent incident in this pattern of obstruction, the Democratic Republic of the Congo authorities on 7 and 8 April expelled a member of the investigative team from Goma and subsequently detained him at Kinshasa airport. Confidential United Nations documents in the possession of the staff member were seized, searched and assumed to have been photocopied by the authorities in complete disregard of the obligations of Member States under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. In the light of the total absence of cooperation of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in allowing the investigative team to carry

out its work, and following a careful assessment made by a mission sent by the Secretary-General for this purpose, the Secretary-General has decided to withdraw the investigative team with immediate effect. The Commission on Human Rights, under its mandate, remains seized of the question of allegations regarding serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

18 April 1998 Secretary-General Stresses Need for UN and Bretton Woods Institutions to Promote Economic and Social Progress

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6528, ECOSOC/5751); development Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the special high-level meeting of the Economic and Social Council with the Bretton Woods Institutions, at UN headquarters. I am delighted to see you all here. I know you have had a busy few days in Washington, D.C. and I should like to thank our very distinguished group of panelists for taking the time to join us here at the United Nations. I would like to express my appreciation for the excellent relationship that I have enjoyed with both Michel Camdessus and James Wolfensohn since I assumed my responsibilities as SecretaryGeneral. I am grateful to both of them not only for their friendship, but also for the cooperation they have fostered between the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Both of them have addressed the Economic and Social Council in the past and I am delighted that Michel Camdessus is with us once again. Many of you are returning from the spring meetings in Washington. This interchange between the diplomatic, financial and developmental cooperation communities will enrich us all. This will help break the more strait-jacketed ways of thinking and move us forward in the search for the common good, in the eradication of poverty and the creation of conditions of stability and predictability. Finance is central to the development process, but development finance is also an area where, in recent years, the thinking has changed fundamentally; and where, at the same time, dramatic developments have taken place. There is now universal recognition of the developmental role of private international capital flows. They have brought

18 April 1998 • 387 with them tremendous benefits. Big strides have been made in improving the lives of millions of people. Yet, as the recent financial crisis in Asia has shown, there are huge risks involved. There are, as I see it, three main areas of concern in the implications of the recent crisis in Asia. First and foremost, there is the situation of the crisis countries themselves. One might ask whether the penalty imposed on these countries in terms of lost output and lost jobs is commensurate with the failings of omission or commission they may have had. I think we are all preoccupied by the harsh toll these crises impose on an entire citizenry. Those hardest hit are usually the most vulnerable. Job seekers who have migrated during the good times; the poor who can no longer pay for the higher priced basic necessities; those groups which are employed in the least organized sectors of the economy. Beyond this is the continuing threat of social strife, breakdown of law and order and loss of self-esteem. Macro aggregates do not capture the trauma that individuals and families have to undergo as a result of crisis of this nature. It is not only the countries and their citizens directly concerned that bear the consequences, but the world at large. And here again, I perceive a major area of concern. The precise impact of the Asian crisis cannot be separated from all other independent developments affecting the world economy. Yet it is becoming increasingly apparent that other developing and transition countries—far removed geographically and even economically from their Asian colleagues—will be affected more severely by the crisis than their developed counterparts. In other words, the collateral damage is greater in developing countries than elsewhere. A third area of concern can be found in the speed of deterioration and recovery. A perceived failure to adhere to externally determined standards of creditworthiness can lead to instant loss of international confidence. There are signs that such confidence can be regained surprisingly rapidly; but not nearly so quickly as it is lost, nor to the same degree. The ensuing short-term losses to an economy not only undo previous gains; they also harm growth prospects in the longer term. And there is a real risk that successes built up over years in reducing poverty will be reversed. I see these fundamental issues arising from the

way the current international financial system itself operates, and the way risks and rewards are balanced. The question to be addressed is whether we can find ways to preserve the benefits of open financial markets while reducing the risks of crises and designing tools to deal with them that will be less costly in human terms. This is a matter on which our institutions—among many others— should pursue a wide-ranging exchange of views. The United Nations has a role to play both in easing the impact of such crises and in the longerterm preventive aspects. Short-term concerns can lead to a neglect of the fundamentals of longerterm development. These must be built around human capital investment and broader dimensions such as respect for human rights, institutional development as well as participatory democracy. When the General Assembly took the decision two years ago to hold this meeting, it could not have known how timely the event would prove to be. The financial turbulence in Asia has presented an enormous challenge to the international community and to the countries directly involved. However, the ensuing economic, social and developmental—as well as political—consequences of the crisis have served as reminders of the interrelationships between the responsibilities and work of our three organizations. Moreover, the international ramifications are becoming more apparent every day. They are vivid proof of the risks that come with the benefits of globalization. They are also stark evidence that closer cooperation between the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions is imperative. In Washington, the Interim and Development Committees and the Group of 24 consider global financial issues. These intergovernmental mechanisms have different purposes and involve different actors from the processes here in the United Nations. But they are not unrelated. Our organizations share the objective of promoting economic and social progress throughout the world. We bring to our work different capacities and, in some areas, different perspectives. Yet these differences are rapidly diminishing. The United Nations is no longer constrained by the East-West rivalry of the past, while membership of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank is becoming increasingly universal. Even more important, there is now far greater consensus on the nature of the development process. Known by relatively few but affecting so many, cooperation between our respective institutions is

388 • 18 April 1998

strongest where it counts most—at the field level. I firmly believe we have made great progress—and continue to do so—in ensuring that the operational activities of the Bank, the Fund and the United Nations system are mutually supportive. This has been most evident in post-conflict peace-building; but increasingly, the Bretton Woods institutions, the United Nations and the specialized agencies are working together to enhance coherence and impact across the full range of our development efforts. I look forward to the discussions here today and, even more importantly, to their continuing in the future. With our overriding commonality of concerns and approaches, it is only appropriate that we should join forces to pursue our common objective. So much more can be achieved by acting together than by acting alone, or separately.

21 April 1998 Letter (EOSG); Philippines Letter from the secretary of foreign affairs of the Philippines and chairman of the ASEAN Troika, Domingo L. Siazon Jr. Excellency, I with to inform Your Excellency that the ASEAN Troika on Cambodia met on 18 April 1998 in Bangkok and had a consultative meeting with the Friends of Cambodia on 19 April 1998. During these two meetings which I chaired as Chairman of the ASEAN Troika, there was a unanimous expression of support for the initiatives and the vital role that the United Nations, under your esteemed leadership, has assumed in the Cambodian elections scheduled on 26 July 1998. As Your Excellency may be aware, some ASEAN members are considering favorably the sending of observers during the elections. The approximate number of observers expected from ASEAN is seventy (70) to seventy-five (75). We recognize the need for a large number of observers to assist the United Nations in the task of ensuring free and credible elections in Cambodia. At the Bangkok meeting of the ASEAN Troika, we discussed the possibility of the United Nations tapping the goodwill and expertise of a great number of non-governmental organizations around the world involved in the monitoring of elections and agreed to request Your Excellency to consider making an appeal to these organizations to contribute their efforts to the cause of free elections in

Cambodia. We are confident that an appeal from Your Excellency will generate the interest among NGOs which could then be pursued by us in the Government, for the desired results. We hope that Your Excellency will look favorably at the proposal of the ASEAN Troika. In closing and on behalf of the ASEAN Troika, I wish to reiterate our appreciation for the valuable cooperation that the United Nations has extended to ASEAN in the pursuit of our common objective of helping restore political stability in Cambodia. Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. Domingo L. Siazon, Jr. Secretary of Foreign Affairs

23 April 1998 Secretary-General Speaks on the Challenge of Conflict Prevention in the 21st Century

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6535); conflict prevention Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, Houston, Texas. Thank you, Jim [former US secretary of state James A. Baker III], for those very kind and generous words. It has been one of the great privileges of my service as Secretary-General to have worked with James Baker on one of the most persistent disputes facing the United Nations: namely, Western Sahara. I had not imagined, however, that we would have seen as much progress as we have in the short time since I appointed Jim as my Personal Envoy. Within just a few months, in four rounds of talks held in Lisbon, London and Houston, Jim secured the agreement of the two sides—the Government of Morocco and the Frente POLISARIO—on the outstanding issues for the implementation of the United Nations peace plan. This remarkable breakthrough revived the entire process and gave all sides new hope that a final settlement including a referendum on the selfdetermination for the people of Western Sahara is within our reach. We are all in your debt, Jim. Thank you. I have chosen to speak to you today about the challenge of conflict prevention because I believe it goes to the heart of the United Nations mission for the next century. In an era when violent conflicts too often are ignored and too readily accepted, at a time when people would rather look away than look ahead,

23 April 1998 • 389 the United Nations must and will become a global centre of preventive action. For the United Nations, there is no higher goal, no deeper commitment and no greater ambition than preventing armed conflict. The prevention of conflict begins and ends with the protection of human life and the promotion of human development. Ensuring human security is, in the broadest sense, the United Nations cardinal mission. Genuine and lasting prevention is the means to achieve that mission. Throughout the world today, but particularly in Africa and other parts of the South, intra-State wars are the face of modern conflict. In these wars, the destruction not just of armies, but of civilians and entire ethnic groups is increasingly the main aim. Preventing these wars is no longer a matter of defending interests or promoting allies. It is matter of defending humanity itself. And yet we seem never to learn. Time and again differences are allowed to develop into disputes and disputes allowed to develop into deadly conflicts. Time and again, warning signs are ignored and pleas for help overlooked. Only after the deaths and the destruction do we intervene at a far higher human and material cost and with far fewer lives to save. Only when it is too late do we value prevention. There are, in my view, three main reasons for the failure of prevention when prevention so clearly is possible. First, the reluctance of one or more of the parties to a conflict to accept external intervention of any kind. Second, the lack of political will at the highest levels of the international community. Third, a lack of integrated conflict-prevention strategies within the United Nations system and the international community. Of all these, the will to act is the most important. Without the political will to act when action is needed, no amount of improved coordination or early warning will translate awareness into action. All Member States facing situations of conflict must recognize that far from infringing upon their sovereignty, early warning and preventive diplomacy seek to support and restore legitimate authority and global order. To ensure this, the membership of the United Nations as a whole must provide the mandate and resources available for preventive activities. Fortunately, the United Nations work in prevention is as old as the Charter itself. In every diplomatic mission and development project that we pursue, the United Nations is doing the work of prevention. The Secretary-General’s

own good offices in preventive diplomacy have been exercised with success over the years. Though this practice is long established, the potential for progress is still greater. Within my first year as Secretary-General, I have renewed our peacemaking efforts in Cyprus, East Timor, Afghanistan and the Great Lakes region of Africa, in addition to Western Sahara. These are long-standing disputes with hard and bitter roots. We will continue to seek new ways to narrow the divide in each case and promote a durable peace that can provide security and prosperity to all sides. The United Nations operational prevention strategy involves four fundamental activities— early warning, preventive diplomacy, preventive deployment and early humanitarian action. The United Nations structural prevention strategy involves three additional activities—preventive disarmament, development and peace-building. Guiding and infusing all these efforts is the promotion of human rights, democratization and good governance as the foundations of peace. Preventive deployment, in one particular example, has already had a remarkable effect in the explosive region of the Balkans. Such a force is only a “thin blue line”. But the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force’s (UNPREDEP) role so far in The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia suggests that preventive deployment, adequately mandated and supported, can make the difference between war and peace. Preventive disarmament is another measure whose importance needs to be recognized and advanced. The United Nations has disarmed combatants in the context of peacekeeping operations from Nicaragua to Mozambique. Urgent action is also needed to curtail the flow of conventional weapons. In particular, we must do more to halt the proliferation of small arms with which most wars are fought today. As part of my reform agenda, I have therefore established a new Department of Disarmament Affairs with a range of new tasks. High on its agenda will be the challenge of “micro-disarmament”, to work with governments in focusing on the illegal trade in small arms. In other cases, destroying yesterday’s weapons prevents them from being used tomorrow. This is also what the United Nations has been attempting to do in Iraq, where the inspections of the United Nations Special Commission have succeeded in destroying more weapons of mass destruction than did the entire Persian Gulf War.

390 • 23 April 1998

It was in support of the United Nations Special Commission’s (UNSCOM) mission that I went to Baghdad, in order to secure Iraq’s compliance with the demands of the international community. I went to Baghdad, with the full authorization of all members of the Security Council, in search of a peaceful solution to the crisis. That crisis has, at least for now, been averted. The mandate of the Security Council has been reaffirmed. The access of United Nations inspectors has not only been restored, but expanded to include any and all sites. The authority of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission has been acknowledged and strengthened. Iraq’s complete fulfilment of these obligations is the one and only aim of this agreement. Nothing more and nothing less will make possible the completion of the United Nations-mandated disarmament process and thus speed the lifting of sanctions in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council. The agreement reached in Baghdad was neither a “victory” nor a “defeat” for any one person, nation or group of nations. Certainly the United Nations and the world community lost nothing, gave away nothing and conceded nothing of substance. But by halting, at least for now, the renewal of military hostilities in the Persian Gulf, it was a victory for peace, for reason, for the resolution of conflict by diplomacy. It underscored, however, that if diplomacy is to succeed, it must be backed both by force and by fairness. The agreement was also a reminder to the entire world of why this Organization was established in the first place: to prevent the outbreak of unnecessary conflict when the will of the world community can be achieved through diplomacy; to seek and find international solutions to international problems; to obtain respect for international law and agreements from a recalcitrant party without destroying forever that party’s dignity and willingness to cooperate; to secure, in this case, through on-site inspections and negotiations, the assured destruction of weapons of mass destruction that aerial bombardment can never achieve. If this agreement is fully implemented and leads over time to a new day in the Persian Gulf; if this exercise in diplomacy, backed by fairness, firmness and force, stands the test of time, it will serve as an enduring and invaluable precedent for the United Nations and the world community.

The agreement showed, finally, that the work of prevention—if it is to be lasting—must be supported by all sides and carried to success by the peoples and parties themselves. Their role and responsibility is fundamental. Long-term prevention can, however, be facilitated by many elements of the international community. There are cases where the United Nations, mandated with unique universal legitimacy, must lead. There will be other cases where a regional or sub-regional organization’s proximity to a conflict and historical experience make it most able to prevent deadly violence. In all cases, the United Nations is poised to support those efforts and to coordinate multilateral assistance programmes. The policies of prevention that I have outlined so far—early warning, preventive diplomacy, preventive deployment and preventive disarmament—will succeed only if the root causes of conflict are addressed with the same will and wisdom. These causes are often economic and social. Poverty, endemic underdevelopment and weak or non-existent institutions inhibit dialogue and invite the resort to violence. A long, quiet process of sustainable economic development, based on respect for human rights and legitimate government, is essential to preventing conflict. The United Nations of the twenty-first century must become a global centre for visionary and effective preventive action. I will devote all my efforts to this aim, and I am grateful that a number of Member States are showing the way. Donor countries, no less than those nations engulfed by conflict, have realized the cost of ignoring prevention and the promise of putting prevention first. A Chinese proverb holds that it is difficult to find money for medicine, but easy to find it for a coffin. The last decade’s intra-State and ethnic wars have made this proverb all too real for our time. Have we not seen enough coffins—from Rwanda to Bosnia to Cambodia—to pay the price for prevention? Have we not learned the lesson too painfully and too often that we can, if we will, prevent deadly conflict? Have we not heard General [Romeo] Dallaire say that 5,000 peacekeepers could have saved 500,000 lives in Rwanda? Indeed, we have no excuses anymore. We have no excuses for inaction and no alibis for ignorance. Often we know even before the very victims of conflict that they will be victimized. We know because our world now is one—in pain and in

27 April 1998 • 391 prosperity. No longer must the promise of prevention be a promise deferred. Too much is at stake, too much is possible, too much is needed. The founders of the United Nations drew up our Charter with a sober view of human nature. They had witnessed the ability of humanity to wage a war of unparalleled brutality and unprecedented cruelty. They had witnessed, above all, the failure of prevention, when prevention was still possible and every signal pointed to war. At the dawn of a new century, we must restore new promise to our founders’ fervent belief that prevention is indeed possible and that humanity can learn from its past. Indeed, my vision of this great Organization is a United Nations that places prevention at the service of universal security. The achievement of human security in all its aspects—economic, political and social—will be the achievement of effective prevention. It will be the testament to succeeding generations that ours had the will to save them from the scourge of war.

27 April 1998 Secretary-General Updates General Assembly on UN Reform

Presentation to the General Assembly (EOSG, SG/SM/6539, GA/9404); UN reform It gives me great pleasure to come before you again to discuss the reform and renewal of our United Nations. Much has happened since we last gathered—in world affairs and in the ways of this house—that makes me especially eager to push ahead with this process. Last July, I proposed to you that we begin a quiet revolution to transform the United Nations: its leadership, its structures, its performance. In September, I challenged this Assembly to become the “Reform Assembly”: to join forces and seize the opportunity of a new global era to revitalize the Organization. We are well on our way. Last fall, you initiated the process of open-ended informal consultations within the plenary, an innovation that expedited your deliberations. In your resolutions 52/12 A and B, you endorsed a range of landmark actions and set a course for future progress that promises similarly historic gains. I am very grateful to the members of the Assembly for these important first steps. I am here today to facilitate the conclusion of the first phase of this work. I would like to review for you the current state

of the reform process and where I believe we are headed. Allow me to begin by reporting that the measures that fall within the prerogative of the Secretary-General have been largely implemented. As you know, the work of the Secretariat in its main thematic areas is now being guided by Executive Committees in order to ensure communication, coordination and a common purpose. The Senior Management Group has also proven its worth quickly as the first systematic forum where the leaders of all United Nations departments, programmes and funds come together to develop policies and ensure managerial clarity. The Group meets weekly, with colleagues in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna participating by teleconference. Its work will soon benefit from that of the Strategic Planning Unit, our first in-house “think tank”, whose terms of reference I have just approved. And our work in two major areas—disarmament and humanitarian assistance—has been given new focus and impetus. If reform begins at the top, with these and other steps affecting leadership at Headquarters, reform must prove itself on the ground, in bringing positive change into people’s daily lives. The United Nations Development Group has come into being, promising greater coordination and integration of our operational activities for development. We are establishing “United Nations Houses”—common premises—to promote teamwork and efficiency, and in a year or two we should have as many as 50 United Nations Houses. And we have made significant progress in devising Development Assistance Frameworks so that United Nations programmes and funds come together not only physically but in their work as well, in support of a common vision and objective that host countries themselves determine. Reform has brought reductions in budget and in staff, and the consolidation of some departments and activities. But reform is far more than the sum of these or any other cuts. Procedures and rules are being simplified. Administrative costs are being reduced. Common services are being extended, and an electronic United Nations has become a reality. Above all else, a fundamental review of human resource management is under way, with the objective of strengthening the staff of the United Nations. The net result is as it should be: a more productive and effective Organization, together with a

392 • 27 April 1998

renewed emphasis on economic, social and development activities: the very heart of our mission. Looking beyond achievements within the Secretariat, I am pleased that the various recommendations I made for reforms of the intergovernmental machinery are under consideration by the appropriate bodies. I very much hope that we will soon see progress in this realm as well. I am also pleased to report that the Secretariat has now issued, in response to the request by the General Assembly, seven notes on a number of the recommendations contained in my reform plan. Allow me to review these briefly: • We are proposing a Millennium Assembly, not merely to commemorate the year 2000 but to articulate a vision for the United Nations in the new century, and to propose system-wide institutional adaptations that will enable us to act on that vision. We are also suggesting that a non-governmental forum be held in conjunction with the Millennium Assembly, in recognition of civil society’s rightful place in our work—and in recognition of the United Nations own need to move closer to the people it exists to serve. • We are proposing time-limits, or “sunset provisions”, for initiatives involving new organizational structures or major commitments of funds. Upon the expiration of a duration specified by Member States, mandates would continue only if they are explicitly renewed. This practice would help end the built-in bias towards institutional inertia that has afflicted this Organization for too long. • We have elaborated on our earlier proposal for the development dividend, which will channel savings generated by administrative efficiencies towards investments that benefit developing countries. • We are recommending ways to ensure more predictable and secure core resources for development. This is essential if United Nations funds and programmes are to increase efficiency, avert discontinuities and maintain a relationship of trust and reliability that is a key part of being an effective development partner. It will also lead to better planning and management oversight by the boards. The practical measures we are recommending should be seen as first steps towards more effective funding modalities. • Finally, you will soon receive further elaborations of my proposal that the United Nations shift to results-based budgeting, including departmental mock-ups illustrating how such a system would function. Perhaps more than any other

measure, this will give the Organization the flexibility and agility it needs in an era of rapid change, while at the same time enhancing both transparency and the Secretariat’s accountability to Member States. It is my hope that you may adopt some of these proposals quickly in the plenary and permit us to proceed with implementation. Where more extensive technical analysis may be required, I would hope that this Assembly would forward those recommendations to the appropriate Committees so that they may report back to the plenary in a timely manner that would permit their adoption before the end of the fifty-second session of the General Assembly. The world has just seen, in the recent agreement between the United Nations and Iraq concerning weapons inspections, just how much a united and determined international community can achieve through the United Nations. What we have done in Iraq through reason, diplomacy and political will, we can do all across the United Nations agenda. The world has also just witnessed, in recent months of financial turmoil in Asia, yet another example of accelerating interdependence among nations, economic as well as political. This makes the presence of an effective United Nations, as a unique tool of concerted action, more imperative than ever. In this connection, I was particularly impressed by the dialogue that was initiated recently at Headquarters between the Bretton Woods institutions and the Economic and Social Council. And last but far from least, the past year has seen the United Nations staff itself rise to the occasion: embracing change, coming forth with valuable ideas of their own, proving again and again that they are indeed the Organization’s most important asset. So let us take advantage of this moment of promise, when all of these “stars”—the Member States, a supportive global public and a rededicated staff—seem to be in alignment. And let me reiterate a fundamental point: We are transforming our United Nations not as an end in itself, but as a means to better carry out our mission of peace, development and human rights. We do this not to please any particular constituency, but because we must be able to better meet the needs of the world’s people and of Member States. This process is not a luxury; it is not a gim-

30 April 1998 • 393 mick; and it is not an imposition. Reform is our survival and our future. Now it is my distinct pleasure to introduce to you the first Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, Madame Louise Fréchette. The establishment of the office of Deputy Secretary-General is the most direct and perhaps most consequential product of the reforms to date. Already, Madame Fréchette is immersed in one of her main priorities: directing the implementation and monitoring of the reforms instituted thus far. She will also be responsible for revising and updating our reform agenda as the process evolves. I know you join me in welcoming her to the United Nations and wishing her well in this and the many other challenging tasks she has now assumed. Let us push ahead; let us continue realizing the great promise of this Reform Assembly. Thank you.

30 April 1998 Secretary-General Says Women’s Wisdom, Energies, and Creativity Important in Building a New Africa

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6544, REC/27); women Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Conference on African Women and Economic Development, in Addis Ababa. Thank you, Mr. Executive Secretary, for those kind words of welcome. It is for me an honour, a privilege and a pleasure to join you today in celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). It is an honour and a privilege, because I have come to celebrate with you the new spirit of change in Africa, the new challenges and opportunities for African women and for African development. To join with you, to share your optimism and to draw strength from your determination, is for me an honour. And it is a privilege for me to be part of a United Nations which is poised to assist the process of change in Africa. I pay tribute to you, Sir, for all you are doing to transform ECA into an ever-more effective instrument at the service of Africa and African development. It is a pleasure to be here in Addis, because it was here that my United Nations career began. I have only happy memories of this city and this country. I spent six wonderful years here as a

young man. I have many friends here, both in the Economic Commission for Africa and in the country. The choice of African women and African development as the themes for this anniversary conference is timely and appropriate. The women of Africa have long borne the brunt of African violence and dislocation. But they have always been a force for peace and development. Now their unique contribution can come into its own. As we meet here today, Africa is showing overall positive economic growth for the first time in more than a decade. Africa is rediscovering stability. Investment is returning to many African countries. As reforms help bring growth to African economies, there is a renewed sense of hope and determination. There is a new drive towards democracy. There is a growing understanding of the link between democratization, social justice and respect for human rights. But this renaissance is threatened by the violence and turmoil which afflict many African societies. Conflict casts a shadow over Africa today. Unless the world acts swiftly to help stem the forces which feed those African conflicts, our African future will not be bright. For we have seen what happens when States collapse: when democracy is replaced by despotic rule; when rival militias adopt violence as their only creed; when citizens are left without the most basic conditions of stable existence; when outside powers involve themselves in the running of the country. My recent report to the Security Council lists 30 armed conflicts in Africa over the past decade. In 1996 alone, 14 countries in Africa were affected. Those conflicts accounted for more than half the world’s war-related deaths. They resulted in more than 8 million refugees, returnees and displaced persons. Often the main aim is totally destructive. Armies and militias aim to destroy not only armies but also civilians, and sometimes entire ethnic groups. In those conflicts, women suffer disproportionately. These conflicts often take their earliest toll on those who least deserve it: those who can least defend themselves; those who have the most to lose; and those whom we can least afford to hurt. Women have suffered in Africa, but they have been builders too. Even in the midst of war, women have kept family life going, they have cared for the sick and wounded; they have fetched

394 • 30 April 1998

water and firewood, grown crops and tended animals. It is an injustice and an outrage that women, who are the most likely to argue for peace, are also the ones most severely punished in conflicts usually created by men. Women in Africa face significant and systematic discrimination in access to economic resources, such as land and credit. They do not participate fully in socio-political and economic decision-making processes. They make up the majority of the poor across the continent. Women and girls are subjected to gross sexual and other violations of their personal integrity in the home, community and society, in times of peace, but even more so in times of crisis. African women are no longer prepared to accept these conditions. And African societies, including the men, should reject them too. My African sisters, let me share with you a remark once made by Eleanor Roosevelt: “No one can be made to feel inferior without their consent.” Already the women of Africa have achieved a great deal. Their organizations and networks have repeatedly drawn attention to the needs, contributions and potential of women. Women have charted new visions and directions for peace and economic prosperity in Africa, helping societies to adapt to change and propelling societies through difficult times. I will give just one example. During the difficult years of structural adjustment, 1983–1984, women in Ghana kept the distribution of goods and services going. They experimented with new food items to maintain the health and nutritional levels of their families. The women’s movement in Africa transformed the global feminist agenda by ensuring that development was high on the list. Today, that same movement is helping to transform Africa’s own development agenda. From the start, women’s groups, working with governments, non-governmental organizations and other actors of civil society, provided the impetus for change. But at the international level, it was the series of global conferences—Rio de Janeiro, Vienna, Cairo and Beijing—which gave a new unity and sense of purpose to the causes of women. The United Nations, encouraged by the example of African women, and urged on by them, has done much, but still has much to do. More than 100 countries worldwide have now reported to the United Nations that they are imple-

menting the various global conference action plans. The Beijing Platform for Action—the first truly comprehensive plan on 12 areas of critical concern to women’s advancement—has become the focus for flagship programmes in several United Nations agencies in partnership with the international community, governments and civil society. There is no going back on the Platform of Action to enhance the social, economic and political empowerment of women; to improve women’s health to advance their education and training; to promote their marital and sexual rights; to combat gender-based violence. There is no going back on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, one of the most remarkable documents of our time. At the end of July last year 160 States had ratified the Convention. Those who are holding out, or have ratified the Convention with reservations, are going against the tide of history. A major issue that has emerged from these global commitments is women’s rights. As guaranteed in a number of international conventions, and in Africa’s own charter on human and people’s rights, women’s fundamental rights include qualitative education and health care, a life free of violence, participation in decision-making and all political processes, and economic rights. Until these rights of women are fully observed, human rights will not be achieved. This year, we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I urge African countries to seize this opportunity to rededicate themselves to respect for and protection of human rights, especially women’s rights. Without a clear recognition that women’s rights are human rights, and that they cut across all aspects of the development process, the African renaissance will grind to a halt. Ultimately, in this struggle, as in so many others, the responsibility for change rests on African shoulders. It can no longer come as a surprise to anyone—including the men of Africa—that gender equality is more than a goal in itself. It is a precondition for meeting the challenge of reducing poverty, promoting sustainable development and building good governance. Awareness of this truth is not new to the age we live in: nor is it limited to any one culture. In the twelfth century, the African philosopher Ibn Rushd summed up, “A society that enslaves women is a society doomed to decay.”

30 April 1998 • 395 Conversely, experience throughout the ages has shown that when we engage the minds and means of women, in any society, in any country, in any continent, everyone gains. The challenge today is to ensure that the wisdom, the energies, and the creativity of women are fully harnessed for the benefit of all; in other words, that women are involved at every stage, at every level and at all times, in the process of building the new Africa. The ingenuity of women has saved Africa many times over. The inspiration of women will help Africa’s renaissance bear fruit for many years to come. Let us put behind us the violence, the conflict and the discrimination against women which have often disfigured our societies. Let us move forward to a new era of peace and prosperity in which African women play a full and equal role. I am heartened that so many young people are here for this conference. Let us not forget that nearly 60 per cent of Africa’s population is made up of people under the age of 25. Over half of this population consists of girls and young women. African Governments, the international community and the United Nations and its agencies and programmes must work together to ensure that they do not become a lost generation. In conclusion, I repeat my congratulations to the women of Africa for what they have achieved, and to the Economic Commission for Africa for recognizing those achievements. They provide a solid basis for tackling the massive challenges that still lie ahead. I also thank the international community for its continued support for Africa and African women. I urge our men to be fully involved in the struggle to achieve gender integration and equity in Africa. And I wish all of you every success as you pursue those goals.

30 April 1998 Secretary-General Says We All Feel Responsible for African Violence

Op-ed (OSSG); Africa Article by the Secretary-General that appeard in the Washington Post. For too long, conflict in Africa has been seen as inevitable or intractable, or both. It is neither. Conflict in Africa, as everywhere, is caused by human action, and can be ended by human action. This is the reality that shames us for every conflict that we allow to persist, and enables us to turn our

rhetoric of commitment into a reality of genuine engagement. Since 1970, Africa has seen more than 30 wars, the majority of which have been intra-state in origin. Fourteen of Africa’s 53 countries were afflicted by armed conflicts in 1996 alone. These accounted for more than half of all war-related deaths worldwide and resulted in more than 8 million refugees, returnees and displaced persons. No one—not the United Nations, not the international community, not Africa’s leaders—can escape responsibility for the persistence of these conflicts. Colossal human tragedies have taken place in Africa over the past decade—tragedies that could and should have been prevented. Not enough was done to address the causes of conflict. Not enough was done to ensure a lasting peace. Not enough was done to create the conditions for sustainable development. This is the reality of Africa’s recent past. It is a reality that must be confronted honestly and constructively by all concerned if the people of Africa are to enjoy the human security and economic opportunities they seek and deserve. The sources of conflict in Africa are as varied and complex as the continent itself. The significance of history and external factors cannot be denied. But more than three decades after African countries gained independence, there is a growing recognition among Africans that the continent must look beyond its colonial past for the sources and solutions to its current conflicts. In too many cases, post-independence rule has been characterized by “winner-takes-all” politics, where victory at the ballot box has translated into total control over a nation’s wealth and resources. With the absence of proper checks and balances, inadequate accountability and lack of respect for human rights and the rule of law, political power has too often become a weapon for the few rather than the instrument of the many. In these situations, the multi-ethnic character of most African states exacerbates already existing tensions and fears, making conflict virtually inevitable. Good governance—ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law, strengthening democratization and promoting transparency and capability in public administration—is now more than ever the condition for the success of both peace and development. Indeed, it is not a coincidence that Africa’s renaissance has come when new and more democratic forms of government have begun to take root. In every aspect of Africa’s emergence from

396 • 30 April 1998

conflict, new ways of thinking and new ways of acting are needed on all sides. In the area of peace and security, I recommend that African governments reduce their purchase of arms and munitions to 1.5 per cent of GDP; that an international mechanism be established to ensure the neutrality and disarmament of refugee camps, and that these camps should be placed away from borders; and that the Security Council meet on a bi-yearly basis to renew its efforts for Africa. In the area of economic development, I have suggested that creditors should consider clearing the entire debt stock of the poorest African countries while expanding the Highly Indebted Poor Countries program of the World Bank; that new rules guiding the transparency of public administration be implemented while international trade barriers to African products be removed. Equally important is the understanding that peace and development remain inextricably linked—one feeding on the other, enabling the other and securing the other. The renunciation of violence as a means of gaining and holding power is only the beginning. Then must follow a renewed commitment to national development founded on sober, sound and uncorrupted economic policies. The time is long past when one could claim ignorance about what was happening in Africa or about what was needed to achieve progress. The time is also past when the responsibility for producing change could be shifted onto other shoulders. It is ours and it is theirs—the world’s and Africa’s. The United Nations stands ready to play its part. So must the world. So must Africa.

4 May 1998 Press Conference in Gigiri, Kenya

Press Conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6547) SECRETARY-GENERAL: I am grateful to President Moi and to the Kenyan Government for their generous hospitality and for what they are doing to facilitate the work of the United Nations. Bilaterally, I have had talks with President Moi and with the Foreign Minister. I have also had lunch with the Speaker of Parliament, at which I was very glad to meet a wide cross-section of members of the national Parliament. Political pluralism is evidently flourishing in Kenya. In my talks with the President and the Foreign Minister we discussed the future of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat). I was happy to reaffirm my intention

that the United Nations should maintain a strong presence in Nairobi. Indeed, I have appointed Klaus Topfer, the gentleman to my left, to be Director-General of the United Nations Office in Nairobi. That is putting the United Nations presence here on a par with the Offices in Vienna and Geneva. The President and the Foreign Minister and I also had serious discussions about regional issues, notably the Great Lakes, Sudan and Somalia. On Sudan, I was pleased to learn that the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) mediators and the parties to the conflict in southern Sudan are reconvening their talks in Nairobi during my stay here. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my strong support for IGAD and for the peace initiative launched by President Moi. And I would also like to encourage the participants to expedite their search for a comprehensive, peaceful settlement of the conflict. I was briefed this morning on another subject. I was briefed this morning by the managers of Operation Lifeline Sudan, the United Nations-led consortium which is striving to avert catastrophe in southern Sudan. The needs of the people of southern Sudan are great and urgent. I am pleased to note that flight approvals given yesterday in Khartoum by the Government of Sudan will allow us to increase nearly three-fold our deliveries of assistance in the coming four months. The Government of Sudan is to be congratulated for taking this important step to grant the United Nations full humanitarian access, and I will be saying so when I meet the Foreign Minister of Sudan later this afternoon. It is essential that this access be maintained in the months to come, regardless of the outcome of the peace negotiations beginning today. With the humanitarian access problem now resolved, the major constraint on successful prevention of humanitarian catastrophe in southern Sudan is the question of resources. Of the United Nations consolidated appeal for calendar year 1998, of $109 million—I repeat $109 million—only 20 per cent has so far been pledged. The World Food Programme (WFP) is appealing to donors for a further $20.12 million in food and cash, which will meet the food needs in the next four months. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) needs an additional $4.5 million to respond to non-food needs in the Bahr el Ghazal alone, and additional millions for other areas of the South. I appeal to donor Governments and operations of the world to respond urgently and generously to this crisis.

396 • 30 April 1998

conflict, new ways of thinking and new ways of acting are needed on all sides. In the area of peace and security, I recommend that African governments reduce their purchase of arms and munitions to 1.5 per cent of GDP; that an international mechanism be established to ensure the neutrality and disarmament of refugee camps, and that these camps should be placed away from borders; and that the Security Council meet on a bi-yearly basis to renew its efforts for Africa. In the area of economic development, I have suggested that creditors should consider clearing the entire debt stock of the poorest African countries while expanding the Highly Indebted Poor Countries program of the World Bank; that new rules guiding the transparency of public administration be implemented while international trade barriers to African products be removed. Equally important is the understanding that peace and development remain inextricably linked—one feeding on the other, enabling the other and securing the other. The renunciation of violence as a means of gaining and holding power is only the beginning. Then must follow a renewed commitment to national development founded on sober, sound and uncorrupted economic policies. The time is long past when one could claim ignorance about what was happening in Africa or about what was needed to achieve progress. The time is also past when the responsibility for producing change could be shifted onto other shoulders. It is ours and it is theirs—the world’s and Africa’s. The United Nations stands ready to play its part. So must the world. So must Africa.

4 May 1998 Press Conference in Gigiri, Kenya

Press Conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6547) SECRETARY-GENERAL: I am grateful to President Moi and to the Kenyan Government for their generous hospitality and for what they are doing to facilitate the work of the United Nations. Bilaterally, I have had talks with President Moi and with the Foreign Minister. I have also had lunch with the Speaker of Parliament, at which I was very glad to meet a wide cross-section of members of the national Parliament. Political pluralism is evidently flourishing in Kenya. In my talks with the President and the Foreign Minister we discussed the future of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat). I was happy to reaffirm my intention

that the United Nations should maintain a strong presence in Nairobi. Indeed, I have appointed Klaus Topfer, the gentleman to my left, to be Director-General of the United Nations Office in Nairobi. That is putting the United Nations presence here on a par with the Offices in Vienna and Geneva. The President and the Foreign Minister and I also had serious discussions about regional issues, notably the Great Lakes, Sudan and Somalia. On Sudan, I was pleased to learn that the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) mediators and the parties to the conflict in southern Sudan are reconvening their talks in Nairobi during my stay here. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my strong support for IGAD and for the peace initiative launched by President Moi. And I would also like to encourage the participants to expedite their search for a comprehensive, peaceful settlement of the conflict. I was briefed this morning on another subject. I was briefed this morning by the managers of Operation Lifeline Sudan, the United Nations-led consortium which is striving to avert catastrophe in southern Sudan. The needs of the people of southern Sudan are great and urgent. I am pleased to note that flight approvals given yesterday in Khartoum by the Government of Sudan will allow us to increase nearly three-fold our deliveries of assistance in the coming four months. The Government of Sudan is to be congratulated for taking this important step to grant the United Nations full humanitarian access, and I will be saying so when I meet the Foreign Minister of Sudan later this afternoon. It is essential that this access be maintained in the months to come, regardless of the outcome of the peace negotiations beginning today. With the humanitarian access problem now resolved, the major constraint on successful prevention of humanitarian catastrophe in southern Sudan is the question of resources. Of the United Nations consolidated appeal for calendar year 1998, of $109 million—I repeat $109 million—only 20 per cent has so far been pledged. The World Food Programme (WFP) is appealing to donors for a further $20.12 million in food and cash, which will meet the food needs in the next four months. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) needs an additional $4.5 million to respond to non-food needs in the Bahr el Ghazal alone, and additional millions for other areas of the South. I appeal to donor Governments and operations of the world to respond urgently and generously to this crisis.

4 May 1998 • 397 I have also had the opportunity during my visit to meet the United Nations teams working on Sudan and Somalia. This is my second visit in two days to Gigiri, the United Nations headquarters, where I had the opportunity to meet with Permanent Representatives of Member States to UNEP and Habitat. I will now be ready to take your questions. QUESTION: And do you think that your—going on the report that has been published in The New Yorker yesterday—dismissal of General Dallaire’s plan of action over an impending genocide in Rwanda in 1994 is going to affect your credibility as Secretary-General or make your visit difficult [inaudible]? S-G: Not at all. First of all, this is an old story which is being rehashed. Secondly, the leaders of the region and the Member States of the United Nations, the Council, the troop contributing countries, all [inaudible] of my role. And so let me say that the failure to prevent the 1994 genocide was local, national, international, including Member States with capacity. It was the failure of all of us. It was our collective failure, the list I have given. We all failed Rwanda. The fundamental failure was lack of political will, not the lack of information. If it is lack of information that prevents action, that prevents the solution of crises, then I think we would have very few crises in the world today. No one can deny that the world failed the people of Rwanda. But the crucial issue today is not how to apportion blame with the benefit of hindsight. But, rather, we should be asking how we can ensure that such a tragedy can never happen again and how the international community can best assist the people and Government of Rwanda in the enormously difficult process of rebuilding a united community and healing the wounds of the past. QUESTION: Just to follow up on that question, Sir. Are you able now then to share with us what type of message you are going to bring to Rwanda? S-G: I will share it with the Government, and it will become available then. I think I have a message for the Government. We have lots of things to talk about, and I think it is appropriate that I share it with them first, rather than go through a television communication with them. QUESTION: Do you think that the assessment on the Somali crisis made last year by your Special Envoy, Ambassador Kittani, is still valid after the failure of the Sodere and Cairo agreements?

S-G: The Somali crisis is a rather difficult one, but I think IGAD has taken things in hand. I had the opportunity of discussing the crisis with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia, and I made it clear to him that the United Nations is supporting the efforts of IGAD. At the same time, we will be prepared to provide any assistance that IGAD deems necessary. And I have encouraged all the Governments in the region to work with IGAD, and I hope that the Somali factions, after so many years of conflict, will find a way of coming together and really make peace, and hopefully do it in Mogadishu with the participation of all Somalis, with as broad-based participation as possible. But we are working with IGAD, and we will support their efforts. QUESTION: On your arrival yesterday, Mr. Secretary-General, you spoke about some concerns which you had about the United Nations presence in Nairobi and which you are going to discuss with the Kenyan Government. What I was concerned then . . . I realize that you [inaudible] the level of representation in Nairobi. Is that saying that you are satisfied that your concerns have been addressed? S-G: The designation of Klaus Töpfer as Director-General was made before he came here; it is not something that happened within the last 24 hours. Secondly, the issues we had in mind dealt with upgrading the United Nations communication, improving certain facilities which had to be agreed to by the Kenyan post office and other governmental institutions. Quite a lot of it has been done, and I think we are on our way to resolving the remaining issues. It has to be understood that in the global environment communication is a very effective tool. And where you do not have effective communication and ability to link up with New York and the rest of the world, your operations can be severely handicapped. And these are some of the issues that we have been working on. And I think, from my discussions with the highest levels of Kenyan leadership, I am assured that the problems will be resolved. QUESTION: There were rumours that the tribunal of Arusha might be transferred to Kenya. Are those only rumours or serious options? S-G: Rumours. QUESTION: I am asking about the situation in southern Sudan. Everybody is expecting a ceasefire in that part of Sudan. Can you ask the two parties for a ceasefire? S-G: I think I’ve gone beyond that. I’ve appealed to the two parties to have the courage, the

398 • 4 May 1998

vision to make the sort of compromises necessary to come to a settlement. And of course any settlement would also include a ceasefire. But if we can get an immediate ceasefire and continue with the others, I would support this. But I will appeal to them, and I have appealed to them to accelerate their efforts. QUESTION: The [inaudible] is talking about the execution of convicts in Rwanda. Would you like to take a position on that? S-G: First of all, let me say that each country has its own system of justice and that of course there are quite a lot of us who are concerned about the public execution of the convicts. I had an opportunity to write to the Government, and I think that all of us believe that there must be justice and that without justice after the genocide, the healing cannot begin. But I also believe that the justice has to be administered in a manner that will facilitate healing, and not in a manner that can exacerbate the situation. I think the Government has a difficult task on its hands with many accused prisoners in jail, with a judiciary system that is struggling. The other tribunal in Arusha has also been slow in indicting people. We just had the first major indictment. But international tribunals are very difficult things to set up and very difficult procedures. But at least we have made one major step. I think I will have a chance to discuss with the authorities what the future holds for this issue when I get to Kigali. QUESTION: You’ve had meetings, as you said, with the United Nations teams working in Somalia but not with any of the Somali leaders themselves. Does this show that the United Nations no longer wants to have a dialogue with the Somali leaders? You’ve lost patience with them? S-G: First of all, I think I answered that question by indicating that the political process is being led by the IGAD, and we are supporting IGAD. I have not come with a plan to meet the Somali leaders, and I also have indicated that while we are supporting the peace process and IGAD, it is important to all concerned that there is a focused process and that we do not create the impression of a multiplicity of mediators, which often leads to some confusion. QUESTION: Would you please update us about the process of reform within the United Nations system and about the success to date of your efforts to convince the American administration to pay its United Nations arrears. S-G: I think reform is well on its way. I can report that at the last General Assembly the

Member States approved about 85 per cent of the reform proposals I put forward. This included the elimination of 1,000 posts, streamlining administrative structures, the reduction of administrative costs, reform of human rights machinery, machinery in Vienna to fight crime, drugs and terrorism, and a whole series of other proposals, consolidating three economic departments into one to give [this work] focus and so forth. But as I said last year, reform is a process and not an event, and the process is going on. As we speak, in New York the General Assembly is reviewing certain other proposals, including the recommendation that we should have a Millennium Assembly, a Millennium Summit, in the year 2000, where heads of States will come and reflect on the future of the United Nations and the world that they see as we move into the twentyfirst century. Parallel to that will be a people’s assembly, which will also feed into the summit. So on the reform side I think we have delivered; we’ve done what we said we would do. With regard to the United States payment, we still haven’t seen the cheque. The Administration and President Clinton in particular believe that the United Nations is important for the United States, just as the United States is important for the United Nations. He further believes that if the United States is going to play a constructive role and lead in the United Nations, it has to pay its way. This is a position I share 100 per cent. However, we’ve run into difficulties on the Hill, with the United States House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate recently approved payment to the United Nations, but it attached an unrelated amendment, really based on domestic considerations. The President has indicated he will veto that bill if that amendment is attached. So it is quite likely that the bill will be vetoed, and we will be back to square one. We have to continue the fight until some solution is found. QUESTION: This is your first visit to Africa since your report on the continent. I know that you’re trying to present a [inaudible] as a world of opportunities rather than one of conflicts, but are you more or less optimistic [as a result of] your few days here? S-G: Yes, this is my first visit to Africa since the report. I have had the chance to talk to people in government, people in politics, and ordinary people, and also in Ethiopia and Djibouti I was able to talk to lots of people. I am optimistic. I sense a new mood in Africa. I sense a spirit of Africans who want to participate, who want to be

4 May 1998 • 399 involved, who want to see a government based on rule of law, who want to see respect for human rights, who want transparent governments, who have talents and want to be put to use. As I talk to them, I am encouraged, and I’m confident that the kind of renaissance everybody is talking about will not be short lived if the people continue to embrace it with the spirit that I have encountered during this brief week or so that I’ve been on the continent. I am encouraged. QUESTION: Do you think there will be any way one day to understand what happened in the Democratic Republic of the Congo before the takeover? S-G: That is difficult to say. As you know, several investigations are going on. I withdrew the team that was in there because I didn’t get the level of cooperation required for them to continue, but investigations will continue from outside. Also, when I was at the Organization of African Unity (OAU) I did talk to OAU Secretary-General Salim Salim, and the OAU and the regional leaders want to set up a commission to look into what happened in that whole region, probably going back to 1992, looking at what happened, who did what, who did not act, who could have acted, who had capacity and didn’t use it. Apparently they will name this commission in the next few months. This is going to be a long-term process, and so, depending on what happens, all these investigations may shed some light on what happened in the region. But of course then the question comes up, once you know the truth, what action do you take against perpetrators, and if war crimes were committed, should you allow impunity to stand or do you go beyond that? QUESTION: Do you have any [inaudible] back in 1994 about Rwanda? S-G: No, I do not, because perhaps I knew more about the situation, and also I know the struggle. In fact, it was one of those issues on which my predecessor, Mr. Boutros BoutrosGhali, pushed the Member States so hard to give the United Nations the capacity and the facility to do something in Rwanda, and we did not get it. I agree with General Dallaire when he says, “If I had had one reinforced brigade—5,000 men—well trained and well equipped, I could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives”. That capacity he did not have, not because the capacity did not exist in the world and no government had it or could have provided it, but because the will to provide, the will to act, was not there, and that is the crux of the matter.

QUESTION: [inaudible] you are quoted as suggesting that creditors should consider clearing the entire debt stock of the poorest African countries. Is this in line with the other calls—say, from the churches and the likes of former Tanzanian President Nyerere—asking for a total writing off of those debts? S-G: The issue of debt relief has been on the international agenda for a long time, and the international financial institutions have themselves come up with the scheme. But the scheme is very difficult to access. I think only four countries have now been qualified, and the appeal we are making, and others have made, is really to encourage the governments to consider debt relief, particularly to the poorest countries, to allow them to get their economy off the ground. But of course, along with that recommendation, there are other suggestions, including better use of the resources that we have, just as we try to encourage mobilization of additional resources. Along with that should come the right economic policies and the right policies of government regulatory systems and accountability. QUESTION: I have one more question about your position in 1994. Do you think that it is important to set up some sort of inquiry to investigate the dismissal of General Dallaire’s plan of action, and why did you refuse him permission to testify before the special commission established by the Belgian Government? S-G: I think the explanations were very clear, given in the letter to the Belgian authorities. First, based on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations, we could not lift his immunity to go and address the Belgian Government, but Dallaire answered lots of questions in writing, and I think a lot has been written on this, and the material has been made open. I think I have given you an answer this afternoon, and that is why. . . . QUESTION: [inaudible] investigation that the United Nations should hold some sort of inquiry as to what happened? S-G: I think the [inaudible] who are initiated about peacekeeping operations and how these things are done do not see the problems in the terms you seem to see them—black and white terms. In peacekeeping operations, a whole series of information comes to the commander, which has to be analysed by the commander to decide whether it is legitimate or not. In some situations, you decide that this is important information, share it with key people on the ground, get them all to

400 • 4 May 1998

act collectively and try to see what you can do to nip the problem in the bud. When a commander decides to act or goes to the headquarters for them to assess, you have to make the judgement whether you have the capacity to act, if by acting you are not placing more people at risk and if indeed you can act. Not only that, some of the reports seem to forget the incredible circumstances under which Dallaire and the peacekeepers operated. They seem to forget that he had very limited resources at his disposal, and given the size and the magnitude of the operation we all saw, for anyone to think that his force of several hundred men could have contained and stopped all of this, when additional resources were not being offered, and that they could go in and stop all this without putting other people and themselves at risk. Secondly, we should remember that in the crisis, Dallaire and his men—at one point he was left with only the Ghanaian battalion, when the Belgians had withdrawn and the Bangladeshis had gone—to [inaudible] to protect people at the stadium, at Hotel Milles Collines, putting themselves in harm’s way. We do not hear anything about that. [inaudible] the troops arrived, but when the killing had been done. This is why the question of troops and capacity arriving at the critical time is essential. I think it is something I would encourage you to look at. We have done our—we have a lessons-learned unit—we have done analyses, and you can come and talk to us. But I think too much has been made of one cable, as if that one cable were the only information one had, and one acted on the basis of a cable. If it were that easy or that simple, I think our work would have been much easier. We would be [inaudible] earlywarning systems all around, and we would not be having problems with Kosovo, because everybody knows. We would not have had a problem in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, because everybody knew that we had to separate the troops and the refugees. Why didn’t it happen, despite the information? Everybody knew that there were refugees left behind when a million went back to Rwanda. Why didn’t that information make us go and save them? Everybody knew with the fighting going on between the democratic alliance and the Mobutu forces the people were [inaudible] reaching the vulnerable refugees. The information was there. Why didn’t we [inaudible]? I think we have to be logical.

4 May 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon Briefing (OSSG); Rwanda/Kosovo Juan Carlos Brandt, Senior Associate Spokesman for the Secretary-General, began today’s noon briefing by wishing the correspondents a happy World Press Freedom Day. Although the day had actually been celebrated yesterday, the United Nations was observing it today, and he said it was fitting to issue a reminder of the need for press freedom. Turning to the article in the New Yorker magazine that came out today on Rwanda, Mr. Brandt read a statement that was issued today in Nairobi, attributable to the Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral: “Philip Gourevitch’s article on Rwanda in the current issue of the New Yorker raises important questions. The failure to prevent the 1994 genocide was local, national and international, including Member States with important capability. The fundamental failure was the lack of political will, not the lack of information. No one can deny that the world failed the people of Rwanda. But the crucial issue today is not how to apportion blame with the benefit of hindsight. Rather, we should be asking how we can ensure that such a tragedy can never happen again, and how the intentional community can best assist the people and Government of Rwanda in the enormously difficult process of rebuilding a united community and healing the wounds of the past.” Copies of the statement were available, he said, and he would speak more on the issue later in the briefing when he talked about the SecretaryGeneral’s activities in Nairobi. . . . The report of the Secretary-General, which the Security Council requested in its resolution 1160 (1998) relating to Kosovo, was out as a document this morning, he said. In the report, the SecretaryGeneral noted that the United Nations was unable, within the existing budgetary resources, to establish a comprehensive regime to monitor the implementation of the arms embargo on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which the Security Council had requested in resolution 1160. He was therefore proposing that the Council explore, with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other regional organizations, their readiness to participate in such a regime. On the situation in Kosovo, the SecretaryGeneral expressed his concern about the deteriorating situation and the absence of progress in negotiations between the parties concerned, as

4 May 1998 • 401 well as the alarming reports about incidents on the border with Albania. The Secretary-General had annexed to his report information provided by the European Union, the OSCE and the Russian Federation. Still on Kosovo, he said there was also an updated press release from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Today, the UNHCR had renewed a call on European governments not to send back rejected asylum seekers from Kosovo. In a letter delivered to 15 European governments and Switzerland, the United Nations refugee agency described the political climate in Kosovo as “explosive”. “Tension is running at fever pitch in many areas”, said the letter. The UNHCR said the security situation in Kosovo had worsened over the past weeks with clashes spreading to new areas. It said the return of rejected asylum seekers at this time would pose security risks for those sent back and could also tip the scales towards further violence. The press release was available upstairs. Following the suspension of the talks between rival Afghan factions, the United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which cochaired the talks, issued a joint statement in Islamabad yesterday, Mr. Brandt said. Despite the suspension of the talks, the Co-Chairmen put on record several achievements of the Steering Committee to date—an agreement on the moratorium on new military offensives, an agreement on the modalities for the formation of the proposed Ulema Commission and an agreement in principle on the issues of establishing a ceasefire and a spontaneous release of each side’s prisoners of war. The Committee was unable to agree on the blockade of Hazarajat and the opening of road communications in Afghanistan. Copies of the statement were available in the Spokesman’s Office. . . . The Secretary-General began the second day of his official visit to Kenya this morning at 8, when he was received by President Daniel Arap Moi, Mr. Brandt said. After planting a tree in Uhuru Gardens, he met with Kenyan Foreign Minister Bonaya Godana. They initially met oneon-one, then with their delegations to discuss Somalia, Sudan, Burundi, the Great Lakes and Kenya’s relations with the United Nations. At mid-day, the Secretary-General was briefed on the humanitarian situation in the Sudan by Carl Tinstman, Coordinator of the United Nations Operation Lifeline Sudan and Michael Sackett of the World Food Programme (WFP), Mr. Brandt

said. He then attended a lunch hosted by Francis Ole Kaparo, Speaker of the National Assembly, to which parliamentarians of all political parties were also invited. He compared the Assembly to a tree, which in African village life was where people gathered to decide issues of common concern. Mr. Brandt added that the Secretary-General returned to the United Nations complex at Gigiri, where he met with external actors on Somalia, addressed the United Nations staff and gave a press conference. Back at his hotel, he met with the Foreign Minister of Sudan, with whom he discussed the negotiations on Sudan, which were under way in Nairobi today under the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). The Secretary-General finished the day at a dinner hosted by President Moi. The text of the speech given to the parliamentarians had been issued and was available upstairs. Mr. Brandt drew correspondents’ attention to parts of the Secretary-General’s statement at the beginning of the press conference, which he read: “On Sudan, I was pleased to learn that the IGAD mediators and the parties to the conflict in southern Sudan are reconvening their talks in Nairobi during my stay here. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my strong support for IGAD and for the peace initiative launched by President Moi. And I would also like to encourage the participants to expedite their search for a comprehensive, peaceful settlement of the conflict. “I was briefed this morning by the managers of Operation Lifeline Sudan—the United Nations-led consortium which is striving to avert catastrophe in southern Sudan. The needs of the people of southern Sudan are great and urgent. I am pleased to note that flight approvals given yesterday in Khartoum by the Government of Sudan will allow us to increase nearly threefold our deliveries of assistance in the coming four months. The Government of Sudan is to be congratulated for taking this important step to grant the United Nations full humanitarian access, and I will be saying so when I meet with the Foreign Minister of Sudan later this afternoon. It is essential that this access be maintained in the months to come, regardless of the outcome of the peace negotiations beginning today.” . . . The Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral for Children in Armed Conflict, Olara A. Otunnu, was visiting Sri Lanka this week. During his visit, Mr. Otunnu would be assessing the progress made in the implementation of the Graca

402 • 4 May 1998

Machel report and the current situation of children affected by the ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka. Mr. Brandt added that among the issues of concern to Mr. Otunnu would be many of those highlighted in the Machel report, such as the devastating impact of landmines and the need for systematic mine clearance and mine awareness raising programmes, the disruption of education and the deterioration of health services and food production, the use of children in hostilities as soldiers and in other supporting roles, the plight of displaced and resettled children, the psychological effects of witnessing violence and losing loved ones and the long-term psycho-social impact of protracted conflict on children and young people. Mr. Otunnu would also emphasize the need to claim children as zones of peace. More information on the issue and the programme of Mr. Otunnu was available upstairs. . . . A correspondent said the question of Rwanda was again on the table. Mr. Brandt corrected him, saying the issue had been on the table since the events that took place there. The correspondent asked whether the Secretary-General would still visit Rwanda. He also asked for background on how the affair was conducted: who had received the cable, who was in charge of the Rwanda operation, and “What are you going to do about it?” Mr. Brandt reiterated what the SecretaryGeneral had said, that now was not the time for going back to those days to try to apportion blame or point fingers. It was time to make sure that such a tragedy never, never happened again. It was important to consider also how the United Nations, as part of the international community, could help Rwanda get back on its feet. Yes, he continued, the Secretary-General would be going to Kigali; he was expected there on Thursday. He also reminded correspondents that two years ago the Spokesman’s Office had given correspondents a detailed, step-by-step chronology of the events in Rwanda. The chronology was still there, and over the past two years journalists had come to collect it; he invited the correspondent to look at it and draw his own conclusions. A correspondent said that one could understand the Secretary-General’s criticism of the media, and certainly the New Yorker article, as playing “Monday morning quarterback”, regarding what happened in Rwanda; but the United Nations was also a watchdog agency. Should not the Organization have warned that there was an impending disaster in a part of the world not widely covered by the international press?

Mr. Brandt asked the correspondent whether he had seen the chronology. The correspondent said he had not, and Mr. Brandt invited him to go to the Spokesman’s Office, in room 378, to look at it. That would answer some of his questions. Again, continued Mr. Brandt, the SecretaryGeneral was saying that the collective failure was local, national and international. It was a failure of the international community. The international community had failed to act, and “we all should be ashamed of that failure to act”. The failure had been due to a lack of political will. It was not a lack of information. “It was not that we didn’t know what was happening, or that if we did know we failed to communicate to those that needed to know”, he said. The international community had had plenty of information about the situation, and did not act. The question was not one of chronology, said a correspondent, who said he had seen the chronology referred to by Mr. Brandt, or of collective responsibility, but a question of the moral voice of the United Nations, which had failed at a critical time. In that context, did the Secretary-General feel that there had been a particular failure on the part of the United Nations? The United Nations was a part of the international community, replied Mr. Brandt. “But was there a failure on the part of the Secretary-General’s Office at that time?” the correspondent repeated. Mr. Brandt replied that the chronology in the Spokesman’s Office, which he again invited all correspondents to look at, showed that events did not stop at the initial response on the day of the 11 January 1994 cable from General Romeo Dallaire (Commander of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda—UNAMIR), as the New Yorker article seemed to imply. Specifically, on 3 February, UNAMIR was authorized to assist the Rwandan authorities in the recovery of illegal arms. On 21 February, UNAMIR had been authorized to redeploy troops from the Ghanaian battalion station on the border with Uganda for the purpose of that operation in Kigali. Actions were taken, Mr. Brandt continued. “It is not that we sat and folded our arms and waited for this to happen.” The cable had come in on 11 January. The plane (carrying the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi) crashed on 6 April. During the month of March, UNAMIR had been working out operational plans with the Rwandan authorities for the recovery of arms. The plans had been approved by United Nations Headquarters in New York on 21 March. Before those plans could be

4 May 1998 • 403 finalized, the aircraft carrying the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi had been shot down. Obviously, the intention had been to trigger the massacres. There had not been a failure to act, to pass out information or to act on that information. It was a failure of political will. Had there been a failure of the particular function of the Secretary-General’s Office that was to act as a moral voice? a correspondent asked. Had the Secretary-General’s Office failed to warn the world of an enormous disaster that was about to happen? Mr. Brandt said the Secretary-General’s statement had been very clear that everyone in the international community was guilty for that sad chapter in history. The reason for that failure to act had to be shared collectively; it was due to political will. Looking at the chronology, a correspondent said, it seemed that although the peacekeeping department had been aware since 11 January of the threat, they only went to the Security Council about it on 30 March. Why did the SecretaryGeneral not inform the Security Council as a whole what was going on earlier? Everybody that needed to be informed had been informed, replied Mr. Brandt. The President of the Security Council in January 1994, Ambassador Karel Kovanda (Czech Republic), said he had not been informed, a correspondent said. That was his prerogative, replied Mr. Brandt, adding that it was not his place to argue with the Ambassador. Should not the whole issue be revisited? a correspondent asked. It had been revisited since it happened, said Mr. Brandt, and no doubt it would continue to be revisited in the future. The correspondent continued, saying that the New Yorker story clearly indicated that the Office of Boutros Boutros-Ghali had not been aware of the facts. Somewhere along the line, “somebody goofed”. The issue would have to be revisited so that the same thing did not happen again. It had been revisited, insisted Mr. Brandt, and would be revisited “over and over again”. The correspondent asked about the response in Kigali, and Mr. Brandt referred him to the transcript of the Secretary-General’s press conference in Nairobi today, which the verbatim service was currently transcribing. He had not yet had a chance to listen to that press conference. Some correspondents might already have seen wire stories indicating the responses that the Secretary-General had given to questions at the press conference, he added.

The genocide had taken place while the United Nations was busy with its biggest peacekeeping operation ever in Bosnia, which had cost $1.5 billion a year, said a correspondent. Could the international failure to stop the genocide be attributed to the Bosnian peacekeeping operation? Responding, Mr. Brandt said that three months earlier, in Somalia, a large group of United Nations peacekeepers had been killed. Those were all factors that needed to be taken into account when looking at the situation. It was not as if the world was at peace and nothing was happening anywhere else. But “I am not saying that because of one, the other happened. The other happened because there was a lack of will, and the international community did not act the way that it was supposed to.” But if the international community had failed to act, and the United Nations said, “Oops, we dropped the ball on this one”, began a correspondent, but he was interrupted by Mr. Brandt. “We are not saying that”, he said, “We are saying that we had no mandate to act the way we were supposed to. We are saying that we called attention to these events, and that people that were supposed to know about these events knew, and there was no political will to act. We are not saying, ‘Oops, we dropped the ball’. The responsibility had to be shared; it had been a failure at the national, international and local level. The lack of a political mandate could have been changed by the Security Council, said a correspondent, and yet no one had gone to the Security Council until two months later. Only individual countries—France and the United States— had been approached, she added. Mr. Brandt replied: “We went to all the people that we needed to go to, to alert, to inform, to call attention, and the international community failed to act. “That is the bottom line.” Asked if he included the press in the international community, Mr. Brandt said he included everybody who had a role to play in calling attention to something like that. The correspondent responded that the press had not been informed by the United Nations of what was going to happen. Mr. Brandt replied that anybody who had a responsibility to call attention to the situation failed to call attention to it. It had only been after the fact, that reports had come in and the press started to cover the story.

4 May 1998 Letter (EOSG); Ted Turner gift

404 • 4 May 1998

Letter to Ted Turner, chairman of the board of the United Nations Foundation. Dear Mr. Turner, I am writing to congratulate you again on the official formation of the United Nations Foundation, Inc., which has been established to administer your historic and generous pledge to assist the charitable causes supported by the United Nations. Your action and the work of the Foundation will be of invaluable assistance to all of us working to create a more peaceful, prosperous and just world. We at the United Nations look forward to working with you in achieving these ambitious and high purposes. As you know, the United Nations is engaged in a broad range of activities aimed at advancing the objectives of the world’s nations and peoples in the realm of sustained and sustainable development. UN programmes, funds and specialized agencies are involved in a broad range of activities aimed at addressing long-term global challenges of a developmental, humanitarian and environmental character. The United Nations looks forward to working with you on these challenges, and in such other areas as human rights, women’s empowerment and the eradication of poverty. All of the United Nations’ efforts on behalf of sustained and sustainable development are supported through the regular assessed and voluntary contributions of Member States. Unfortunately, however, the needs in these areas are far greater than the availability of resources. That is why we welcome your commitment to complementing and supporting UN programmes in these areas. Your efforts will bring new and additional resources to bear on these persistent challenges for the world. All sectors—public and private; governmental and non-governmental—have a role to play in marshalling the commitment, leadership and resources needed to improve global quality of life and assure mutually-beneficial progress. There is no question but that the example you and the Foundation have set in this regard has been inspiring. On behalf of the United Nations, I express my deepest gratitude and strong support for the goals and objectives of the Foundation.

5 May 1998 Letter (EOSG); International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Letter to the president of the Security Council, Njuguna M. Mahugu. The letter of 16 April mentioned below is not included here.

Dear Mr. President, I am attaching, for your consideration and that of the members of the Security Council and the General Assembly, a letter dated 16 April 1998 from the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. In her letter, President McDonald raises the problem faced by the Tribunal due to the recent dramatic increase in the number of persons accused of crimes under the Statute of the Tribunal, who are in custody in the Tribunal’s Detention Unit at The Hague. It is recalled that a similar request for the establishment of a third trial Chamber for the International Tribunal for Rwanda was submitted for the consideration of the Council and the Assembly (S/1997/812-A1521504) and that a resolution to that effect was adopted by the Council on 30 April 1998. President McDonald notes that, with the current capacity of the two Trial Chambers, and with the possibility that further indicted persons might be transferred to the custody of the Tribunal or that several cases might be severed, the Tribunal might require considerable time to complete all the trials. This would run counter to the duty of the Tribunal to provide accused persons both a fair and expeditious trial, in the interest of the mandate of the Tribunal for the maintenance of international peace and security in the former Yugoslavia. President McDonald further notes that a number of Member States have offered to help by financing the building of two additional courtrooms. With the establishment of a third Trial Chamber, therefore, all three courtrooms will be fully utilized. In order to address the foregoing requirements, President McDonald requests that a third Trial Chamber of the Tribunal, staffed by three additional judges, be established, and that a fourth judge be added, to be assigned as needed to either a Trial Chamber or to the Appeals Chamber. She underlines the urgency of this request, especially since a period of time would be required before a third Trial Chamber is fully functional. As requested by members of the Security Council after her address on 12 February 1998, President McDonald attaches to her letter a more detailed report as well as an estimate of annual costs to the Tribunal of an additional Trial Chamber and full utilization of the third Courtroom. The Registry of the Tribunal has estimated such annual costs as amounting to $14,150,000. The Secretary-General notes that this unofficial estimate must be reviewed by the Controller and detailed estimates will be made

7 May 1998 • 405 available to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and the Fifth Committee. The establishment of a third Trial Chamber and the election of four additional judges would require the amendment by the Security Council of Articles 11, 12 and 13 of the Statute of the Tribunal. Following such amendment, the General Assembly would be requested to approve the related increase in the budget of the Tribunal. Finally, the Security Council and the General Assembly would have to elect the four additional judges in accordance with the Statute of the Tribunal. I would appreciate it if you would bring the present letter and its attachments to the attention of members of the Security Council and the General Assembly for their approval of the request for the establishment of an additional Trial Chamber, and the election of four additional judges, for the Tribunal.

7 May 1998 Secretary-General Pledges Support of UN for Rwanda’s Search for Peace and Progress

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6552, AFR/56); Rwanda Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the parliament of Rwanda, in Kigali. I have come to Rwanda today on a mission of healing—to help heal the wounds and divisions that still torment your nation and to pledge the support of the United Nations so that once again we can become a partner and an ally in Rwanda’s search for peace and progress. Four years ago, Rwanda was swept by a paroxysm of horror from which there is only the longest and the most difficult of escapes. It was a horror that came from within, that consumed and devastated entire communities and families. It was a horror that left you as survivors of a trauma which to the world beyond your borders was unimaginable, even though we all now know it happened. We will not pretend to know how you must overcome the unimaginable. We can only offer, in humility, the hope and the prayer that you will overcome—and the pledge that we stand prepared to help you recover. We must and we do acknowledge that the world failed Rwanda at that time of evil. The international community and the United Nations could not muster the political will to confront it. The world must deeply repent this failure. Rwanda’s tragedy was the world’s tragedy. All

of us who cared about Rwanda, all of us who witnessed its suffering, fervently wish that we could have prevented the genocide. Looking back now, we see the signs which then were not recognized. Now we know that what we did was not nearly enough—not enough to save Rwanda from itself, not enough to honour the ideals for which the United Nations exists. We will not deny that, in their greatest hour of need, the world failed the people of Rwanda. In your people’s agony, an ideology of hate and inhumanity tore the very fabric of existence and made victims of an entire people, turning every Tutsi man, woman and child into human prey in a concerted, planned, systematic and methodical campaign of mass extermination. In the face of genocide, there can be no standing aside, no looking away, no neutrality—there are perpetrators and there are victims; there is evil and there is evil’s harvest. Evil in Rwanda was aimed not only at Tutsis. It was aimed at anyone who would stand up or speak out against the murder. Let us remember, therefore, that when the killers began, they also sought out Hutus now described as “moderate”—that is, Hutus who would not kill, Hutus who would not hate. That fact is what gives us hope today and inspires confidence that you will succeed in rebuilding your One Rwanda on which future generations will build a tolerant society, defined by the quality of forgiveness which is inherent to our African heritage. The return to peace, coexistence and reconciliation in Rwanda must begin with justice after the genocide. It must be guided by an unshakeable determination to end the culture of impunity and to prosecute and punish the genocidaires under the full force of the law. Only thus can you begin to honour the memory of the multitudes cut down with such cruelty and cowardice. As long as our world is one where you are more likely to be met with retribution if you kill one person than if you kill a thousand, justice cannot reign. But to be complete, justice must be carried out with due process and above reproach, so that it can promote the process of healing that is so vital to Rwanda’s future. That is why our commitment to your future begins with the pursuit of justice. Here in Rwanda, we are assisting you in your efforts to strengthen your judiciary and improve your prisons. At the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the last six months have witnessed a fundamental

406 • 7 May 1998

change in the effectiveness of the Tribunal’s work. As you all know, the court witnessed a historic moment last week when the former Prime Minister pleaded guilty to genocide. I am also pleased to announce that the Security Council of the United Nations last week acted on my recommendation and decided to increase the number of judges at the Tribunal as well as to establish a third Chamber. Finally, we are beginning to see the Tribunal working to our, and your, satisfaction—and to the satisfaction of the victims of the genocide. It is for them, ultimately, that we seek and we will find justice. Justice, however, must also serve a larger purpose—the purpose of closing wounds, of coexistence and of trust between the Hutu and Tutsi communities of Rwanda. Restoring that trust is perhaps the greatest challenge facing your nation today. No one imagines that it can be restored easily or quickly. No one imagines that it can be restored without a degree of atonement and forgiveness that few peoples have ever had to find within themselves. It is nevertheless that trust which must and will form the basis of the One Rwanda that you are working so hard to create. To restore trust in your State, in your communities, in your neighbours, in yourselves—you must marginalize the extremists once and for all. You must teach your neighbours that you, and they, can change. And you must teach your children that the return from genocide must be paved with tolerance, mercy and friendship. As we speak today, I am aware of your efforts to contain attacks in the north-west, to reintegrate demobilized soldiers and resettle about 3 million refugees. These are Herculean tasks. In meeting these challenges, I take faith in the fact that the international community is showing a genuine commitment to Rwanda’s future. The United Nations is prepared to help, and to advise in whichever way your people may wish. We are ready to work with you in partnership. With the presentation of my recent report on the sources of conflict in Africa to the Security Council, we are seeking to open a new chapter in the relations between the nations of Africa and the United Nations. In that report, I sought to identify the main challenges facing Africa, as well as to recommend realistic and achievable remedies to your problems. I believe you will recognize them as ideas and aims that we hold in common. I have urged dramatic debt relief measures from Africa’s creditors, as well as increased

resource flows. I have emphasized the need for good governance, for governments that serve the people’s needs first—beginning with peace, security and development. I have pointed to the urgent need for an international mechanism that will help host governments maintain the neutrality and security of refugee camps. I have also urged for Africa a new commitment to sober, responsive, legitimate government, to human rights, to tolerance between and within groups and societies, to the kinds of communities where all can belong and no one is threatened on grounds of ethnicity or any other distinction. In the case of Rwanda, you have a monumental challenge before you, I know, but I am confident that with the establishment of the rule of law and with the end of violence, your people can begin to rebuild and restore the process of development which will form the foundation of lasting peace. As you continue to rebuild the fabric of tolerance that is the basis for every society; as you slowly, but surely, restore trust and security to your country so that no woman, no man and no child will fear the night or dread the morning, you should know that we shall stand alongside you. Ultimately, however, you and only you can put an end to the violence. You and only you can find the spirit and the greatness of heart to embrace your neighbours once again. You and only you can show the world that there is life even after genocide, love even after hate, humanity even after evil. Allow me therefore to conclude by citing the magnanimous words of President Bizimungu upon the mass return of refugees to your country: “The Rwandan people were able to live together peacefully for 600 years, and there is no reason they can’t live together in peace again.” I have no doubt that one day you will. I pray that it will be soon.

7 May 1998 Secretary-General Expresses Satisfaction over Progress in IGAD-Sponsored Peace Talks in Sudan

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6553, AFR/57); Sudan The Secretary-General is pleased to learn that, at the International Authority on Development (IGAD)-sponsored peace talks in Nairobi which have just concluded, the parties to the conflict in Sudan have made progress by agreeing in principle

7 May 1998 • 407 on the right of self-determination for the people of south Sudan. He is encouraged that the next session of the negotiations will be convened in three months time in Addis Ababa. The SecretaryGeneral reiterates his full support for the IGAD peace initiative on Sudan. He calls on the parties to sustain the political momentum to find a negotiated solution to one of the most protracted conflicts on the African continent.

7 May 1998 Secretary-General Expresses Hope That Reconciliation Will Prevail in Burundi

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6554, AFR/58); Burundi Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the National Assembly of Burundi, in Bujumbura. My very first words will be to express my joy to be among you here in Burundi, country of the longhorned cow and the drum. I should also like to thank the leaders and people of Burundi for the warm welcome they have shown me. In coming to Bujumbura, my wish is to bring you a message of hope and peace. I also wish to show my solidarity and that of the United Nations. My visit is thus a pledge of the Organization’s interest in the people of Burundi and of its desire to bolster the courageous efforts you are making to restore harmony. The profound crisis that Burundi has been going through for the past five years has divided its sons, destroyed its infrastructure, ruined its economy and, in short, mortgaged its future. To get through these difficult times, your country naturally needs the support of all its friends and the concern of the international community. But most of all it needs the will of Burundians themselves to come together and build their common future together. The crisis in Burundi is, of course, having repercussions at the subregional, regional and international levels. But it is first and foremost a Burundian crisis. It is therefore up to Burundians to get along with each other and lay the groundwork for a lasting solution that affords recognition to all. By “lasting solution” I mean a solution that offers the proper safeguards in terms of democratic legitimacy and respect for human rights. Here I should like to commend the two main initiatives that have been taken in this direction: the regional initiative, undertaken within the framework of the Arusha process with the mediation of His Excellency Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, and the internal initiative developed by Burundi’s main political players.

The regional initiative, as you are all aware, comes from the States of the subregion, those closest to you, whose realities and difficulties are largely the same as yours. In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which calls upon the Organization, together with regional organizations, to ensure the maintenance of international peace and security, the United Nations has supported the regional initiative from the outset, and my Special Envoys have been very much involved in it. The internal initiative, in turn, bears witness to your desire to find by yourselves the most appropriate solutions to the crisis your country is going through. You are endeavouring to achieve the broadest possible consensus between institutions, political forces, civilian society and the army. For this, I congratulate you. These initiatives are not mutually exclusive; quite the opposite—they complement each other. For the negotiations under way on transitional mechanisms must lead to comprehensive negotiations open to all Burundians at home and abroad. My dear brothers and sisters of Burundi, Even if it is chiefly up to you to resolve the crisis, the international community is still duty-bound to support your efforts—firstly, by intensifying its humanitarian activities aimed at alleviating the sufferings of a sorely tried populace and providing assistance to the many refugees and displaced persons who are suffering from malnutrition; then by giving its moral commitment and by providing a system of guarantees for any political agreement you may reach; and finally, by assisting Burundi’s recovery and reconstruction. Burundi has a long list of needs, both human and material. Various United Nations bodies are already working alongside you, but the current situation demands a much greater mobilization of resources. The United Nations will spare no effort to make the international community aware of your difficulties. The visit by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata, followed by that of Mr. Speth, the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), are part of this awareness-raising effort. What is important is for the essentially humanitarian activities that are being carried out today to be replaced, as soon as peace and security are restored, by assistance for development and production. Strengthening your institutions, particularly the judicial system, is one of the areas in which the international community’s assistance is most necessary. I am well aware that a political transition

408 • 7 May 1998

and peaceful coexistence for all Burundians can come about only if the administration of justice is sound. Yet for 40 years the history of your country, like that of other States in the region, has been marked by impunity. This must stop. And for it to stop, you need an effective and impartial judicial system that renders justice—not in a spirit of revenge, but with respect for the law and international norms. I have already informed the Burundian authorities of my readiness to support projects aimed at improving the functioning of Burundi’s judicial system. I am convinced that you will be able to recover the common vision of a Burundian nation that is united, just and prosperous. “United”, because it will be free of the simplistic stereotypes that arbitrarily divided the valiant people of Burundi into antagonistic groups. For is not the Burundian people a single nation, speaking a single language, venerating a single God (Imana), living in a single land—in a word, sharing a single culture? “Just”, because it will have reconnected with its traditional moral values—values such as ubuntu, or human dignity; ukuri, or the cult of truth; and kusira akarenganyo, or equality for all before the law. “Prosperous”, because the restoration of peace will have released the energy and lifeblood of an industrious people. I shall leave Burundi with the hope that a sense of responsibility and the desire for reconciliation will prevail over fear and resentment; with the hope that your leaders will continue to bear in mind that no serious political enterprise is possible without dialogue, tolerance and respect for the rights and the wishes of citizens; and with the conviction that the forces of reason will eventually win the day over power-hungry factions and groups whose interests lie in exclusion and violence. For the country to get back on the road to peace and prosperity, Burundians must regain confidence—in themselves, in their neighbours, in their leaders and in their institutions. They must be able to work and travel in complete safety, without the constant threat of violence. Only then will it again be possible for the country’s communities to live together in peace.

8 May 1998 Letter (UN archives); millennium summit Internal note from the Secretary-General’s special adviser, John Ruggie.

Secretary-General, The General Assembly has welcomed your proposal to designate the 55th session as the Millennium Assembly. It also added this item to its agenda for the 53rd session, at which time it will address its own preparatory process. We managed to keep sunset provisions alive; the sentiment was to defer the issue to the 53rd session. The Secretariat will issue additional clarifications of the basic concept and prepare a nonpaper describing how the scheme might work in practice. On that basis, this GA will reconvene in early June to discuss the issue once more. Thought you might wish to know!

8 May 1998 Press conference (OSSG); Rwanda SECRETARY-GENERAL AT Mr President, I am very happy to be back in Rwanda. I know that given the history between the UN and Rwanda that this was not going to be an easy mission. I have been able to do all the essential things that I came here to do and have had very frank and very useful discussions with the leadership, a leadership that is organised, determined and is pushing ahead with the reconstruction of the nation and needs the support of the international community. When we visited the genocide memorial today, I noticed how moved everyone around me was and also had the chance to see some of the relatives. I think what is important, as we have indicated in our discussions, is for Rwanda and the international community to join hands in partnership to help with the reconstruction, to help the government build a society of tolerance, which it is beginning at the grassroots level, and all that and for us to ensure that we have a solid basis . . . (unclear) and I have assured the President and the Rwandese people that they can count on my support as Secretary-General and that we should move forward together. Thank you. We will take a couple of questions and then I will have to run. Yes. QUESTION 1 [journalist did not give name]: Mr Secretary-General, I would like you to tell us about your impressions, about your visit to Rwanda given yesterday’s encounter and after the consultations with the leaders. My second question is that . . . [Interrupted by Spokesman, Mr. Eckhard, who requested that each journalist be limited to one question.] [Journalist carried on] My second question is OPENING

ADDRESS OF

PRESS CONFERENCE:

8 May 1998 • 409 . . . how realistic are these pledges Mr. SecretaryGeneral given that the UN did not agree with the execution of the 22 genocide perpetrators, and furthermore, how realistic are they given the fact that the resettlement of the 1959 refugees has not been settled, and yet you pledge that you (now) have to resettle the 1996 exiles? S-G: I think with regards to the first question that my earlier comments cover that. With regard to your second question, let me say that when I refer to the international community working in partnership, working with reconstruction, the international community is already on the ground in the form of the UN Agencies and bilateral donors. What is required is for one to work with them and the government in accelerating/increasing the assistance and the partnership that now exists. I think that there is a lot of sympathy for Rwanda and for what Rwanda has gone through. I speak to lots of leaders around the world and I can assure you that, and I think that your leaders have also had the same assurances from governments around the world and I trust that this will materialize into concrete support. QUESTION, NICHOLAS KOTCH, REUTERS: I would like to ask President Bizimungu a question about this visit. The Foreign Minister and the government in general have made very clear to Mr. Annan what it thinks about the UN’s performance and his own before, during and after the genocide of 1994. I’d like to ask you why you didn’t make the same point in the same way to President Clinton when he was here? RESPONSE OF PRESIDENT BIZIMUNGU: I think that the point was made. If you refer to my speech, I have evoked what was the role of the international community before and after 1994, so it was in the same manner that we expressed what took place in Rwanda and what was the role of the international community. MR. KOTCH: In the same manner? PRESIDENT BIZIMUNGU: It was in the same manner if you followed my speech. QUESTION [journalist did not give name]: Mr. Secretary-General, yesterday you told the Parliament that you don’t have anything particularly to regret, you personally. Why do you feel you have nothing to regret when faxes were sent to your office informing you that the genocide was about to take place? S-G: I think that yesterday I did indicate to the Chamber that, within the limits of the resources we had in our Secretary-General, we did the best we could. My only regret was that we couldn’t do

more, that we didn’t have the resources, we didn’t have enough persuasive powers to convince member states to give us the resources. But I also did say that your pain and your tragedy was that of the international community and mine as well because no-one who understands the human condition and has compassion could have remained indifferent. But the only thing I would warn and I think I am very happy that Vice President Kagame is here with us, in military situations one has to be careful not to assume that military analysis, decisions and concepts of operations are based on one cable and one information. You have to analyse it with a whole set of other facts. You then try to do what you can about the information. You also assess your capacity to be able to undertake the action, which is required, your capacity with the men and the resources you have to be able to undertake the operation effectively, to be able to fight, to be able to continue if not to fight the next day and to be able to help others. The decision was taken with lots of other factors in mind, and I think we also have to be careful not to read too much into one cable and in fact, General Dallaire himself underscored the point very, very effectively when he said “If only I had had 5,000 men at my disposal I would have done a lot” and most military men would tell you that without capacity, without ability to do things, there are lots of things you may want to do, but it is not always possible. Thank you. PRESIDENT BIZIMUNGU: What I can add as a comment, is that I agree with the Secretary-General that there has been a lack of will on behalf of the UN Security Council, but I would add also that given the attitude of some partners, when you remember for instance that in 1993, when people were being massacred in Kibirira and in Bugesera, the French Minster for Cooperation, Marcel Debarge, came here and made a broadcast message identifying himself with the Hutu militia; saying that all Hutu had to exterminate the Tutsi, so when you consider that information you find also that, yes, on one hand there was a lack of will, but there was also conspiracy. QUESTION, ROB WATSON, BBC: Government sources describe Mr. Annan’s speech yesterday as insulting and arrogant. I wondered whether if what you have heard now, you still find insulting and arrogant or whether you are prepared to move forward to a new partnership with the UN? PRESIDENT BIZIMUNGU: Well, I think that that issue has been clearly explained and the statement that the UN Secretary-General made at the beginning of the Press Conference and mine [sic] answer completely your question.

410 • 8 May 1998

MR. WATSON: So, you are all friends now are you? [Laughter] S-G and PRESIDENT BIZIMUNGU: Yes, we are. We have always been friends.

8 May 1998 Letter (EOSG); Sierra Leone Letter to the president of the Security Council, Njuguna M. Mahugu, with an attached letter dated 4 May 1998 from the president of Sierra Leone, Tejan Kabbah, to the Secretary-General. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to attach a letter dated 4 May 1998 from His Excellency Mr. Alhaji Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, President of the Republic of Sierra Leone. I should be grateful if you would bring it to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. * * * 4 May 1998 Dear Mr. Secretary-General, I wish to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the decision of the Security Council, on the basis of your report and request, to despatch preliminary group of 10 (ten) military officers that will cooperate with your Special Envoy in Sierra Leone, Ambassador Okelo. I am confident that you will continue the efforts to ensure that the Council reaches a decision on the original plan for a PeaceKeeping Force in Sierra Leone. In our review of Security Council Resolution 1132 (1997), it is regrettable that the normal exemptions for a peacekeeping group as was done for Liberia was not part of that resolution. With the removal of the junta, and the present on-going mopping up operations, ECOMOG is preparing for the deployment of its forces in accordance with ECOWAS decisions. It is contemplated that there will be need to bring in weapons for the use of ECOMOG. In this regard, I am making a specific request through you that the Security Council adopt a new resolution that will authorise an exemption to the UN arms embargo to Sierra Leone with a view to facilitating ECOMOG’s operation. As you are aware ECOMOG has, under difficult conditions performed magnificently. They continue to maintain law and order in all but a very small part of the country. My Government is thus anxious to ensure that ECOMOG has all that is necessary for it to accomplish its task.

Alhaji Dr Ahmad Tejan Kabbah President of the Republic of Sierra Leone

9 May 1998 Secretary-General Welcomes Regional Efforts to Solve the Problem of Forced Displacement in the Great Lakes Region

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6557, REF/1161); Great Lakes region Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at a regional meeting on refugee issues in the Great Lakes region, in Kampala. I was in Kigali yesterday, the capital of a nation where some of the most tragic events of modern history occurred only a few years ago. As we recall those sombre days, and humbly attempt to learn lessons from the mistakes we made, we should not forget that the Rwandan genocide is at the origin of another tragedy: the flight of millions of people, refugees and genocidaires alike—the latter using the former as a pawn and a shield. Although most Rwandan refugees have now returned home, this region is still grappling with the consequences of that biblical exodus. Elsewhere, peace still eludes the people of Burundi, and thousands of Burundi refugees remain in exile. Unrest in other areas, particularly in the Kivu provinces of eastern Congo, threatens to cause further displacement of innocent victims. Let me therefore say, at the outset, that your discussions are timely and important. As I said in my report to the Security Council on Africa, “the time is long past when anyone could claim ignorance about what was happening in Africa or what was needed to achieve progress”. Things are changing fast. There is clearly a new, strong determination by Africans to take the future of the continent into their own hands and to find solutions to their problems. We should encourage this trend and be encouraged by it. We all know how dramatic and divisive the refugee problem has been in this region in the last few years. Thousands of men, women and children have been the unwitting actors of some of the worst man-made catastrophes the world has seen since the Second World War—humanitarian defeats, but even more so, defeats for all humanity. I find it therefore an extremely positive sign that thanks to your governments’ willingness to support the joint efforts of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), ministries from the countries in the Great Lakes region have

11 May 1998 • 411 gathered in this room to seek solutions to the problem of forced displacement. I hope that from your open and frank discussions, new ideas and proposals will emerge. We should not say or hear any more that refugee problems in the Great Lakes region are “intractable”. We should not see any more refugees being taken hostage by those whose interest is to instigate violence and to create instability. I am pleased to be with you today; I do consider my brief participation in your meeting an important event in my trip. I would like to thank President Museveni for offering to host this meeting, and both Mrs. Ogata and Dr. Salim for planning, preparing and convening it. To be meaningful, however, your discussions should not remain an isolated event. Displacement problems can be addressed positively and permanently only if they are part of wider ranging solutions in the areas of peace and security and of economic development. In this respect, let me make three points: First, I wish to express my firm support for the effort to reaffirm the principles of refugee law and to make them “converge”—to use Mrs. Ogata’s term—with the concerns and interests of States. It is essential that Africa upholds the spirit of the OAU Refugee Convention—but in so doing, that no harm should be caused to the security, economic development, and natural environment of States. Second, it is essential to establish a firm link between your own discussions on the need to maintain the civilian character of refugee settlements, and the wider debate on peace and security in the region and beyond. The international community did not provide adequate military resources to separate refugees from genocidaires in the Kivu camps between 1994 and 1996. The consequences of this failed separation are still being felt in some countries in Central Africa. Because of it, humanitarian intervention has often been blocked by security concerns. Humanitarian assistance, on the other hand, has at times become an involuntary cause of insecurity—a tool of war, as some have said. This must not occur again. Humanitarian agencies should not be expected to address and resolve problems which require political and military responses—such as the separation of refugees from military elements, militiamen and terrorists. In my report to the Security Council, I have firmly recommended that the issue of demilitarization of refugee camps be addressed as a matter of urgency, if necessary through the establishment of multinational military intervention mechanisms. It

is furthermore essential that the problem of those who are found not to be refugees be resolved in ways that are both just and humane. And let me add that humanitarian action will also be ineffective or even counterproductive, unless other important security issues, such as the illegal flow of arms and the use of landmines, are addressed very urgently by the international community. Third, it is also essential that your discussions contribute to the wider debate on reconstruction and development. No solution to refugee problems—no solution to the conflicts in this region, I should say—will be durable without development. Many countries represented in this meeting are in the most difficult phase—the phase which follows a conflict. There is a necessity to link the emergency rehabilitation required to address their urgent needs—rebuilding schools, for example— with long-term development—establishing effective education systems, to use the same example. I am very pleased to note that you are discussing reintegration of returnees and rehabilitation of refugee-affected areas. The United Nations will continue to work in two directions: one, try to mobilize resources for this transition phase—often overlooked by donors; and two, establish a fuller coordination between humanitarian and development actors. In concluding, let me once again thank the organizers for having invited me, but also—and especially—let me thank the governments in the region for having accepted the invitation of Mrs. Ogata and Dr. Salim. The high profile of all delegations shows the interest and commitment of your governments. I am eager to follow up on the conclusions of your meeting with you in other, broader forums. I wish you well in your discussions.

11 May 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Bosnia/Sierra Leone Juan Carlos Brandt, Senior Associate Spokesman for the Secretary-General, began today’s noon briefing by saying that the President of the Security Council had just delivered a statement at the stake-out position, following the Council briefing by the High Representative for Implementation of the Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Carlos Westerndorp, on the situation there. The statement would be available after the briefing in the Spokesman’s Office. The Council President had been asked several

412 • 11 May 1998

questions by reporters, said Mr. Brandt. One question concerned reports in the press of sales of arms to Sierra Leone. Mr. Brandt reminded correspondents that questions on that issue should be addressed to the Permanent Representative of Sweden, who was the Chairman of the Sanctions Committee. The other element of the answer to the question was that the sanctions did apply to both sides, as the Council President had indicated. Mr. Brandt said he had two statements that were attributable to the Spokesman of the Secretary-General. The first statement read: “The SecretaryGeneral has been most distressed on learning last Friday that the daughter of Ahmed Ali Kalaz, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Republic of Yemen to the United Nations, had been murdered the preceding day. He has sent a message to the bereaved family conveying his deepest sympathy for their tragic loss. He is certain that the host country authorities will make every effort to investigate this heinous crime and bring its perpetrator to justice.” The second statement read: “The SecretaryGeneral has learned with deep regret of the announcement that India had conducted three underground nuclear tests on Monday. He wishes to note that, for quite some time now, there has been a de facto moratorium on nuclear testing. The moratorium and the successful conclusion of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in September 1996 are seen by the international community as setting a norm with regard to nuclear non-proliferation. While noting that India is not a signatory to the CTBT, the SecretaryGeneral is nevertheless concerned that the latest testing is inconsistent with the pattern which has been firmly endorsed by the international community. He calls on all States for maximum restraint with a view to facilitating nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. The SecretaryGeneral strongly supports accelerated measures of nuclear disarmament, cessation of all nuclear tests by all States and strengthening of the nuclear nonproliferation regime.” . . . The fourth round of substantive talks on East Timor at the senior official level was concluded last Friday, 8 May, he said. The talks were chaired by Ambassador Jamsheer Marker, the Personal Representative of the Secretary-General on East Timor. The dates for the next round of talks were to be determined following consultations with the parties. . . . Mr. Brandt said he wanted to clarify a story

that had run on the wires this morning concerning a meeting that had been scheduled between the Secretary-General and Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. That meeting was to have been held today at the request of the Prime Minister, and was scheduled for 5:15 p.m. Paris time. However, Mr. Hariri had to return to Lebanon earlier than planned, leaving Paris at 11 a.m., which obviously made it impossible for him to meet the SecretaryGeneral later the same day. Mr. Hariri sent his written apologies to the Secretary-General for being unable to attend the meeting and said he would like to reschedule it for New York at some time in the near future. It was not the case that there had been no reason given for the meeting not to take place. The Secretary-General was in Paris, said Mr. Brandt. He had arrived there from Djibouti. The following was a rundown of his activities since last Friday, 8 May, when he was in Uganda. The Secretary-General had met on Friday evening with Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni, for about three quarters of an hour, and then had dinner with him. Their discussions centered on the nature of conflict in Africa in general, as well as specific conflicts, such as those in the Sudan, Burundi, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Middle East. The Secretary-General raised the issue of what he called “the armies of losers”— defeated soldiers who crossed borders with their weapons after losing a war, creating havoc wherever they went. They also talked about issues of joint governance, during which the President observed, “There must be democracy; otherwise government is just another armed faction”. The problems of African refugees also came up, as did regional approaches to trade. On Saturday, 9 May, Mr. Brandt continued, the Secretary-General traveled an hour from Kampala by helicopter to the town of Mbale where he launched a private sector development promotion project sponsored by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). There, he called for the empowerment of African women as entrepreneurs. He drew loud applause when he said, “Women are much more reliable than we are”, referring to women’s high repayment rates with micro-creditors. Mr. Brandt said the Secretary-General then returned to Kampala, where he addressed a meeting on refugee issues in the Great Lakes region, convened by the High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Sadako Ogata, and by the Organization of African Unity Secretary-General,

12 May 1998 • 413 Salim A. Salim. He called, among other things, for establishing a multi-national intervention mechanism to separate combatants from refugees. The Secretary-General had lunch with heads of United Nations agencies, and spoke to the press before departing for Eritrea, said Mr. Brandt. In response to a question about Rwanda’s demand for the recall of the spokesman of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Secretary-General said he intended to protest it. Referring to all aid recipients, he said that United Nations resources were limited, as was its patience, and it might have to work more closely with those Member States who were willing to cooperate with it. On the flight to Asmara, the United Nations plane carrying the Secretary-General and his party encountered strong headwinds and had to refuel in Khartoum, said Mr. Brandt. During the brief stopover there, the Foreign Minister of the Sudan, Mustafa Osman Ismaiel, came to the airport to greet the Secretary-General. The SecretaryGeneral took the opportunity to ask for access by United Nations aid workers to the Nuba Mountain area of the Sudan, which it had not had for eight years. The Foreign Minister granted the request. The late arrival in Eritrea made it impossible for the Secretary-General to attend the dinner planned for him by President Isaias Afwerki, but the President met him at the airport, said Mr. Brandt. The official programme then began on Sunday, 10 May, with a helicopter ride to Massawa, the port city that was almost totally destroyed by the war for independence. There, the Secretary-General laid a wreath at the Martyrs’ Memorial, met with the Mayor, and viewed different parts of the city, which was rapidly being constructed. Mr. Brandt said the Secretary-General returned to Asmara, where he had lunch with representatives of United Nations agencies, and addressed the staff at United Nations offices there. In the late afternoon, he met for an hour and a half with President Afwerki. They discussed the situation in Somalia, Sudan, and the Great Lakes region. They also talked about United Nations reform, and how it could be applied to United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, as well as Eritrea’s relations with those agencies. The Secretary-General and the President then gave a press conference, bringing to an end an eightnation African tour. A transcript of that press conference was expected to arrive at Headquarters late today.

The Secretary-General arrived in Paris on an overnight flight. He met at 6:30 this morning with Minister of State for Health, Bernard Kouchner, who discussed his proposal for a European programme to fight AIDS. He would continue his programme in Paris this afternoon. Mr. Brandt said he understood the Secretary-General would be having a working dinner with the Prime Minister of France, Lionel Jospin. . . . A correspondent said that Rwandan officials seemed to have stepped up their criticism of the United Nations over the last few days. What was the main problem at the moment between the United Nations and Rwanda? Responding, Mr. Brandt said he had spoken at length on that subject during the visit of the Secretary-General there. Perhaps the correspondent was talking about the kind of response that the Secretary-General gave to journalists in Kampala, after his brief visit to Rwanda. The United Nations had limited resources, and limited patience. It may just have to work with those countries who were willing to work with it. The Secretary-General had been referring to all of Africa, but obviously that was in answer to a question about Rwanda. If Member States did not want to work with the United Nations, then perhaps there were other Member States that need its resources, help and expertise more. Who was it in the Secretariat who had advised the Secretary-General to include the “mine field” of Rwanda in his itinerary, when it was wellknown that he would have problems there? a correspondent asked. Mr. Brandt said that the Secretary-General knew it would be a difficult visit, for obvious reasons. He had wanted to go to Rwanda. It was his decision to go. Concerning weapons sales by a British company to Sierra Leone, a correspondent asked what the Secretary-General’s impression had been of the arms embargo resolution. Was it intended to cover both sides in Sierra Leone? Yes, replied Mr. Brandt, the resolution covered both sides. It was not for him to give an impression, it was up to correspondents to find that out from the President of the Sanctions Committee, the Ambassador of Sweden. . . .

12 May 1998 Letter (UN archives); Sudan/relief operations Internal message, received via fax, from Philippe Borel of the Office of the UN Coordinator for Emergency and Relief Operations in Sudan.

414 • 12 May 1998 Subject: Access to Rebel Areas of the Nuba Mountains in Sudan

Following your suggestion, I met yesterday with H.E. Mustapha Osman Ismail, the Foreign Minister of the Sudan, to discuss access to rebel areas of the Nuba Mountains. The Minister gave his full endorsement to our request to conduct an assessment mission of these areas next week. The Minister accepted the modalities which the UN had suggested for the mission, agreeing that decisions related to distributions would be taken after the assessment team submitted its report. The UN hopes to launch the first OLS mission to rebel areas in the Nuba on 20 May, although the exact date may change depending upon logistics. The Minister has asked that the UN not announce this break-through until after his discussions with H.E. J. P. Pronk, the Netherlands Minister for Development Cooperation, which will be held on Wednesday 13 May. My staff is working on the text of a proposed press release which will be issued by OCHA following Minister Pronk’s announcement. I understand that the office of Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs will contact your office to coordinate statements to the press. During our discussions, the Minister expressed his deep gratitude for your unscheduled visit to Khartoum and for the very positive statements which you have issued regarding the Government of the Sudan’s cooperation. On behalf of the Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) team, I wish to thank you very much for your attention to access issues in the Sudan during your Africa tour. Your interventions led to this unprecedented break-through which opens the door for the UN to serve one of the most forgotten, destitute populations in the world. It was a great honour to meet you and to have the chance to discuss humanitarian issues in the Sudan. Best regards.

sultation chamber. Contributions to this are both from Missions and the Secretariat. We might consider a system of a restricted number of official passes to keep this in check. A limited number could be issued to EOSG, DPKO and DHA for use by their staff members when their presence is officially required, while DPA could hold an appropriate number for issue to other departments as required (to be returned to DPA after the meeting?). It also should be feasible to request members of the Security Council to restrict their attendance to three or four in addition to the head of delegation. Here also, special passes could be considered (of course not required for Permanent Representatives). Thank you.

13 May 1998 Secretary-General Deeply Disturbed by India’s Nuclear Tests

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6560); India The Secretary-General is deeply disturbed over the Government of India’s announcement of two more nuclear tests conducted on 13 May following the three tests that were carried out on 11 May. India has stated that this is expected to complete the current series of tests and has made a qualified offer to adhere to some of the undertakings of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty selectively. The Secretary-General continues to look forward to the unequivocal assurance of India and all other States that the international community’s norm on nuclear testing and non-proliferation would be adhered to in order that progress towards nuclear disarmament—a common desire of all States and peoples—can be achieved as soon as possible.

14 May 1998 12 May 1998

Letter (UN archives); Pakistan/nuclear testing

Letter (UN archives); UN reform/Security Council affairs

Letter from the Secretary-General to the prime minister of Pakistan, Mohammad Nawaz Sharif.

Internal note from S. Iqbal Riza, the SecretaryGeneral’s chief of staff, to the under-secretarygeneral for political affairs, Kieran Prendergast.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister, You have no doubt seen my statements concerning the recent tests of nuclear devices by India. I am deeply concerned by these tests which run counter to the norms set by the international community with regard to nuclear testing and nuclear non-proliferation. I also subscribe fully to the Presidential statement of the Security Council issued today.

NOTE TO MR. PRENDERGAST

Attendance at Security Council Meetings

Over the past months, we have spoken about frequent over-crowding in the Security Council con-

15 May 1998 • 415 It is my strong conviction that the current situation requires restraint by all States so that an escalation in the arms race in the region of South Asia can be avoided and that the sources of tensions be resolved through dialogue. I wish to emphasize that accelerated measures are needed to achieve nuclear disarmament. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty plays an important part in those efforts and illustrates the collective will of the international community to prohibit nuclear testing. It is with this in mind that I, in my capacity as depositary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, wish to express my sincere hope and expectation that your Excellency’s Government would accede to the Treaty as soon as possible. I have made a similar appeal to the Government of India. In my view, adherence to the Comprehensive Nuclear-TestBan Treaty would add significantly to stability in the region. Please accept, Mr. Prime Minister, the assurances of my highest consideration.

14 May 1998 Letter (UN archives); India/nuclear testing Letter from the Secretary-General to the prime minister of India, Atal Behari Vajpayee. Dear. Mr. Prime Minister, The recent tests of nuclear devices by India and the widespread international concern they have caused have further strengthened my conviction of the urgency for nuclear disarmament leading to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which has been signed by 149 States, is an important part of the process of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament and illustrates the collective will of the international community to prohibit nuclear testing. It is with this in mind that I, in my capacity as depositary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-TestBan Treaty, wish to express my sincere hope and expectation that your Excellency’s Government would find it possible to reconsider its position and adhere to the Treaty without delay and without conditions. I believe this would be a significant contribution to regional stability. In this context, I have noted with interest your own statement in which you indicated India’s preparedness to consider acceding to the Comprehensive NuclearTest-Ban Treaty. I have made a similar appeal to the government of Pakistan. I am also looking forward to your Government’s participation in the

negotiations for a fissile material cut-off treaty in the Conference on Disarmament with a view to reaching early agreement. Please accept, Mr. Prime Minister, the assurances of my highest consideration.

15 May 1998 Letter (EOSG); Palestinian refugees Letter to the president of Argentina, Carlos Saul Menem. Identical letters were also sent to other heads of state. Excellency, I have the honour to refer to the Palestine refugee problem and, in particular, to its humanitarian dimensions. A few weeks ago, I visited the Middle East region in order to listen, to learn and to hear the concerns of leaders and civil society at large on a range of complex issues. The trip also afforded a most valuable opportunity to experience first-hand the humanitarian problems affecting Palestine refugees. I visited refugee camps and talked with refugees and their community leaders. I witnessed the difficult conditions in which they live and work, and heard about their struggle to bring some semblance of normalcy to their lives. I saw the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) deliver essential services to several generations of refugees, who by now number 3.5 million. I was most impressed by the cost-effectiveness and efficiency with which UNRWA’s largely Palestinian staff manage this sizeable operation. The Palestinian Authority emphasized repeatedly the crucial role that UNRWA plays in the daily lives of millions of Palestinians as did also the leaders of Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic. Most unfortunately, UNRWA continues to face a serious and chronic deficit in its regular budget which threatens to undermine the capacity and ability of the Agency to satisfy even the bare minimum of existing requirements of assistance. At this time when the stalled peace process leaves little room for optimism, it is also essential to recognize that UNRWA’s importance lies not only in the services it provides to the refugees but also in its being perceived as a symbol of the international community’s solidarity. For these reasons it is essential to reverse the decline in UNRWA’s services. I am therefore appealing directly to you for assistance, in the

416 • 15 May 1998

hope that this request will receive your personal attention. Your Government’s involvement and your personal interest in the Middle East, manifested inter alia through your White Helmets initiative, encourage me to address a special appeal to you. Bearing in mind also that you have so admirably steered Argentina into considerable economic prosperity, I hope it will be possible for your Government to respond with a generous contribution to UNRWA. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

15 May 1998 Letter (UN archives); Y2K issue Letter from the Secretary-General to John Weston, UK permanent representative to the UN. The letter is in response to Weston’s letter regarding the Y2K issue, which follows. Dear John, Thank you for your recent letter on the “Millennium Bug” problem. I share the concern and recognize the need for urgent action. I would like to congratulate you for taking the lead in raising awareness of the gravity of the situation, and for the generous grant given by your Government to assist developing countries. I am requesting the relevant departments at Headquarters to distribute the information you have sent us through electronic means, as well as to post it on the United Nations own web-site. I intend to share this without delay with our agency partners through the Information Systems Coordination Committee of the Administrative Committee on Coordination. In addition, the United Nations Funds and Programmes will forward the material to field offices for suitable country-level dissemination. I am also asking Messrs. Speth and Hogen to work out a comprehensive strategy to assist in the process. * * * 20 April 1998 Dear Kofi, As you know, one of the greatest challenges to the orderly conduct of international relations over the next few years is the problem generally referred to as Millennium bug, or Y2K. The British Government takes this matter very seriously. We have placed it on the agenda of the forthcoming G8 Heads of Government Summit in

Birmingham. The United Kingdom has also donated £10 million to a World Bank trust fund to enable it to assist developing countries. In the UN context we are of course all aware of the valuable work being done by Ambassador Ahmad Kamal as chair of the ECOSOC Working Group on Informatics in raising awareness of the problem. I attached two documents, prepared by the UK government, which may be of interest to you. The first is an information note on the issue. The second is a list of questions which British Embassies around the world are putting to their host governments to establish their preparedness. The UN system is well placed to disseminate widely the kind of information contained in the notes. I hope you will consider how this might best be done. I am copying this letter to the Executive Directors of UNICEF and UNFPA and to the Administrator of UNDP, as well as to the Under-Secretary-General responsible for Public Information.

18 May 1998 Letter (UN archives); peacekeeping/UN budget Letter from Richard Sklar, US representative to the 5th Committe on Management and Reform, to three under-secretaries-general: Bernard Miyet (UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations), Joseph Connor (Management), and Kieran Prendergast (Political Affairs). Dear Under Secretaries General: This week, member states will take up the question of the Support Account for Peacekeeping Operations in the Fifth Committee. The decisions made this year will affect the way in which UN headquarters is organized to perform its critical peacekeeping function for years to come. The United States is, and will remain, a steadfast supporter of peacekeeping at the United Nations. We are concerned, however, that the lack of information about the peacekeeping function at headquarters is hampering important decisions that the member states must make concerning the future of peacekeeping. The peacekeeping function is performed by various departments at the UN and is funded from various sources which are considered at different times of the year. As a result, getting a composite picture of the peacekeeping function has proved virtually impossible. Despite multiple meetings with Secretariat officials, we have been unable to get sufficient answers to our fundamental questions about the overall needs of the UN Secretariat

19 May 1998 • 417 to effectively and efficiently perform its peacekeeping duties. The Fifth Committee is not the competent body to determine the requisite staffing and structure of the peacekeeping function in the Secretariat. Rather, we hope that the Secretariat, with all its expertise in this area, will develop and present the member states an integrated view of the peacekeeping function (including all relevant departments and funding sources). We hope that the attached “non-paper” outlining our questions and concerns will help you in that process. We realize that this will require significant effort on the part of the Secretariat, but think that a serious process involving all the relevant actors and experts is the only way to get an acceptable plan. Given the time and effort needed, it may be necessary to approve interim funding for the Support Account while our questions and those of other member states are answered. We expect to pursue this option in the Fifth Committee this week. Given the importance of the peacekeeping function to the UN and the world, we hope that you will consider these views in the constructive spirit in which they are intended.

19 May 1998 Letter (EOSG); Cyprus Letter from the president of the Security Council, Njuguna M. Mahugu. The attached report, dated 19 May, is a reissuing of a letter sent to the Security Council by the Secretary-General on 20 April 1998, regarding Cyprus. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, I have the honour to inform you that the members of the Security Council took note of your letter dated 20 April 1998 and reiterate their strong support for your mission of good offices for Cyprus and for the efforts of your Special Adviser on Cyprus, Mr. Diego Cordovez, on the basis of the relevant Security Council resolutions. Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration. Njuguna M. Mahugu, OGW President of the Security Council * * * As members of the Security Council are aware, my Special Adviser on Cyprus, Mr. Diego Cordovez, visited Nicosia from 17 to 22 March 1998 for consultations with the leaders of the two Cypriot communities on the resumption of his

efforts under my good offices mandate. Mr. Cordovez has since reported to me on the results of his talks. He has also briefed the members of the Security Council. I regret that during my Special Adviser’s visit to Cyprus it was not possible to find a common basis on which to resume the negotiations. While both interlocutors emphasized their continued belief that a peaceful solution to the Cyprus problem should be pursued through the United Nations, they strongly disagreed on the parameters that should govern the process. Mr. Clerides reconfirmed his readiness to resume discussions in the long-established framework. He maintained, at the same time, that that framework had been mandated by the Security Council and should not be changed. According to Mr. Clerides, it provided the appropriate forum for discussing and solving all problems relating to a peaceful settlement of the Cyprus conflict. Mr. Denktash rejected the validity of the intercommunal framework, based on developments in connection with the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. He set out his views during his meetings with Mr. Cordovez in Cyprus and elaborated on them in a meeting with me, at his request, in Geneva on 28 March. In view of the implications of Mr. Denktash’s new position, I would like to share with the members of the Security Council, in the following paragraphs, in extenso, the views of Mr. Denktash as he presented them to me in our meeting. Mr. Denktash first stated that he firmly believed that the United Nations offered the best venue through which the Cyprus question could be most successfully handled. He was of the view that any resolution in Cyprus must be based on existing realities and the equal status of the two peoples. The time had come to recognize the fact that the Greek Cypriot administration did not have the legal or moral right to determine the future of the whole island and of the Turkish Cypriot people. It was thus necessary, for the success of our efforts, to adopt a new approach to the Cyprus question which would reflect those facts. Mr. Denktash said that the lack of political parity and symmetry between the two sides in Cyprus was preventing progress. He wished to share with me, candidly, his assessment that the role of the United Nations in Cyprus, both in peacekeeping and in my good offices mission, had so far, unfortunately, helped and consolidated that political disparity and asymmetry. He believed that the new approach he was advocating would

418 • 19 May 1998

greatly facilitate the United Nations efforts for a lasting settlement. According to Mr. Denktash, the intervention of the European Union instigated by Greece and the Greek Cypriot side had reached a climax at the Luxembourg Summit held in December 1997, and introduced elements which diametrically contradicted the parameters of the United Nations process, thus further complicating the already complex Cyprus conflict. Furthermore, the establishment of a unified military front between Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration, including the opening of the Paphos airbase and the prospective deployment of sophisticated S-300 missiles, within the context of the so-called Joint Military Doctrine, promised nothing but further crisis. In shaping our future, Mr. Denktash said, the basic requirement was realism. In view of the prevailing realities, in order to coexist peacefully in the island and promote trust and cooperation between the two peoples, the two States should work out an arrangement which would enable them to resolve, in the first instance, the following three major issues: • Settlement of reciprocal property claims; • Security; • Delineation of borders. Mr. Denktash stated, in this context, that he had come to the conclusion that the acknowledgement of the existence of two fully functioning democratic States in the island, each with its own people, territory and effective Government, would open the way to the resolution of these three issues and the development of a new and cooperative relationship for the achievement of a final settlement. Furthermore, the inhuman embargoes imposed upon the Turkish Cypriot people should be removed. Mr. Denktash also stressed that the current system of guarantees must continue and that the final settlement must maintain the internal balance between the two peoples of the island and the external balance between Turkey and Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean. He was confident that the new platform would create a new environment in which the two sides could work towards a common future based on cooperation, mutual trust and respect. The primary aim should, therefore, be the immediate achievement of a working relationship between the two States so that peace, stability and mutual trust could be secured and the danger of a new conflict averted. He referred to his letter of 5

March 1998 to Mr. Clerides, in which he had stated the foregoing and had also invited him to make together, in good faith, a new beginning on the basis of those realities. Mr. Denktash said it was his firm belief that all concerned would have to adapt and realign their current positions to help the process forward. In this connection, he hoped that I would agree that it was necessary to consider adjusting the role of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and the good offices mission to the realities pertaining to Cyprus, especially after the interventions of Greece and the European Union which had completely destroyed the political parity and symmetry needed for a solution of the conflict. This would enable us to make progress on the right track. Mr. Denktash concluded by confirming that he was ready to work with me for a Cyprus settlement and a peaceful future on the basis of these realities. Following Mr. Denktash’s full and frank account of his position, I urged him to agree to resume talks within the framework of my good offices mission. I pointed out that the talks between the two leaders were the only framework within which the two communities in Cyprus were treated on the basis of full political equality. I told him that I intended to ask Mr. Cordovez to continue to explore with the parties ways of establishing fair and effective modalities for the continuation of the talks. Both Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash requested that I inform the Security Council about their positions and the consequent status of the Cyprus efforts. I would therefore appreciate it if you could bring the contents of the present letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. I shall look forward to any guidance the Council may wish to provide in support of my good offices mission.

20 May 1998 Secretary-General Speaks to Bosnia’s Religious Leaders

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6569); Bosnia and Herzegovina Opening remarks by the Secretary-General at the interreligious dialogue among the four religious leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in New York. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome you to the United Nations today. I wish to congratulate you on this remarkable act of healing and reconciliation. I urge you to meet many more times in

27 May 1998 • 419 Bosnia itself so that the people can see that coexistence is not only necessary, but possible. Your mission has a special place in the hearts of all of us here at the United Nations who sought to end the war in Bosnia. We did so in the fervent belief that coexistence—once flourishing among the communities of your country—could once again become reality. For too long during Bosnia’s dark days of war, religion was used not to unite but to divide; not to teach mercy, but to incite hatred; not to resolve differences peacefully but to make those differences the cause of conflict. Those days are now over, and as your society slowly rebuilds and reunites, you have a solemn responsibility to restore religion to its rightful role as peacemaker and pacifier. For as you—the religious leaders of Bosnia— know better than anyone, the problem is never the Bible or the Torah or the Koran. Indeed, the problem is never the faith—it is the faithful and how we behave towards each other. You must, once again, teach your faithful the ways of peace and the ways of tolerance that they knew before the war and will know again. Through faith and forgiveness, you must make Bosnia one again. The hopes of all of the United Nations are with you as you create a future of peace and coexistence for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

26 May 1998 Secretary-General to Dispatch UN Experts to Albania

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6573); Albania In response to a request for assistance from the Government of Albania, the Secretary-General has decided to dispatch a small team of United Nations experts to Albania to undertake a preliminary evaluation of the situation in the country, in close cooperation with the Albania authorities, with a view to developing a programme of weapons collection from the civilian population. The team will visit Albania from 1 to 5 June. The team is headed by the Under-SecretaryGeneral for Disarmament Affairs, Jayantha Dhanapala, and composed of United Nations officials from the Department for Disarmament Affairs, the Department of Political Affairs and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. The visit will be financed from voluntary contributions by the Government of Italy.

26 May 1998 Letter (EOSG); Cambodia Letter to Domingo L. Siazon Jr., secretary for foreign affairs of the Philippines and member of ASEAN. Excellency, I have the honour to refer to your letter of 21 April 1998 informing me of the meetings of the ASEAN Troika and the Friends of Cambodia in Bangkok on 18 and 19 April. I am indeed grateful for the expression of support from the ASEAN Troika and the Friends of Cambodia for the United Nations’ efforts to ensure that the forthcoming elections in Cambodia are free, fair and credible and take place with the participation of the principal political forces. I welcome the intention of ASEAN Member States to send 70 to 75 observers to Cambodia for these elections. I also take note of the Troika’s proposal that I consider issuing an appeal to international non governmental organizations to contribute their efforts to the cause of free elections in Cambodia. While it would certainly be helpful and desirable to have NGOs, especially those with relevant experience and expertise, participate in the observation of the electoral process in Cambodia, I feel inhibited from making such an appeal myself since it was the Royal Government of Cambodia, and not the United Nations, that issued the invitations to Governments to send international observers. The more appropriate course, in my view, would be to suggest to the Royal Government of Cambodia that it might encourage NGO participation in the electoral process and Governments facilitating it as needed. On my instructions, my Personal Representative in Cambodia has already approached the competent authorities in Phnom Penh in this regard. Much remains to be done in the coming weeks to ensure the proper coordination of international observers. I look forward to working closely with the ASEAN Troika as well as with the Friends of Cambodia and other interested Member States to assist Cambodia in moving the electoral process forward and in furthering our common objective of helping to restore political stability to that country. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

27 May 1998 Letter (EOSG, S/1998/438); Rwanda

420 • 27 May 1998

I have the honour to refer to resolution 1161 (1998) of 9 April 1998, by which the Security Council requested me to reactivate the International Commission of Inquiry, with the following mandate: (a) To collect information and investigate reports relating to the sale, supply and shipment of arms and related matériel to former Rwandan government forces and militias in the Great Lakes region of central Africa, in violation of Security Council resolutions 918 (1994) of 17 May 1994, 997 (1995) of 9 June 1995 and 1011 (1995) of 16 August 1995; (b) To identify parties aiding and abetting the illegal sale to or acquisition of arms by former Rwandan government forces and militias, contrary to the resolutions referred to above; (c) To make recommendations relating to the illegal flow of arms in the Great Lakes region. By paragraph 7 of that resolution, the Security Council recommended that the Commission resume its work as soon as possible and requested me to report to the Council on the reactivation of the Commission. The present letter is submitted pursuant to that request. Following the adoption of resolution 1161 (1998), I requested Mr. Mahmoud Kassem (Egypt), who had served as Chairman of the International Commission of Inquiry in 1995 and 1996, to resume his functions in that capacity. I also requested the Governments of Pakistan, Switzerland and the United States of America to consider making available the services of officials to serve as members of the Commission. As a result, I am pleased to report that the composition of the Commission is as follows: Mr. Mahmoud Kassem (Egypt) (Chairman); BrigadierGeneral Mujahid Alam (Pakistan); Mr. Gilbert Barthe (Switzerland); Mr. Mel Holt (United States of America. The Commission will be assisted by a small staff. Between 4 and 8 May 1998, the Chairman and members of the Commission convened at United Nations Headquarters for a series of briefings and consultations with the representatives of interested Member States, senior Secretariat officials and others in preparation for the resumption of their investigations. On 13 May 1998, the Commission re-established its base at the United Nations Office at Nairobi, where it has resumed its contacts in Kenya and with Governments of the countries of the Great Lakes region and others. In accordance with resolution 1161 (1998), the activities of the Commission will be financed from

the United Nations Trust Fund for Rwanda. As of 15 May 1998, the Secretariat had received donations totalling approximately $140,000 for the use of the Commission, ($100,000 from the Government of Belgium and $40,000 from the Government of Japan). Pledges of further contributions were made at the 3870th meeting of the Security Council, on 9 April 1998, when resolution 1161 (1998) was adopted, by the Governments of Belgium, Germany ($50,000), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (100,000 pounds sterling) and the United States ($100,000). During the visit of the Commission to New York, the representative of France indicated his Government’s intention to contribute to the Trust Fund. The Government of Sweden has also pledged 500,000 Swedish kronor, or approximately $64,000, to support the work of the Commission. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Governments that have contributed to the Trust Fund and to renew my appeal to others to do so. In accordance with paragraph 7 of resolution 1161 (1998), I will submit an interim report to the Council on the initial conclusions of the Commission within the next three months, to be followed by a final report containing its recommendations in November 1998. I should be grateful if you would bring this matter to the attention of the Security Council.

29 May 1998 Letter (UN archives); Pakistan/nuclear testing Letter from the Secretary-General to the prime minister of Pakistan, Mohammad Nawaz Sharif. Excellency, I deeply regret that despite the concerns expressed by the international community the situation in South Asia has taken a dangerous turn. I am dismayed that diplomacy was not given enough time to search for acceptable solutions to Pakistan’s security concerns. The whole world is alarmed about the consequences that these events will have for international peace and stability, both at regional and global levels. At this critical moment it is therefore of utmost importance to demonstrate statesmanship and restraint to avoid a slide into a nuclear-arms race. I wish to reiterate my appeal to your Government to adhere without conditions and without delay to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and to consider freezing your nuclear weapons and missile development programme.

1 June 1998 • 421 As another important measure to defuse the situation in South Asia, I would support any efforts that would lead to successful negotiations on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. I wish to emphasize the importance of a constructive dialogue on all issues in the region, including nuclear issues, and I stand ready to assist you in this endeavour. I also remain convinced that further measures for nuclear disarmament are needed and it is within this context that I am engaging in intensive discussions with the five Permanent Members of the Security Council. I have addressed a similar letter to the Prime Minister of India. I appeal to you both to make every effort to reduce tensions in the region, especially in Kashmir. Both sides should remain from mutual accusations which could further inflame the tense situation. I urge your two Governments to resume your bilateral dialogue and I take this opportunity to remind you of the availability of my good offices. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

29 May 1998 Letter (UN archives); India/nuclear testing Letter from the Secretary-General to the prime minister of India, Atal Behari Vajpayee. Excellency, I deeply regret that despite the concerns expressed by the international community the situation in South Asia has taken a dangerous turn. The whole world is alarmed about the consequences that these events will have for international peace and stability, both at regional and global levels. At this critical moment it is therefore of utmost importance to demonstrate statesmanship and restraint to avoid a slide into a nuclear-arms race. I wish to reiterate my appeal to your Government to adhere without conditions and without delay to the Comprehensive Nuclear-TestBan Treaty and to consider freezing your nuclear weapons and missile development programme. As another important measure to defuse the situation in South Asia, I would support any efforts that would lead to successful negotiations on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. In this regard I have noted your recent statement in the Parliament. I wish to emphasize the importance of a dialogue on all issues in the region, including nuclear issues, and I stand ready to assist you in this endeavour.

I also remain convinced that further measures for nuclear disarmament are needed and it is within this context that I am engaging in intensive discussions with the five Permanent Members of the Security Council. I have addressed a similar letter to the Prime Minister of Pakistan. I appeal to you both to make every effort to reduce tensions in the region, especially in Kashmir. Both sides should refrain from mutual accusations which could further inflame the tense situation. I urge your two Governments to resume your bilateral dialogue and I take this opportunity to remind you of the availability of my good offices. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

30 May 1998 Secretary-General Calls on Pakistan to Join India in Declaring Moratorium on Nuclear Weapon Tests

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6577); Pakistan The Secretary-General has learned with profound dismay that, despite the appeals for restraint by him as well as by the Security Council and leaders of many Member States, Pakistan has conducted a sixth underground nuclear weapon test on Saturday, 30 May. This further dangerous and senseless escalation of tension could lead to a nuclear arms race with incalculable consequences. The international community must move to prevent a further deterioration of the situation. The Secretary-General urgently reiterates his appeal to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan to demonstrate their leadership at this critical stage by exercising restraint and reducing the high tensions between them. Noting that India has already announced a moratorium on future tests, he calls upon Pakistan to make a parallel declaration. He also urges both countries to accede to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) without conditions. The Secretary-General reiterates the offer made to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan in the letters he addressed to them on 29 May to assist them in initiating a constructive dialogue.

1 June 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Afghanistan

1 June 1998 • 421 As another important measure to defuse the situation in South Asia, I would support any efforts that would lead to successful negotiations on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. I wish to emphasize the importance of a constructive dialogue on all issues in the region, including nuclear issues, and I stand ready to assist you in this endeavour. I also remain convinced that further measures for nuclear disarmament are needed and it is within this context that I am engaging in intensive discussions with the five Permanent Members of the Security Council. I have addressed a similar letter to the Prime Minister of India. I appeal to you both to make every effort to reduce tensions in the region, especially in Kashmir. Both sides should remain from mutual accusations which could further inflame the tense situation. I urge your two Governments to resume your bilateral dialogue and I take this opportunity to remind you of the availability of my good offices. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

29 May 1998 Letter (UN archives); India/nuclear testing Letter from the Secretary-General to the prime minister of India, Atal Behari Vajpayee. Excellency, I deeply regret that despite the concerns expressed by the international community the situation in South Asia has taken a dangerous turn. The whole world is alarmed about the consequences that these events will have for international peace and stability, both at regional and global levels. At this critical moment it is therefore of utmost importance to demonstrate statesmanship and restraint to avoid a slide into a nuclear-arms race. I wish to reiterate my appeal to your Government to adhere without conditions and without delay to the Comprehensive Nuclear-TestBan Treaty and to consider freezing your nuclear weapons and missile development programme. As another important measure to defuse the situation in South Asia, I would support any efforts that would lead to successful negotiations on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. In this regard I have noted your recent statement in the Parliament. I wish to emphasize the importance of a dialogue on all issues in the region, including nuclear issues, and I stand ready to assist you in this endeavour.

I also remain convinced that further measures for nuclear disarmament are needed and it is within this context that I am engaging in intensive discussions with the five Permanent Members of the Security Council. I have addressed a similar letter to the Prime Minister of Pakistan. I appeal to you both to make every effort to reduce tensions in the region, especially in Kashmir. Both sides should refrain from mutual accusations which could further inflame the tense situation. I urge your two Governments to resume your bilateral dialogue and I take this opportunity to remind you of the availability of my good offices. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

30 May 1998 Secretary-General Calls on Pakistan to Join India in Declaring Moratorium on Nuclear Weapon Tests

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6577); Pakistan The Secretary-General has learned with profound dismay that, despite the appeals for restraint by him as well as by the Security Council and leaders of many Member States, Pakistan has conducted a sixth underground nuclear weapon test on Saturday, 30 May. This further dangerous and senseless escalation of tension could lead to a nuclear arms race with incalculable consequences. The international community must move to prevent a further deterioration of the situation. The Secretary-General urgently reiterates his appeal to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan to demonstrate their leadership at this critical stage by exercising restraint and reducing the high tensions between them. Noting that India has already announced a moratorium on future tests, he calls upon Pakistan to make a parallel declaration. He also urges both countries to accede to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) without conditions. The Secretary-General reiterates the offer made to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan in the letters he addressed to them on 29 May to assist them in initiating a constructive dialogue.

1 June 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Afghanistan

422 • 1 June 1998

Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s noon briefing by reading the following statement: “The Secretary-General has learned with profound sadness of the earthquake that struck Badakshan and Takhar Provinces in Afghanistan on 30 May, a region that has been recovering from the severe effects of an earthquake that occurred there less than four months earlier. He wishes to convey his deepest condolences to the families of the victims, and is committed to extending all efforts of the United Nations to relieve the suffering of the affected populations in as speedy a manner as possible.” . . . The Secretary-General had spoken to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan over the weekend to discuss the situation on the subcontinent, and to encourage them to enter into dialogue on peace and security issues, including Kashmir, Mr. Eckhard said. The Secretary-General had been encouraged by their reaction, and intended to continue to engage with them on those issues. On Friday, he had sent letters to both Prime Ministers. Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala had then briefed the Security Council on the contents of those letters. . . . The Council was expected to continue its consultations on the draft resolution on Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests tomorrow, the Spokesman continued. That draft had been introduced on Saturday. Following Saturday’s consultations, outgoing Council President Njuguna Moses Mahugu (Kenya) had issued a press statement on the additional nuclear test by Pakistan earlier that day, calling on the Government of Pakistan to issue a public declaration placing a moratorium on future tests and experimentation on delivery systems. He had also indicated that the Council strongly supported the Secretary-General’s statement on the matter. Both statements had been made available on Saturday and were available upstairs. The Secretary-General had approved the new distribution plan for the expanded “oil-for-food” programme late on Friday, Mr. Eckhard said. He had conveyed his decision to the Council the same day. The executive summary of the new plan was out as a Security Council document this morning. Mr. Eckhard said that the technical briefing by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on the so-called “road map” to the lifting of sanctions following the elimination of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction would occur on Wednesday as scheduled. It would take place in a

conference room and was expected to last an entire day. On the UNSCOM/Iraq meeting last Friday, the two sides had had discussions on all weapons areas, as well as ways and means of improving their working relationship, the Spokesman said. Iraq had put forward its position on those matters. There had been some preliminary discussions of the so-called “road map”. The Secretary-General was very concerned at reports about clashes between Eritrean and Ethiopian troops in the disputed border area since yesterday, Mr. Eckhard continued. He recalled that he and others who had offered assistance in resolving the dispute between the two countries had stressed the need for maximum restraint so as to ensure that the situation did not deteriorate. The Secretary-General had sent letters on Friday to the Prime Ministers of Eritrea and Ethiopia calling for full cooperation with the regional and international diplomatic efforts now under way. He had also sent a letter to Hassan Gouled Aptidon, President of Djibouti, thanking him for his mediation efforts, assisted by the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), Salim A. Salim. ... Was this the first time that there was a flow of refugees from Kosovo to Albania? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said that, in the past, his office had reported that refugees were moving in several directions. All that had been said with regard to the current movement was that it was the largest outflow in a single day to date. Was it a war in Kosovo, were there two sides, or was one side shelling villages while the other remained passive? the Spokesman was asked. He said, “I don’t think we’re prepared to say any more than what the UNHCR has said that their relief workers observed mortars being fired into the villages.” Another correspondent asked what role the Secretary-General felt the United Nations should be playing in Kosovo. The Spokesman said the United Nations role there was a humanitarian one. The Secretary-General was meeting with Mr. Rugova at Mr. Rugova’s request. Asked to elaborate on his earlier statement that the Secretary-General had been encouraged by the response of the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, the Spokesman said that the SecretaryGeneral had been encouraged by their openness and, on that basis, he was prepared to stay in touch with them. He was, of course, watching the P-5 [the five permanent members of the Security

2 June 1998 • 423 Council] who were to meet later in the week at the Foreign Minister–level in Geneva. He was also in touch with the P-5 here. The correspondent asked the Spokesman for more information regarding the movements of Mr. Beye. The Spokesman said that Mr. Beye had returned to Luanda late last night with the VicePresident of UNITA who had been present during the long discussions with Mr. Savimbi. A correspondent asked if any information was available on today’s meeting between the Secretary-General and Richard Butler, Executive Director of UNSCOM. Mr. Eckhard said that Mr. Butler was on the programme for this afternoon. He said he did not think there would be too much to report to correspondents, but that he would try to provide a readout later.

2 June 1998 Letter (EOSG); Non-Proliferation Treaty Letter to Tang Jiaxuan, minister of foreign affairs of the People’s Republic of China, with the attached Aide Memoire. Excellency, I have been informed that as current Chairperson of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council you will convene and chair a meeting scheduled to be held in Geneva on 4 June to discuss the question of the recent Indian and Pakistani underground nuclear tests. As discussed with the Permanent Representatives of the Permanent Members of the Security Council in New York on Friday 29 May, I enclose an Aide Memoire containing my thoughts on the subject which I would like to be circulated before your meeting as my contribution to your important deliberations. I wish your meeting all success and look forward to its positive outcome. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Aide Memoire

• The underground nuclear tests by India and Pakistan have major implications for the entire international community. They have caused a sharp deterioration in the bilateral relations between these countries, adding the grave risk of a nuclear arms race. The emergence of some form of strategic stability through mutual deterrence is by no means certain, given the unresolved issues and the hostile emotions that divide the two countries. Inflammatory statements continue to be made on

both sides. But beyond the impact of the tests on the South Asian region is the fact that the nuclear non-proliferation regime and other legal instruments and norms that seek to limit the spread of weapons of mass destruction are now in serious jeopardy. • We are at a critical moment in the history of international efforts to reduce the danger posed by nuclear arms. A dangerous precedent may lead to an increase in the number of de facto nuclearweapon States with serious consequences for international peace and security. This would be especially perilous in the regions where tensions continue to exist with no political solutions in sight. Already ominous statements have been made in the Middle East. The tests by India and Pakistan could presage the unraveling of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which was extended indefinitely only three years ago. The norm established by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) has also received a serious setback. • The Secretary-General of the United Nations has therefore deplored both the Indian and Pakistani tests and called for the utmost restraint. He has also written to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan and, in his capacity as depository of the CTBT, called on them to sign this treaty without conditions and as soon as possible. In addition, the Secretary-General urged them to freeze their nuclear weapons and missile development programmes. He has strongly appealed to both India and Pakistan to make every effort to reduce tensions in the region, especially in Kashmir. He has also asked both sides to refrain from mutual accusations which could inflame the tense situation, and urge the two Governments to resume their bilateral dialogue. Finally, the Secretary-General placed his good offices at their disposal. • The efforts of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council to persuade India and Pakistan to halt further testing and subscribe to the international norms in respect of nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament will add considerable weight to this effort. The nuclearweapon States recognized in the context of the NPT have additional special responsibilities in the new and very dangerous situation that has arisen. There is an urgent need to convince non-nuclearweapon States that national security is not assured through the acquisition of nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence. The world has already witnessed major reductions in nuclear weapons. The decisions of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension

424 • 2 June 1998

Conference reaffirmed the commitment of the nuclear weapon States to nuclear disarmament and, in particular, “the determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons, and by all States of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”. • The nuclear-weapon States Parties to the NPT are encouraged to initiate steps to fulfil these undertakings as confidence-building measures to assure non-nuclear-weapon States that nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament are being pursued in parallel. We have outlawed biological and chemical weapons. Nuclear arms remain the only weapon of mass destruction in the arsenals of a few countries. Further evidence of their reduction and eventual elimination will be a powerful disincentive for non-nuclear-weapon States to acquire these weapons. • The steps towards nuclear disarmament could be taken among the nuclear-weapon States and within the Conference on Disarmament (CD)—the sole multilateral negotiating forum. The sharing of information on nuclear disarmament already takes place within the NPT Review process. However, the discussion of nuclear disarmament within the framework of the CD would be a great encouragement to non-nuclear-weapon States. At the same time, the circumstances are opportune to begin work on a fissile material cutoff treaty in the CD. An Ad hoc Committee on Security Assurances has just commenced work in the CD and accelerated progress in this important area will also build confidence among nonnuclear-weapon States in the reduced threat of nuclear weapons. • Finally, just as we call upon India and Pakistan to sign the CTBT, so those NPT nuclearweapon States who have not already done so are encouraged to speedily ratify the CTBT to expedite its entry into force. • Such steps will assuage the fears of many states over the future course of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. A demonstration at this crucial juncture of the commitment by NPT nuclear-weapon States towards nuclear disarmament leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons would lend considerable credibility to our combined efforts to counter the threat caused by the testing in South Asia and prevent further breaches of the norm of nuclear non-proliferation.

2 June 1998 Letter (EOSG, S/1998/506); Papua New Guinea I write with reference to the letter dated 31 March 1998 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Papua New Guinea to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council regarding developments in Bougainville (S/1998/287) and to the subsequent statement made by the President of the Security Council on 22 April 1998 on behalf of the Council (S/PRST/1998/10). In that statement, the Council strongly supported the Agreement on Peace, Security and Development on Bougainville, signed at Lincoln University, New Zealand, on 23 January 1998 and, noting that the Agreement called for the United Nations to play a role in Bougainville, requested me to consider the composition and financial modalities of such involvement by the United Nations. Concurrently with his letter to the President of the Security Council, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Papua New Guinea, Mr. Roy Yaki, wrote to me on 30 March requesting that I deploy a United Nations observer mission to monitor implementation of arrangements concluded in the Lincoln Agreement. Following receipt of this letter and of a subsequent letter addressed to me by the Papua New Guinea Special State Negotiator for Bougainville, Sir John Kaputin, inviting me on behalf of his Government to be represented at the signing ceremony of the Agreement Covering Implementation of the Ceasefire to be held at Arawa, Bougainville, on 30 April, I requested Mr. Francesc Vendrell, Director of the Asia and the Pacific Division of the Department of Political Affairs to represent me at the ceremony and, at the same time, to head a mission to assess how the United Nations could best carry out the functions assigned to it by the parties to the Lincoln and Arawa Agreements. (The Arawa Agreement is attached as an annex to the present letter.) After examining the assessment mission’s report, I have reached the conclusion that a United Nations presence in Bougainville would provide added confidence to the parties to the Agreement, facilitate the tasks assigned to the Peace Monitoring Group and assist in the promotion of the political process to which the parties to the Agreements have committed themselves. I might add that this conclusion is fully shared, not only by the parties, but also by the Governments contributing to the Peace Monitoring Group. I therefore wish to inform the Security Council of my willing-

2 June 1998 • 425 ness to respond positively to the requests from the parties and of my intention, if the Security Council has no objection, to establish a United Nations Political Office in Bougainville, based in Arawa. I will keep the Council regularly informed of the work of the Office. The Office will perform the following functions, as spelled out in the Lincoln and Arawa Agreements: (a) Work in conjunction with the Peace Monitoring Group, while maintaining the right to make its own observations and assessments; (b) Monitor and report on the implementation of the Lincoln and Arawa Agreements, including the activities of the Peace Monitoring Group in relation to its mandate; (c) Chair the Peace Process Consultative Committee, which comprises representatives of the parties and which the States contributing to the Peace Monitoring Group will be invited to attend. The functions of the Peace Process Consultative Committee include consulting on all aspects of the ceasefire and on breaches thereof, developing plans for the phased withdrawal of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force (PNGDF) and of the Mobile Riot Squad of the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary, developing plans for the disposal of weapons and promoting public awareness and understanding of the peace process; (d) Assist in other areas as agreed by the parties to the Agreements. The Office would be headed by a Director and composed of two political and two military advisers plus international and local support staff. The associated financial implications of the Office are estimated at approximately $1.4 million for the period from June to December 1998. The financial modalities of this will be a matter for the General Assembly to determine in due course. I should be grateful if you would kindly make the text of the present letter and its annex available to the members of the Security Council. ANNEX: AGREEMENT COVERING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CEASEFIRE (ANNEX I TO THE LINCOLN AGREEMENT)

The Government of Papua New Guinea, the Bougainville Transitional Government, the Bougainville Resistance Force, the Bougainville Interim Government, the Bougainville Revolutionary Army and Bougainville leaders (“the parties”):

(i) Recognizing that the situation on Bougainville has substantially improved following the signing of the Burnham Truce; (ii) Realizing that this was brought about by the cooperation between all parties, the people of Bougainville and the Truce Monitoring Group in observing the terms of the truce; (iii) Desiring that this same spirit of cooperation be maintained and continued; (iv) Realizing that the Lincoln Agreement on Peace, Security and Development on Bougainville is the basis for the Agenda for ongoing consultation and negotiation between the parties, which Agreement needs to be implemented; hereby agree to the following arrangements: Part I: Ceasefire 1. Permanent and Irrevocable Ceasefire

A permanent and irrevocable ceasefire will come into effect on Bougainville at 2400 hours on 30 April 1998. 2. Terms of the Ceasefire

2.1 As from that hour all parties will continue to refrain from all hostile acts or the carriage or possession and the use of arms, ammunition, explosives and other instruments of death, injury or destruction on Bougainville. 2.2 No one will manufacture, trade or distribute weapons in Bougainville. 2.3 The parties will cooperate in reporting and preventing the use, manufacture, importation, sale, trade and exchange of weapons and ammunition. 2.4 People will be allowed to move freely without hindrance in Bougainville Part II: Neutral Regional Peace Monitoring Group and United Nations Observer Mission 3. Neutral Regional Peace Monitoring Group

3.1 The Papua New Guinea Government, in consultation with the parties, will negotiate an agreement based on the Agreement concerning the Regional Truce Monitoring Group to establish a neutral regional Peace Monitoring Group. 3.2 The parties agree that Papua New Guinea will invite Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Vanuatu and other countries in the region to participate in the neutral regional Peace Monitoring Group. 4. Mandate of the Peace Monitoring Group

The parties agree that the Peace Monitoring Group will carry out the following mandate: (i) Monitor and report on compliance with all aspects of the ceasefire;

426 • 2 June 1998

(ii) Promote and instil confidence in the peace process through its presence, good offices and interaction with people in Bougainville; (iii) Provide such assistance in implementation of the Lincoln Agreement as the parties to the Lincoln Agreement and the States contributing to the Peace Monitoring Group may agree and available resources allow; (iv) Cooperate by agreement in ways that assist in the democratic resolution of the situation. 5. United Nations Observer Mission

5.1 The parties agree that the Papua New Guinea Government will request: (i) The Security Council to endorse the neutral regional Peace Monitoring Group; (ii) The Secretary-General to send an observer mission to Bougainville. 5.2 The parties recognize that the United Nations observer mission will work in conjunction with the Peace Monitoring Group while maintaining the right to make its own observations and assessments. 5.3 The mandate of the United Nations observer mission will be to monitor and report on implementation of these arrangements and it may be requested to assist in other areas as agreed by the parties. Part III: Mechanism for Consultation 6. Peace Process Consultative Committee

6.1 The parties agree to establish a Peace Process Consultative Committee which will replace the Peace Consultative Committee. 6.2 The Papua New Guinea National Government will seek funding for the establishment of a secretariat for the Peace Process Consultative Committee. 7. Membership of the Peace Process Consultative Committee

7.1 The Peace Process Consultative Committee will comprise members from all the parties. 7.2 The United Nations observer mission and the States contributing to the Peace Monitoring Group will be invited to sit at meetings of the Peace Process Consultative Committee. 8. Chairman of the Peace Process Consultative Committee

The parties agree that the Chairman of the Peace Process Consultative Committee will be the leader of the United Nations observer mission or otherwise as may be agreed by the parties.

9. Function of the Peace Process Consultative Committee

The parties agree that the functions of the Peace Process Consultative Committee shall be the following: (i) To consult with all the parties on aspects of the ceasefire; (ii) To assist the Peace Monitoring Group to monitor the ceasefire and resolve problems resulting from breaches of the terms of the ceasefire; (iii) To promote the process by screening and clearing issues arising from the Lincoln Agreement; (iv) To develop detailed plans for the disposal of weapons; (v) To develop detailed plans for phased withdrawal of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force and the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary Mobile Riot Squad; (vi) To promote public awareness and understanding of the peace process; (vii) To work with similar bodies at district and local levels to help achieve the same objectives in their respective areas; (viii) To staff the secretariat. 10. Consultation with the Peace Process Consultative Committee

Recognizing the special situation in Bougainville, the Police Commissioner shall consult with the Peace Process Consultative Committee prior to any order to redeploy the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary Mobile Riot Squad on Bougainville. Part IV: Call-out Order and Neutral Zone 11. Call-out Order and Neutral Zone

11.1 The Special State Negotiator will raise the Government of Papua New Guinea, within seven days of the signing of annex I to the Lincoln Agreement, the following: (i) Recognition by all parties of the township of Arawa as a demilitarized neutral zone; (ii) Rescinding of the call-out order to consolidate the ceasefire. 11.2 The first meeting of the Peace Process Consultative Committee shall take place within seven days of the implementation of (i) and (ii) above. Ceasefire: Annex I

This agreement is annex I to the Lincoln Agreement on Peace, Security and Development on Bougainville. Dated at Arawa this 30th April 1998

4 June 1998 • 427 4 June 1998 Letter (EOSG); Yugoslavia Letter to the secretary-general of the Western European Union, José Cutileiro. An identical letter was also sent to the secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Javier Solana. Excellency, I have the honour to refer to Security Council resolution 1160 (1998) of 31 March 1998, by operative paragraph 15 of which the Council requested me “in consultation with appropriate regional organizations to include in my first report recommendations for the establishment of a comprehensive regime to monitor implementation of the prohibitions imposed by this resolution, and called upon all States, in particular neighbouring States, to extend full cooperation in this regard”. By the same resolution, the Council further decided that “all States should, for the purposes of fostering peace and stability in Kosovo, prevent the sale or supply to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including Kosovo, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels and aircraft, of arms and related matériel of all types, such as weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, and should prevent arming and training for terrorist activities there.” In my report to the Security Council dated 30 April 1998, I expressed the belief that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), with contributions and assistance from other organizations, as necessary, would be in a position to carry out the requested monitoring functions effectively. In this connection, I was referring to the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Western European Union and the Danube Commission, bearing in mind their contribution to the success of the sanctions regime in the case of the former Yugoslavia and the Bosnian Serb party. Following the informal consultations of the Security Council held on 8 May 1998 to consider my first report, the President of the Council informed me of the Council’s wish that in exploring the establishment of a comprehensive regime to monitor the implementation of the prohibitions imposed by Security Council resolution 1160 (1998), I should take into account the existing capacities and potentials, in particular of the United Nations and the OSCE. Accordingly, on 15 May I addressed a letter to H.E. Mr. Bronislaw Geremek, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the

Republic of Poland, in his capacity as Chairmanin-Office of the OSCE, in which I invited him to provide me with the views of the OSCE for the establishment of the comprehensive regime. In this connection, I stated that in doing so, the OSCE could benefit from advice and support from other regional organizations which might be in a position to contribute to the success of the monitoring regime. On 1 June, the Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE in summarizing his response to my request stated that: “while not being able to assume a leading co-ordinating role with regard to an arms embargo monitoring effort undertaken by other regional organizations, the OSCE may offer a flexible co-ordinating framework for monitoring activities in-the-field if so desired by participants in the effort.” In the light of the above stated provisions of paragraph 15 of Security Council resolution 1160 (1998), I would be grateful if you could provide me, at your earliest convenience, with the views of the Western European Union for the establishment of a comprehensive monitoring regime. I would particularly appreciate receiving confirmation of the readiness of your Organization to actively participate in such a monitoring regime. In this context, I would welcome regular reports, based on information that may be available to the Western European Union, on suspected violations of the prohibitions imposed by the above-mentioned resolution. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

4 June 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s noon briefing by announcing that the Security Council was meeting again this morning in Conference Room 5 to resume the briefing by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on the situation in Iraq. The Executive Chairman of UNSCOM, Richard Butler, and his team of experts briefed the Council yesterday on missile-related issues, and on chemical and biological weapons. This morning, they were briefing the Council on the issues of concealment and documents. Mr. Butler was expected to make a concluding statement on the socalled road map to the disarmament of Iraq’s proscribed weapons, leading eventually to the lifting

428 • 4 June 1998

of the sanctions. The Council was then expected to take up Haiti, where it had a three-month progress report from the Secretary-General, and other matters. Tomorrow, the Council was expected to take up Angola, Papua New Guinea and the situation in Kosovo, the Spokesman added. Alioune Blondin Beye, Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral in Angola, would brief the Council on Angola. Secretariat officials were expected to brief on the other two items. . . . The Secretary-General held an internal meeting on Tuesday, 2 June, to review the progress of his good offices on the question of East Timor and to consider further steps to advance the negotiations under his auspices, Mr. Eckhard said. The meeting was attended by, Jamsheed Marker, the Secretary-General’s Personal Representative for East Timor; Kieran Prendergast, the UnderSecretary-General for Political Affairs; and other senior officials from the Executive Office of the Secretary-General and the Department of Political Affairs. The Secretary-General recently addressed a letter to Indonesian President B. J. Habibie assuring him of his commitment to work with the Indonesian Government and with the Government of Portugal in the effort to find, as early as possible, a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution to the question of East Timor. The letter also called on the new Government to release East Timorese political prisoners. Mr. Eckhard said copies of today’s press briefing in Baghdad by the spokesman of the Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq were available in room S-378. The spokesman in Baghdad announced the results of a survey conducted in May on the availability of medicines and medical supplies. Those results showed there was a 114 percent increase in attendance at health centers in the three northern governorates, but only an 11 per cent increase in the south, in the past six months. Fifty per cent of those interviewed received the full prescribed treatment, compared with 39 per cent in 1997. In addition, fewer patients were leaving health centers without any medication, down to 15 per cent, compared to 28 per cent in November 1997, Mr. Eckhard said. However, doctors in health centres said they only had one third of the drugs they needed to treat the 10 most common diseases. The briefing notes included several fact sheets. Those cover the contents of the food basket, details of the new and enhanced Phase IV distribution plan and a comparison of it with the Phase III plan. . . .

Mr. Eckhard added that there were no appointments for the Secretary-General available. That was because the Secretary-General was working at home and resting today, and would probably do the same tomorrow.

5 June 1998 Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of Resolution 1143 (1997)

Report to the Security Council (SC, S/1998/477); oil-for-food program Excerpts from a longer report on the oil-for-food program, analyzing its progress. ... III. Purchase and Confirmaion of Arrival of Humanitarian Supplies

13. During phase III, there was a marked increase in the speed of approvals, deliveries and authentication at the borders as all parties became more experienced with the procedures of the programme envisaged under resolution 986 (1995), and because of the measures taken by the Office of the Iraq Programme in compliance with the directives of the Secretary-General (S/1998/90, paras. 53–56). In addition, improvements were noted as a result of the decisions taken by the Security Council Committee regarding its own working procedures. As previously occurred in phases I and II, bulk foodstuff contracts were submitted first and therefore processed first, according to the procedures of the Committee and the request of the Government of Iraq that applications be processed in the order in which they are received by the Secretariat. As a result, funds were depleted by large food contracts early in phase III and therefore medical contracts, in particular, remained unfunded until the latter part of the phase. This problem was exacerbated by the shortfall in available funds owing initially to the delay in the sale of oil and then to a serious drop in world oil prices during this phase, which meant that contract applications approved for phase III by the Committee could not be honoured until sufficient funds were received into the United Nations Iraq Account. On occasion during this phase, the Government of Iraq made special requests for allocating funds on a priority basis for specific applications; all such requests have been honoured. . . . IV. United Nations Iraq Account

17. The Security Council, in its resolution 1143 (1997), authorized the Government of Iraq to

6 June 1998 • 429 export petroleum and petroleum products for another period of 180 days, starting from 5 December 1997. As at 15 May 1998, of the $2 billion authorized under that resolution, $1,298.2 million had been deposited into the account for phase III, bringing total oil sales since the inception of the programme envisaged under resolution 986 (1995) to $5,572.6 million. . . . VII. Findings on Effectiveness, Equitability, and Adequacy C. Water and Sanitation

information, as indicated in paragraph 53 (b) of my report. 147. It is of serious concern to me that a survey carried out by the Ministry of Health, UNICEF and WFP in March 1998 has detected no measurable difference in the nutritional status of infants under five since the survey they conducted in April 1997. I note, however, that the latest survey has also indicated that the implementation of the humanitarian programme has at least arrested further deterioration in the nutritional status of infants.

Effectiveness

88. UNICEF observers and engineers reported an increase of 10 to 30 per cent in the quantity of water produced in some water treatment plants where pumps have already been installed. However, it is too early to provide a country-wide assessment as the level of implementation of the programme is still very low. . . . VIII. Observations and Recommendations

144. I am pleased to note that, since the adoption of Security Council resolution 1153 (1998) endorsing the observations and recommendations contained in my supplementary report (S/1998/ 90), the positive effects of which were further enhanced by the measures taken by the Security Council Committee and by the Office of the Iraq Programme, there has been substantial progress in the expeditious processing and approval of applications. Further improvements to the whole process are under consideration both by the Committee and by the Office of the Iraq Programme pursuant to my directives to the Secretariat and my recommendations to the Committee, outlined in paragraphs 53 to 58 of my report. . . . 146. It should be noted that, as a result of shorter processing and approval time under phase III and improved contractual arrangements between the Government of Iraq and its suppliers, there has been a general increase in the range and volume of humanitarian supplies reaching Iraq. Nevertheless, arrivals of supplies continue to be erratic, the greatest impact being felt in the food and health sectors. I am concerned that, during phase III, a full basket was delivered only once to the recipients (in March 1998). It is essential to improve further coordination between the Government of Iraq and the United Nations and its agencies and programmes so as to ensure that applications are submitted and processed in the order of their relative priority and providing the Security Council Committee with the relevant

5 June 1998 Secretray-General Appeals to Eritrea and Ethiopia for Immediate Cessation of Hostilities

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6584, AFR/70); Eritrea The Secretary-General is deeply distressed at the escalation in fighting between Eritrea and Ethiopia despite ongoing intensive efforts to mediate the dispute. He had been encouraged by an Ethiopian statement provisionally accepting the proposals put forward by American and Rwandan mediators, as well as by today’s Eritrean statement that these proposals are “not controversial to the Government of Eritrea”. It seems to him that there is much common ground between the two sides to the dispute, and that it is important to build on this. The Secretary-General strongly appeals to both sides for an immediate cessation of hostilities so as to give diplomacy a chance to bridge remaining differences and to avoid any further escalation. The Secretary-General especially regrets this turn of events in the relations between two fraternal countries which had, until recently, enjoyed peaceful and good neighbourly relations. The SecretaryGeneral has been in touch with the leaders of the two countries and with other leaders, and will continue to do everything he can to help the parties find a peaceful solution to the dispute.

6 June 1998 Presentation to the Security Council (UN archives); India and Pakistan/nuclear testing Presentation to the Security Council regarding the nuclear tests in India and Pakistan. Mr. President, The nuclear tests in India and Pakistan are unquestionably disturbing developments with farreaching consequences for the region and for the

430 • 6 June 1998

international community. They affect the peace and stability of South Asia, a region that has been one of the cradles of human civilization and of great potential for the economic development of the people of the Sub-Continent. They also seriously impact on the ongoing process of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament and its future affecting our common security. It is significant that the Security Council which has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security under the Charter should speak with one voice and without delay on these developments. I thank the sponsors for their initiative and for their hard work to achieve a resolution that meets with the concerns of all members of the Council. I would like in particular to welcome the call to India and Pakistan to resume their bilateral dialogue on the issues that have sadly divided these two nations who are in the fiftieth anniversary year of their independence. I will continue with my own efforts to encourage this dialogue in the hope that it will reduce tensions and the danger of an escalation into a nuclear arms race. Over the past several years, there have been encouraging signs that the world might be moving towards ending the global nuclear arms race as the process of nuclear disarmament continued to be implemented in terms of Article 6 of the Treaty for the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Developments that contradict or impede this process must certainly be avoided as we move together toward the ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear weapons in a safer and better world for us all and for generations to come.

9 June 1998 Secretary-General Meets with the President of Tajikistan

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6590); Tajikistan The Secretary-General met today with President Emomali Rakhmonov of Tajikistan. The Secretary-General discussed with the President the recent decision of the Tajik Parliament to adopt an act which would effectively prohibit Islamic Revival Party, the largest component of the United Tajik Opposition, from participation in the political life of the country. The Secretary-General expressed serious concern that, if enacted into law, this decision would remove one of the main pillars of the General Peace Agreement, which is the

legalization of banned political parties following the public declaration by the UTO of the disbandment of its armed forces. The Secretary-General voiced the expectation that the Conciliation Commission established by President Rakhmonov will resolve this matter in the spirit of the General Agreement signed between the Tajik Government and the United Tajik Opposition.

11 June 1998 Letter (EOSG); regional organizations Letter to the secretary-general of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Giancarlo Aragona. The letter also was sent to other regional organizations, though a list of recipients is not available. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, I am pleased to invite you to attend a third meeting between the United Nations and Regional Organizations to be held at UN Headquarters in New York on Tuesday, 28 July (all day) and Wednesday, 29 July (morning only) The last two meetings, held in 1994 and 1996, focused on modalities and principles to guide cooperation between the United Nations and Regional Organizations. These meetings also considered practical and more effective ways of working together in the field of international peace and security. The consensus from both previous meetings was that such high level exchanges are extremely useful and should continue. The need for increased cooperation between the United Nations and Regional Organizations has never been greater. In an era when the principal threat to human security comes from new and more diverse forms of conflicts, the United Nations and Regional Organizations have an opportunity to enhance cooperation for the prevention of such conflicts. In my view, the challenge of conflict prevention goes to the very heart of our shared mission for the next century. Therefore, I would like to suggest the general theme of “Conflict Prevention” as the topic for this year’s meeting, confident that you share my belief in the importance of this subject. Since this meeting (like the last two meetings) will be at the level of Heads of Organizations, I very much hope that Your Excellency will be able personally to attend, and I would be grateful if you could let me know as soon as possible whether you will be able to do so. In order to facilitate discussion, and in keeping with past practice, the size of

15 June 1998 • 431 each delegation will have to be limited to yourself and two advisors. I look forward to a mutually rewarding meeting in July. Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration.

12 June 1998 Secretary-General Speaks on Upcoming Arusha Talks on Burundi

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6596, AFR/73); Burundi On Monday, 15 June, in Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania, the Burundi parties will start talks under the guidance of Mwalimu Julius Nyerere. The Secretary-General urges all the parties, both within and outside the country, to act in a spirit of compromise, tolerance and reconciliation, and to refrain from any action that could undermine the chances of reaching the sort of peaceful and stable settlement that is so necessary for the people of Burundi and for the region as a whole. He has noted with satisfaction the Government/Parliament partnership concluded last week in Bujumbura and hopes that it will contribute to the success of the all-party talks in Arusha. The Secretary-General reaffirms the readiness of the United Nations to continue to assist the Facilitator and the parties at all stages of the process.

15 June 1999

ing note or talking points should accompany the note or, if the text is not ready at the time, it should be sent to EOSG as soon as it is finalized. If the briefing to be given impinges on the responsibilities of other Departments or organizational units, the copy of the note to EOSG should indicate that they have been consulted and have no objection. EOSG’s approval of the content of briefings normally will not be necessary. However, when the subject matter is sensitive or controversial, the text should be sent in time for prior clearance by EOSG. Attention is also drawn to the tendency for growing numbers of staff to attend the Council meetings. Only those officials directly concerned should attend, whether the meeting is formal or in consultations. In the case of consultations, where space is very limited and over-crowding results, sometimes accompanied by competing efforts to secure seats, it must be ensured that only one representative of a Department is deputed to attend if there is a relevant item on the agenda. In the case of an Under-Secretary-General or an Assistant Secretary-General attending, one, or very exceptionally two, officers may be taken along. The Council secretariat will continue to maintain daily attendance records which will be copied to EOSG. Your cooperation in ensuring essential attendance at Council meetings, in keeping with these guidelines, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Letter (UN archives); Security Council Internal note from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, sent to heads of UN departments, funds, and programs. The Secretary-General would like to ensure that the appearance of Heads of Departments, Programmes and Funds in the Security Council, both in consultations and formal sessions, to present substantive reports and briefings is made more systematic than it is at present. The Security Council secretariat will continue notifying Heads of Departments, Programmes and Funds when items relevant to their responsibilities are on the Council’s agenda. They may designate one staff member to monitor the Council’s proceedings and report to them. Where the head intends to attend, a note advising me accordingly should be sent to me as early as possible, with a copy to the Security Council secretariat. Where the head, or a senior representative, intends to present a briefing or a verbal report, the text of the brief-

15 June 1998 Secretary-General Speaks of Role of International Criminal Court

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6597, L/2871); International Criminal Court Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the inaugural meeting of the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. I have the honour to declare open this United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. I wish to acknowledge the generosity of the Italian Government, which is hosting this Conference, as it has done for other landmark United Nations conferences in the past, and to express my appreciation of the strong support given by Italy to the United Nations and its activities in general. We are particularly honoured by the

432 • 15 June 1998

presence of President Oscar Luigi Scalfaro with us today. It is said that all roads lead to Rome. But not all lead there directly. The road that has led us to this Conference in the Eternal City has been a long one. It has led through some of the darkest moments in human history. But it has also been marked by the determined belief of human beings that their true nature is to be noble and generous. When human beings maltreat each other, they call it “inhuman”. Most human societies, alas, have practiced warfare. But most have also had some kind of warrior code of honour. They have proclaimed, at least in principle, the need to protect the innocent and defenceless, and to punish those who carry violence to the excess. Unhappily, that did not prevent acts of genocide in previous centuries, such as the extermination of indigenous peoples; nor did it prevent the barbaric trade in African slaves. Our own century has seen the invention and use of weapons of mass destruction, and the use of industrial technology to dispose of million upon million of human beings. Gradually, the world has come to realize that relying on each State or army to punish its own transgressors is not enough. When crimes are committed on such a scale, we know that the State lacks either the power or the will to stop them. Too often, indeed, they are part of the systematic State policy, and the worst criminals may be found at the pinnacle of State power. After the defeat of Nazism and fascism in 1945, the United Nations was set up in an effort to ensure that world war could never happen again. The victorious Powers also set up international tribunals, at Nuremberg and Tokyo, to judge the leaders who had ordered and carried out the worst atrocities. And they decided to prosecute Nazi leaders not only for “war crimes”—waging war and massacring people in occupied territories—but also for “crimes against humanity” which included the slaughter of their own fellow citizens and others in the tragedy we now know as the Holocaust. Was it enough to make an example of a few arch-criminals in two States that had waged aggressive war, and leave it at that? The General Assembly of the United Nations did not think so. In 1948, it adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. And it requested the International Law Commission to study the possibility of establishing a permanent international criminal court. In this area, as in so many, the cold war prevented

further progress at that time. If only it had prevented further crimes against humanity as well! Alas, this was not the case. I need only mention, as the most notorious single example in that period, the killing of more than 2 million people in Cambodia between 1975 and 1978. As you know, the man who organized that horror died just two months ago, without ever being brought to answer for his crimes before a court. Humanity had to wait until the 1990s for a political climate in which the United Nations could once again consider establishing an international criminal court. And, unhappily, this decade has also brought new crimes to force the issue on the world’s attention. Events in the former Yugoslavia have added the dreadful euphemism of “ethnic cleansing” to our vocabulary. Perhaps a quarter of a million people died there between 1991 and 1995—the great majority of them civilians, guilty only of living on the “wrong” side of a line someone had drawn on a map. And then, in 1994, came the genocide of Rwanda. On my visit there last month, I was able to register at first hand the terrible, irreparable damage that event has done, not only to one small country but to the very idea of an international community. In future, the United Nations and its Member States must summon the will to prevent such catastrophe from being repeated anywhere in the world. And as part of that effort, we must show clearly that such crimes will not be left unpunished. Events in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda overtook the slow processes by which the world was considering the creation of a permanent international court. Ad hoc tribunals had to be set up for those two countries, and they are now at work. They have issued indictments and international arrest warrants. Even those indicted, but who have not yet been arrested, have been turned into international pariahs; though, of course, they enjoy presumption of innocence, they are unable to travel freely or hold political office. A historic milestone was passed six weeks ago when a former prime minister of Rwanda actually pleaded guilty to the charge of genocide. These tribunals are showing, however imperfectly, that there is such a thing as international criminal justice, and that it can have teeth. But ad hoc tribunals are not enough. People all over the world want to know that humanity can strike back—that whatever and whenever genocide, war crimes or other such violations are committed, there is a court before which the criminal can be

15 June 1998 • 433 held to account; a court that puts an end to a global culture of impunity; a court where “acting under orders” is no defence; a court where all individuals in a government hierarchy or military chain of command, without exception, from rulers to private soldiers, must answer for their actions. It is world public opinion which has brought us here today, stimulated by the hard work of the Red Cross, of many other non-governmental organizations and of the humanitarian community—the relief workers and other personnel who often are on the front-line of conflicts. The whole world will be watching this Conference, and we are expecting concrete results. I do not underestimate the difficulties you have to overcome in the five weeks ahead. The work of the preparatory committees has shown what a complex issue this is, and how many conflicting principles and interests have to be reconciled. Some small States fear giving pretexts for more powerful ones to set aside their sovereignty. Others worry that the pursuit of justice may sometimes interfere with the vital work of making peace. You have to take those worries into account. Obviously, you must aim for a statute accepted and implemented by as many States as possible. But the overriding interest must be that of the victims, and of the international community as a whole. I trust you will not flinch from creating a court strong and independent enough to carry out its task. It must be an instrument of justice, not expediency. It must be able to protect the weak against the strong. I know you are ready for long weeks of hard and detailed negotiations. But I hope you will feel, at every moment, that the eyes of the victims of the past crimes, and of the potential victims of future ones, are fixed firmly upon us. We have before us an opportunity to take a monumental step in the name of human rights and the rule of law. We have an opportunity to create an institution that can save lives and serve as a bulwark against evil. We have also witnessed, time and again in this century, the worst crimes against humanity have an opportunity to bequeath to the next century a powerful instrument of justice. Let us rise to the challenge. Let us give succeeding generations this gift of hope. They will not forgive us if we fail.

15 June 1998 Secretary-General Speaks of Lessons Learned in Bosnia

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6598); Bosnia

Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the conference “Crisis Management and NATO Reform: The Test Case of Bosnia for Collective Security in the Next Century,” in Rome. It is good to be among such old friends and colleagues. We have gone through much together over the last decade—coped with many crises, in Bosnia and elsewhere—but we are still standing, still here, still seeking to secure the peace. Ever since serving as United Nations Special Envoy to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), I have valued immensely the bonds between our two organizations. I am determined to see these bonds grow ever stronger. While there is much that we have learned about the limits to even our best efforts, we have also learned that we can make the difference between war and peace— with the right tools and under the right conditions. We have learned that sometimes diplomacy must be backed by the threat of military force if it is to succeed. I am very grateful for this opportunity to join you for a discussion on the larger implications of the Bosnian experience for our overall mission to ensure collective security for the next century. I will concentrate today on what I consider to be the basic condition for the achievement of that mission: the credibility and legitimacy of the international community’s collective efforts to prevent conflict, promote the peaceful resolution of disputes, and, when necessary, end them by force. Whether it is ethnic conflict in Africa and Europe, disarmament in Iraq or the threat of nuclear confrontation in South Asia, we know that security must be crafted collectively if it is to be enjoyed collectively. If, in the Balkans, the issue of Kosovo is not resolved peacefully, tensions may spill across a range of borders and create instability—even war—elsewhere. If, in Iraq, UNSCOM is not allowed to complete its mandated mission, the Gulf will continue to be threatened by conflict. If, in South Asia, immediate steps are not taken to reduce hostilities and create confidence-building measures, large populations could be threatened by war. Collective security, in other words, is not just a slogan or a simplistic expression of faith in mutual interests; it is the very condition for national security. That is not to say that national interests will disappear or always be aligned with the collective interest. Nor is it to argue that disputes should not, where possible, be resolved bilaterally. It is only to say that in the vast majority of cases,

434 • 15 June 1998

nation-States have a better chance of confronting their challenges in concert, collectively. This morning, you have been discussing the lessons of our experience in the former Yugoslavia. Whether we are considering the United Nations Protection Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNPROFOR) or the Stabilization Force (SFOR)—and of course there are critical differences between them—our experience offers invaluable lessons for the future of collective security. Before turning to those lessons, allow me to reflect briefly on the United Nations history in pursuit of collective security, particularly through peacekeeping. In the half-century since the founding of our United Nations, United Nations “blue helmets” and “blue berets” have deployed in 48 operations on four continents in a wide variety of theatres and circumstances. The evolution of United Nations peacekeeping from the traditional kind of patrolling ceasefire lines to the modern, more complex manifestations in the post–cold war era has been neither smooth nor natural. This evolution has in too many cases been characterized by expectations outstripping abilities and by demands ignoring realities on the ground. We have learned the hard way about the critical importance of unity of purpose, adequate mandate, appropriate force structure and efficient command and control systems. We now know, from real and practical experience, that any operation must have the unified support of the international community, the Security Council and the troop contributing countries. Without unity, the credibility of our pleas and, if necessary, threats of force, will be undermined. We know that any credible deployment must be given the mandate and the means—in terms of force structure and strength—to carry out the necessary operations. Too often, the demands and expectations of peacekeeping missions have far outstripped what was practically possible. We know that coherence, consistency and cooperation in the international community’s efforts must be maintained at all times and even under great pressure. This is particularly important regarding questions of command and control, where the lines of authority must be clearly delineated and fully respected. We know that the availability of solid intelligence and precise political analysis must be maintained not only in the midst of conflict but also in pre- and post-conflict situations. We know that

sober and truthful public information must be disseminated as widely and equitably as possible. This will provide people caught in conflict situations with unbiased news that is not employed as a tool of incitement. In Bosnia as well as Rwanda, we saw how a campaign of hatred was conducted day in and day out over the airways, poisoning the atmosphere and sowing distrust between neighbour and neighbour, community and community. These are lessons, however, that only four years of war in Bosnia and far too many deaths were able to teach us. With the willingness of the international community to provide the means to carry out the mandate, however, peace became possible. With the arrival of the NATO Implementation Force (IFOR)/(SFOR), peace was consolidated. The world has recognized that diplomacy, whether in the Balkans or in Baghdad, has to be backed by firmness and by force. Peacekeeping today requires not only rethinking the means but also the method of implementing the mandates set out by the Security Council. We have learned that while impartiality is a vital condition for peacekeeping, it must be impartiality in the execution of the mandate—not just an unthinking neutrality between warring parties. We recognize that the rapidity with which we are able to deploy may determine not only the success of the mission, but also the ability to prevent the massive loss of innocent life. We recognize, too, that the peacekeeping force must be a credible one; sometimes a convincing show of strength can prevent the need for its use. All these lessons have been brought to bear in NATO’s Stabilization Force in Bosnia. But they apply equally to comparable United Nations operations, now and in the future. The pursuit of collective security by the international community must be credible and it must be legitimate. While traditional observer missions may still be enough in certain situations, the joint NATO/ United Nations peacekeeping and peacebuilding mission in Bosnia represents a model of credibility and legitimacy in large-scale international peacekeeping. Credible force without legitimacy may have immediate results, but will not enjoy long-term international support. Legitimate force without credibility may enjoy universal support but prove unable to implement the basic provisions of its mandate. Combined, however, under the umbrella of a United Nations mandate, credibility and legitimacy in the use of force can create lasting peace.

15 June 1998 • 435 I am convinced that we are beginning to draw the right lessons from our experience in the Bosnian war—about such critical factors as credibility, legitimacy and the morality of intervention and non-intervention. But there is only one way in which we can prove that we have done this: by applying those lessons practically and emphatically where horror threatens. Such a challenge is now before us. All of you who have been following the last few months’ events in Kosovo must begin to wonder whether another Bosnia looms on the horizon. Already, the shellings, the “ethnic cleansings”, the indiscriminate attacks on civilians in the name of “security”, are taking place. Already, thousands have fled and thousands more seem about to follow. Already, excuses for the inexcusable are being offered by those who seem to have learned little— or only the wrong lessons—from the war in Bosnia. This time, however, we cannot be taken by surprise—neither by the means employed or by the ends pursued. This time, ethnically driven violence must be seen for what it is—from the outset. Recently, I recommended that the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force mandate be extended so as to sustain its success on the border of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and maintain stability. I have also been gratified to learn of the determination of NATO governments to prevent a further escalation of the fighting, and encourage all steps that may deter the further use of ethnically-driven violence in Kosovo. A great deal is at stake in Kosovo today—for the people of Kosovo themselves; for the overall stability of the Balkans; and for the credibility and legitimacy of our words and deeds in pursuit of collective security. All our professions of regret; all our expressions of determination to never again permit another Bosnia; all our hopes for a peaceful future for the Balkans will be cruelly mocked if we allow Kosovo to become another killing-field. It is in our hands now.

15 June 1998 Letter (EOSG); Guinea Letter to the minister of foreign affairs of Guinea, Lamine Camara. Similar letters were sent to Omar Kabbaj, executive president of the African Development Bank; Carol Bellamy, executive director of UNICEF; and Sadako Ogata, UN high commissioner for refugees. The attachments discussed in the letter were not available.

Excellency, I am writing to invite the Government of Guinea to participate in a special meeting that is being organized by the United Nations in support of durable stability and sustainable development in Guinea. Following discussions with your Government, it has been agreed that the Special Consultation will take place on 9 July 1998, at United Nations Headquarters in New York. The Special Consultation on Guinea is a joint initiative of the Department of Political Affairs (DPA) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and will be chaired jointly by DPA and UNDP. The initiative is intended as a new and comprehensive effort by the United Nations to draw attention to the special challenges that Guinea now confronts, to facilitate effective and focused action by the United Nations system in support of Guinea’s efforts to address these challenges, and to help mobilize support for Guinea’s efforts throughout the broader international community. The United Nations will continue to work in close cooperation with the Government of Guinea in this important endeavour. Attached, are a Draft Agenda for the Special Consultation and a Draft Programme of Work. Also attached, for your information, is the list of agencies and organizations invited to the meeting. The Secretariat, in consultation with UNDP, will prepare and distribute a background paper on each of the agenda items prior to the convening of the Special Consultation on 9 July. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

15 June 1998 Letter (EOSG, S/1998/507); Papua New Guinea I have the honour to inform you that your letter dated 2 June 1998 (S/1998/506) concerning your intention to establish a United Nations Political Office in Arawa, Bougainville (Papua New Guinea), in response to the request of the Security Council in its presidential statement of 22 April 1998 (S/PRST/1998/10) has been brought to the attention of the members of the Council. They welcome your conclusion on this issue and agree with the intention contained in your letter, taking note that the financial modalities will be handled in accordance with the briefing provided by UnderSecretary-General Prendergast on 11 June 1998. (Signed) António Monteiro President of the Security Council

436 • 17 June 1998

17 June 1998 Secretary-General Calls for Efforts to Combat Desertification

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6600, OBV/48); desertification Text of the Secretary-General’s message on the occasion of the World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought. Desertification and drought threaten the livelihoods of more than 1 billion people worldwide. The causes range from natural conditions, such as vulnerable soils, vegetation and climatic variations, to human activities, including overcultivation and poor irrigation, overgrazing and deforestation. This day, which commemorates the adoption of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification on 17 June 1994, provides us with an opportunity to pay tribute to the many efforts made towards implementing the Convention. Some 125 countries have ratified it, and many affected countries have launched participatory processes to develop national, subregional and regional action programmes in Africa, Latin America and Asia. By pooling the global wisdom and comparative advantages of its specialized agencies and programmes, the United Nations system has a key role to play in the implementation of the Convention to Combat Desertification. Indeed, the Convention provides these agencies with an enhanced convergence of policies, as well as an innovative framework for integrated strategic planning. The Convention stresses that meaningful action to combat desertification and drought can be developed only in cooperation with the stakeholders in the affected communities. Many governments are working in partnership with nongovernmental and community-based organizations, giving particular attention to the voice of women in developing their national action programmes. Let us seize this day as an occasion to encourage all efforts, whether at community, country or international level, to break the vicious cycle of poverty and land degradation; to raise public awareness worldwide of an issue that affects more than a sixth of the people and a quarter of the land area of the world.

18 June 1998 Letter (EOSG); Cyprus

Letter to the president of the Security Council, António Monteiro. Dear Mr. President, I have received the following letter dated 2 June 1998 from His Excellency Mr. Denktash: “As the time approaches for the Security Council deliberations on the renewal of the mandate of UNFICYP, I have the honour to share my thoughts with you on the draft resolution that will be adopted by the Council. Notwithstanding our justified objection to the reference to the ‘Government of Cyprus’ in previous such resolutions, we have consented to the deployment and functioning of UNFICYP in our territory. I believe it is high time that the Council refrains from making such a highly controversial and unacceptable reference and adapt its approach to reflect the realities in Cyprus. As is the case in peace-keeping operations around the world, the deployment and functioning of a peace-keeping force is subject to the cooperation of the parties to the conflict. It would, therefore, be in keeping with this fundamental principle of UN peace-keeping missions if the draft resolution would utilize neutral language by stating that UNFICYP is deployed in Cyprus at the invitation and with the cooperation of the two sides in the island. I believe this would also be in line with your mission of good offices. I would be grateful if you could bring this request to the attention of the members of the Council and do your utmost to secure their support for it”. You may wish to inform the Members of the Security Council of this letter. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

24 June 1998 Letter (EOSG, S/1998/566); Angola I have the honour to refer to paragraph 14 of Security Council resolution 1173 (1998) dated 12 June 1998, in which the Council decided that additional measures against UNITA specified in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said resolution would come into force on 25 June 1998, unless UNITA has fully cooperated, by 23 June, in the immediate extension of State administration throughout Angola, including in particular in Andulo, Bailundo, Mungo and N’Harea, and stopped any attempts to reverse this process. My Special Representative for Angola, Mr. Alioune Blondin Beye, has informed me that, as a

26 June 1998 • 437 result of intensive consultations undertaken in the last few days, the leader of UNITA, Mr. Jonas Savimbi, did not set specific dates for the implementation of the extension of State administration in the four strategic localities, but expressed his willingness to cooperate in the normalization of these localities by 30 June 1998. Initially, the President of Angola, Mr. José Eduardo dos Santos, had agreed that the date of the entry into force of the additional sanctions be postponed until 30 June 1998, on the condition that Mr. Savimbi indicate specific dates for the normalization of the four localities mentioned above. However, in the course of further contacts, and responding to the request of my Special Representative, President dos Santos decided not to insist on this condition and agreed with the proposal to defer the entry into force of the sanctions until 30 June. At a meeting held today, the Joint Commission, which is chaired by my Special Representative and includes the representatives of the Government, UNITA and the three observer States (Portugal, the Russian Federation and the United States), endorsed Mr. Beye’s suggestion to recommend to the Security Council to postpone the date of the entry into force of the additional measures against UNITA from 25 June, as specified in resolution 1173 (1998), to 30 June 1998. I should be grateful if you would have this letter circulated as a document of the Security Council.

26 June 1998 Letter (UN archives); Ethiopia Internal note from Sergio Vieira de Mello to the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, summarizing a telephone conversation between Vieira de Mello and Ambassador Mohammed of Ethiopia. NOTE TO MR. RIZA

Telephone conversation Mohammed of Ethiopia

with

Ambassador

1. Ambassador Mohammed was unable to meet with me yesterday evening and this morning because, as he put it, of intense negotiations over the text of the Security Council resolution on the conflict between his country and Eritrea. He called me in the early part of the afternoon and we agreed to meet next Monday. I did, however, pass to him the Secretary-General’s and my own urgent appeal for Ethiopia to abstain from any further acts such as

round-ups, expulsions, internment and other discriminatory measures targeting citizens of the other country. I explained to him that following Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Alemu’s call on me last Friday, 19 June, we had received further reports, including from the Eritrean Permanent Representative to the effect that Eritrean citizens had been deprived of their jobs, arrested and interned, deprived of their identity cards and passports and indeed, expelled from Ethiopia without justification. I told him that the Secretary-General and the human rights and humanitarian community at large deplored such acts and appealed to both sides to refrain from taking unwarranted measures against one another’s citizens, which would further complicate present and future relations between them. 2. The Ambassador assured me that he would immediately convey the message to his capital. He then went on to explain the following measures taken by his government and assured me that there was no policy of generalized discrimination against or persecution of Eritrean nationals in Ethiopia: (a) Eritrean in the private sector would not be molested. The same applied to those working for the Ethiopian government in non-sensitive areas; (b) Those Eritreans working in security-related sectors such as telecommunications, energy and transportation had been given a one-month paid leave and their status would be reviewed at the end of that period; (c) Those Eritreans who were known to have been fundraising or financially supporting the war efforts of Eritrea had been requested to leave the country and the Ethiopian government was taking care of their transportation while the ICRC had been asked to monitor their movement. 3. He assured me that the Ethiopian government had issued public statements (similar to those the Eritrean Ambassador yesterday had told me his government had issued) calling on the Ethiopian population not to target in any way Eritrean nationals. 4. I told Ambassador Mohammed that I would convey his explanation to the Secretary-General and other colleagues in the humanitarian/human rights community and mentioned to him the suggestion made by Ambassador Menkerios of Eritrea that an independent investigation be carried out on the treatment of Eritrean and Ethiopian nationals in both host countries. I told him that such an investigation could best be avoided if both countries refrained from any unnecessary retaliation

438 • 26 June 1998

against innocent civilians. The Ambassador repeated that he would immediately relay our concerns with Addis Ababa and revert with additional clarification. We agreed to meet on Monday to review developments on both sides of the border. 5. I would be grateful if you could pass the gist of the above exchange to the Secretary-General in London.

26 June 1998 Secretary-General Speaks at Annual Ditchley Foundation Lecture

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6613); humanitarian intervention Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the 35th annual Ditchley Foundation Lecture, at Ditchley Park in the United Kingdom. It is a great honour for me to be asked to give the thirty-fifth annual Ditchley Foundation Lecture. I have carefully perused the list of your previous lecturers, and I may say I was somewhat intimidated to find myself following such a long line of presidents, prime ministers, cardinals . . . and even central bankers. But I took heart when I saw that last year’s speaker was my friend Bill Richardson. It is indeed reassuring that, after hearing from such an important and distinguished member of the United Nations Security Council, who is going on to become even more important and distinguished, you still think a mere Secretary-General might have something of interest to add. Even so, I expect some of you are surprised by the title I have chosen for my talk. Or if not, you may think I have come to preach a sermon against intervention. I suppose that would be the traditional line for a citizen of a former British colony to take, in an address to senior policy makers and diplomats of the former imperial Power. And some people would also expect a sermon on those lines from the United Nations Secretary-General, whatever his country of origin. The United Nations is, after all, an association of sovereign States, and sovereign States do tend to be extremely jealous of their sovereignty. Small States, especially, are fearful of intervention in their affairs by great Powers. And indeed, our century has seen many examples of the strong “intervening”—or interfering—in the affairs of the weak, from the Allied intervention in the Russian civil war in 1918 to the Soviet “interventions” in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. Others might refer to the American intervention in Viet Nam, or even the Turkish intervention

in Cyprus in 1974. The motives, and the legal justification, may be better in some cases than others, but the word “intervention” has come to be used almost as a synonym for “invasion”. The Charter of the United Nations gives great responsibilities to great Powers, in their capacity as permanent members of the Security Council. But as a safeguard against abuse of those powers, Article 2.7 of the Charter protects national sovereignty even from intervention by the United Nations itself. I’m sure everyone in this audience knows it by heart. But let me remind you—just in case—that that Article forbids the United Nations to intervene “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State”. That prohibition is just as relevant today as it was in 1945: violations of sovereignty remain violations of the global order. Yet in other contexts the word “intervention” has a more benign meaning. We all applaud the policeman who intervenes to stop a fight, or the teacher who prevents big boys from bullying a smaller one. And medicine uses the word “intervention” to describe the act of the surgeon, who saves life by “intervening” to remove malignant growth, or to repair damaged organs. Of course, the most intrusive methods of treatment are not always to be recommended. A wise doctor knows when to let nature take its course. But a doctor who never intervened would have few admirers, and probably even fewer patients. So it is in international affairs. Why was the United Nations established, if not to act as a benign policeman or doctor? Our job is to intervene: to prevent conflict where we can, to put a stop to it when it has broken out, or—when neither of those things is possible—at least to contain it and prevent it from spreading. That is what the world expects of us, even though—alas—the United Nations by no means always lives up to such expectations. It is also what the Charter requires of us, particularly in Chapter VI, which deals with the peaceful settlement of disputes, and Chapter VII, which describes the action the United Nations must take when peace comes under threat, or is actually broken. The purpose of Article 2.7, which I quoted just now, was to confine such interventions to cases where the international peace is threatened or broken, and to keep the United Nations from interfering in purely domestic disputes. Yet even that article carries the important rider that “this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII”. In other words, even

26 June 1998 • 439 national sovereignty can be set aside if it stands in the way of the Security Council’s overriding duty to preserve international peace and security. On the face of it, there is a simple distinction between international conflict, which is clearly the United Nations business, and domestic disputes, which are not. The very phrase “domestic dispute” sounds reassuring. It suggests a little local difficulty which the State in question can easily settle, if only it is left alone to do so. We all know that in recent years it has not been like that. Most wars nowadays are civil wars. Or at least that is how they start. And these civil wars are anything but benign. In fact they are “civil” only in the sense that civilians—that is, non-combatants— have become the main victims. In the First World War, roughly 90 per cent of those killed were soldiers, and only 10 per cent civilians. In the Second World War, even if we count all the victims of Nazi death camps as war casualties, civilians made up only half, or just over half, of all those killed. But in many of today’s conflicts, civilians have become the main targets of violence. It is now conventional to put the proportion of civilian casualties somewhere in the region of 75 per cent. I say “conventional” because the truth is that no one really knows. Relief agencies such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Red Cross rightly devote their resources to helping the living rather than counting the dead. Armies count their own losses, and sometimes make boasts about the number of enemy they have killed. But there is no agency whose job is to keep a tally of civilians killed. The victims of today’s brutal conflicts are not merely anonymous, but literally countless. Yet so long as the conflict rages within the borders of a single State, the old orthodoxy would require us to let it rage. We should leave it to “burn itself out,” or perhaps to “fester”. (You can choose your own euphemism.) We should leave it even to escalate, regardless of human consequences, at least until the point when its effects begin to spill over into neighbouring States, so that it becomes, in the words of so many Security Council resolutions, “a threat to international peace and security”. In reality, this “old orthodoxy” was never absolute. The Charter, after all, was issued in the name of “the peoples”, not the governments, of the United Nations. Its aim is not only to preserve international peace—vitally important though that is—but also “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the

human person”. The Charter protects the sovereignty of peoples. It was never meant as a licence for governments to trample on human rights and human dignity. Sovereignty implies responsibility, not just power. This year we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That declaration was not meant as a purely rhetorical statement. The General Assembly which adopted it also decided, in the same month, that it had the right to express its concern about the apartheid system in South Africa. The principle of international concern for human rights took precedence over the claim of non-interference in internal affairs. And the day before it adopted the Universal Declaration, the General Assembly had adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which puts all States under an obligation to “prevent and punish” this most heinous of crimes. It also allows them to “call upon the competent organs of the United Nations” to take action for this purpose. Since genocide is almost always committed with the connivance, if not the direct participation, of the State authorities, it is hard to see how the United Nations could prevent it without intervening in a State’s internal affairs. As for punishment, a very important attempt is now being made to fulfil this obligation through the Ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. And 10 days ago in Rome, I had the honour to open the Conference which is to establish a permanent international criminal court. Within a year or two, I sincerely hope, this court will be up and running, with competence to try cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity wherever, and by whomsoever, they are committed. State frontiers, ladies and gentlemen, should no longer be seen as a watertight protection for war criminals or mass murderers. The fact that a conflict is “internal” does not give the parties any right to disregard the most basic rules of human conduct. Besides, most “internal” conflicts do not stay internal for very long. They soon “spill over” into neighbouring countries. The most obvious and tragic way this happens is through the flow of refugees. But there are others, one of which is the spread of knowledge. News today travels around the world more rapidly than we could imagine even a few years ago. Human suffering on a large scale has become impossible to keep quiet. People in far-off coun-

440 • 26 June 1998

tries not only hear about it, but often see it on their TV screens. That in turn leads to public outrage, and pressure on governments to “do something”, in other words, to intervene. Moreover, today’s conflicts do not only spread across existing frontiers. Sometimes they actually give birth to new States, which of course means new frontiers. In such cases, what started as an internal conflict becomes an international one. That happens when peoples who formerly lived together in one State find each other’s behaviour so threatening, or so offensive, that they can no longer do so. Such separations are seldom as smooth and trouble-free as the famous “velvet divorce” between Czechs and Slovaks. All too often they happen in the midst of, or at the end of, a long and bitter conflict, as was the case with Pakistan and Bangladesh, with the former Yugoslav republics, and with Ethiopia and Eritrea. In other cases, such as the former Soviet Union, the initial separation may be largely non-violent, and yet it soon gives rise to new conflicts, which pose new problems to the international community. In many cases, the conflict eventually becomes so dangerous that the international community finds itself obliged to intervene. By then it can only do so in the most intrusive and expensive way, which is military intervention. And yet the most effective interventions are not military. It is much better, from every point of view, if action can be taken to resolve or manage a conflict before it reaches the military stage. Sometimes this action may take the form of economic advice and assistance. In so many cases ethnic tensions are exacerbated by poverty and famine, or by uneven economic development which brings wealth to one section of a community while destroying the homes and livelihood of another. If outsiders can help avert this by suitably targeted aid and investment, by giving information and training to local entrepreneurs, or by suggesting more appropriate State policies, their “intervention” should surely be welcomed by all concerned. That is why I see the work of the United Nations Development Programme, and of our sister “Bretton Woods” institutions in Washington, as organically linked to the United Nations work on peace and security. In other cases, what is most needed is skilful and timely diplomacy. Here in Europe I would cite the example of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)’s High Commissioner on National

Minorities, Max van der Stoel. You hardly ever see him on television or read about him in the newspapers, but that surely is a measure of his success. His job is to help European States deal with their minority problems quietly and peacefully, so that they never get to the stage of featuring in banner headlines or TV news bulletins around the world. The United Nations also does its best to “intervene” in such effective but non-military ways. When I went to Baghdad in February of this year, I did so in search of a peaceful solution to a crisis that had brought us to the brink of a new war in the Gulf. I came back with an agreement which averted that crisis, at least for the time being. The agreement was neither a victory nor a defeat for any one person, nation or group of nations. Certainly the United Nations and the world community lost nothing, gave away nothing and conceded nothing of substance. But by halting the renewal of military hostilities, it was a victory for peace, for reason, for the resolution of conflict by diplomacy. It underscored, however, that if diplomacy is to succeed, it must be backed both by force and by fairness. The agreement was also a reminder to the entire world of why this Organization was established in the first place: to prevent the outbreak of unnecessary conflict; to seek to find international solutions to international problems; to obtain respect for international law and agreements from a recalcitrant party without destroying forever that party’s dignity and willingness to cooperate. Iraq is but one example of how, when the moment is ripe, diplomacy through the United Nations can achieve the will of the international community. We much prefer to see disputes settled under Chapter VI, rather than move to the drastic and expensive means available under Chapter VII. For many years, the United Nations has been conducting successful peacekeeping operations— both of the traditional variety, monitoring ceasefires and buffer zones, as well as the more complex multidimensional operations that helped bring peace to Namibia, Mozambique and El Salvador. And in recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on the United Nations political work, as the size—though not the number—of peacekeeping operations has shrunk since its peak in the early 1990s. Early diplomatic intervention, at its best, can avert bloodshed altogether. But as you know, our resources are limited. And we are strong believers in the principle of “subsidiarity”, which you Europeans are so fond of. In other words, we are more than happy if disputes can be dealt with

26 June 1998 • 441 peacefully at the regional level, without the United Nations needing to be involved. We must assume, however, that there will always be some tragic cases where peaceful means have failed: where extreme violence is being used, and only forceful intervention can stop it. Even during the cold war, when the United Nations own enforcement capacity was largely paralysed by divisions in the Security Council, there were cases where extreme violations of human rights in one country led to military intervention by one of its neighbours. In 1971 Indian intervention ended the civil war in East Pakistan, allowing Bangladesh to achieve independence. In 1978 Viet Nam intervened in Cambodia, putting an end to the genocidal rule of the Khmer Rouge. In 1979 Tanzania intervened to overthrow Idi Amin’s erratic dictatorship in Uganda. In all three of those cases the intervening States gave refugee flows across the border as the reason why they had to act. But what justified their action in the eyes of the world was the internal character of the regimes they acted against. And history has by and large ratified that verdict. Few would now deny that in those cases intervention was a lesser evil than allowing massacre and extreme oppression to continue. Yet at the time, in all three cases, the international community was divided and disturbed. Why? Because these interventions were unilateral. The States in question had no mandate from anyone else to act as they did. And that sets an uncomfortable precedent. Can we really afford to let each State be the judge of its own right, or duty, to intervene in another State’s internal conflict? If we do, will we not be forced to legitimize Hitler’s championship of the Sudeten Germans, or Soviet intervention in Afghanistan? Most of us would prefer, I think—especially now that the cold war is over—to see such decisions taken collectively, by an international institution whose authority is generally respected. And surely the only institution competent to assume that role is the Security Council of the United Nations. The Charter clearly assigns responsibility to the Council for maintaining international peace and security. I would argue, therefore, that only the Council has the authority to decide that the internal situation in any State is so grave as to justify forceful intervention. As you know, many Member States feel that the Council’s authority now needs to be strengthened by an increase in its membership, bringing in new permanent members or possibly adding a

new category of member. Unfortunately a consensus on the details of such a reform has yet to be reached. This is a matter for the Member States. As Secretary-General I would make only three points. First, the Security Council must become more representative in order to reflect current realities, rather than the realities of 1945. Secondly, the Council’s authority depends not only on the representative character of its membership but also on the quality and speed of its decisions. Humanity is ill served when the Council is unable to react quickly and decisively in a crisis. Thirdly, the delay in reaching agreement on reform, however regrettable, must not be allowed to detract from the Council’s authority and responsibility in the meanwhile. The Council in its present form derives its authority from the Charter. That gives it a unique legitimacy as the linchpin of world order, which all Member States should value and respect. It also places a unique responsibility on Council members, both permanent and non-permanent—a responsibility of which their governments and indeed their citizens should be fully conscious. Of course the fact that the Council has this unique responsibility does not mean that the intervention itself should always be undertaken directly by the United Nations, in the sense of forces wearing blue helmets and controlled by the United Nations Secretariat. No one knows better than I do, as a former Under-Secretary-General in charge of peacekeeping, that the United Nations lacks the capacity for directing large-scale military enforcement operations. At least for the foreseeable future, such operations will have to be undertaken by Member States, or by regional organizations. But they need to have the authority of the Security Council behind them, expressed in an authorizing resolution. That formula, developed in 1990 to deal with the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, has proved its usefulness and will no doubt be used again in future crises. But we should not assume that intervention always needs to be on a massive scale. There are cases where the speed of the action may be far more crucial than the size of the force. Personally, I am haunted by the experience of Rwanda in 1994: a terrible demonstration of what can happen when there is no intervention, or at least none in the crucial early weeks of a crisis. General Dallaire, the commander of the United Nations mission, has indicated that with a force of even modest size and means he could have pre-

442 • 26 June 1998

vented much of the killing. Indeed he has said that 5,000 peacekeepers could have saved 500,000 lives. How tragic it is that at the crucial moment the opposite course was chosen, and the size of the force reduced. Surely things would have been different if the Security Council had had at its disposal a small rapid reaction force, ready to move at a few days’ notice. I believe that if we are to avert further such disasters in the future we need such a capacity; that Member States must have appropriately trained stand-by forces immediately available, and must be willing to send them quickly when the Security Council requests it. Some have even suggested that private security firms, like the one which recently helped restore the elected President to power in Sierra Leone, might play a role in providing the United Nations with the rapid reaction capacity it needs. When we had need of skilled soldiers to separate fighters from refugees in the Rwandan refugee camps in Goma, I even considered the possibility of engaging a private firm. But the world may not be ready to privatize peace. In any case, let me stress that I am not asking for a standing army at the beck and call of the Secretary-General. The decision to intervene, I repeat, can only be taken by the Security Council. But at present the Council’s authority is diminished, because it lacks the means to intervene effectively even when it wishes to do so. Let me conclude by coming back to where I started. The United Nations is an association of sovereign States, but the rights it exists to uphold belong to peoples, not governments. By the same token, it is wrong to think the obligations of United Nations membership fall only on States. Each one of us—whether as workers in government, in intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations, in business, in the media, or simply as human beings—has an obligation to do whatever he or she can to correct injustice. Each of us has a duty to halt—or, better, to prevent—the infliction of suffering. Much has been written about the “duty to interfere” (le devoir d’ingérence). We should remember that the inventor of this phrase, Bernard Kouchner, coined it not as a minister in the French Government but when he was still running the charity Médecins du Monde. He argued that nongovernmental organizations had a duty to cross national boundaries, with or without the consent of governments, in order to reach the victims of natural disasters and other emergencies. And their

right to do this has since been recognized by two resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly—in 1988 (after the earthquake in Armenia) and again in 1991. Both these resolutions, while paying full respect to State sovereignty, assert the overriding right of people in desperate situations to receive help, and the right of international bodies to provide it. So when we recall tragic events such as those of Bosnia or Rwanda and ask “why did no one intervene?”, the question should not be addressed only to the United Nations, or even to its Member States. Each of us as an individual has to take his or her share of responsibility. No one can claim ignorance of what happened. All of us should recall how we responded, and ask: What did I do? Could I have done more? Did I let my prejudice, my indifference, or my fear overwhelm my reasoning? Above all, how would I react next time? And “next time” may already be here. The last few months’ events in Kosovo present the international community with what may be its severest challenge in Europe since the Dayton agreement was concluded in 1995. As in Bosnia, we have witnessed the shelling of towns and villages, indiscriminate attacks on civilians in the name of security, the separation of men from women and children and their summary execution, and the flight of thousands from their homes, many of them across an international border. In short, events reminiscent of the whole ghastly scenario of “ethnic cleansing” again—as yet on a smaller scale than in Bosnia, but for how long? Of course there are differences—the crucial one being, precisely, that so far this conflict is being waged within the borders of a single State, recognized as such by the entire international community. I repeat: “so far.” But when we witness the outflow of refugees into Albania; when we hear the insistence of Kosovar Albanian spokesmen that they will settle for nothing less than full independence; and when we remember the ethnic tensions in at least one neighbouring State, how can we not conclude that this crisis is indeed a threat to international peace and security? This time, ladies and gentlemen, no one will be able to say that they were taken by surprise— neither by the means employed, nor by the ends pursued. This time, ethnically driven violence must be seen for what it is, and we know all too well what to expect if it is allowed to continue. Recently, I recommended that the United

29 June 1998 • 443 Nations Preventive Deployment Force mandate be extended so as to sustain its success on the border of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and maintain stability. I have also been gratified by the clear determination expressed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its member governments to prevent a further escalation of the fighting, and I encourage all steps that may deter the further use of ethnically driven repression and the resort to violence by either side in Kosovo. Of course, we all hope for a peaceful solution. And I particularly welcome the efforts of President Yeltsin to achieve this. But that only makes it more important to stop the violence now. And I feel confident that this time, if peaceful means fail to achieve this, the Security Council will not be slow to assume its grave responsibility. A great deal is at stake in Kosovo today—for the people of Kosovo themselves; for the overall stability of the Balkans; and for the credibility and legitimacy of all our words and deeds in pursuit of collective security. All our professions of regret; all our expressions of determination to never again permit another Bosnia; all our hopes for a peaceful future for the Balkans will be cruelly mocked if we allow Kosovo to become another killing field. Our theme is vast but the hour is late. Let me recall, in conclusion, that in French law there is a crime called “failure to assist a person in danger” (non-assistance a personne en danger). I am sure this is what the late Francois Mitterrand had in mind in April 1991, when he congratulated the Security Council on its decision to intervene in the internal affairs of Iraq, in order to save the Kurds. “For the first time”, President Mitterrand declared, “non-interference has stopped at the point where it was becoming failure to assist a people in danger”. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what “intervention” is all about. When people are in danger, everyone has a duty to speak out. No one has a right to pass by on the other side. If we are tempted to do so, we should call to mind the unforgettable warning of Martin Niemoller, the German Protestant theologian who lived through the Nazi persecution: “In Germany they came first for the Communists. And I did not speak up because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews. And I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists. And I did not speak up, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics. And I did not speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they

came for me. And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

26 June 1998 Letter (EOSG); drugs Letter sent to all member states. A similar letter was sent to the executive director of the UN Office for Drug Control and Prevention, Pino Arlacchi. Excellency, Allow me first to thank you for the support expressed by your Government at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Countering the World Drug Problem. My chief reason for writing is to share with you two documents presented to me at that time. This spring, young people from all over the world gathered to discuss drug abuse prevention in Paris and Banff, Canada. These youths, many of whom work on the front lines of drug control, produced the enclosed Youth Charter for a Twenty-First Century Free of Drugs and Vision from Banff. I was presented with copies during the Special Session by some of the authors—most of them in their teens and early twenties—who asked me to circulate them to the leaders of all Members States. While the documents speak for themselves, I would like to draw your attention to Section 10 of the Vision: “. . . all of us felt that the problems we young people face with respect to drugs are very similar the world over. We want our leaders to join together with us in taking action to prevent drug abuse among young people.” I feel we owe it to them to match the seriousness of their commitment and not throw in the towel. I hope, therefore, that I can count on your continued leadership in ensuring that we build on the action plans adopted at the Special Session. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

29 June 1998 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Letter to the president of the Security Council, António Monteiro. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to transmit the report of my Investigative Team in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Advance copies of the report were given to the Permanent Representatives of the DRC and Rwanda on 15 June 1998 for trans-

444 • 29 June 1998

mittal to their Governments, whose comments will be published as Security Council documents. It may be recalled that I established the Team in July 1997 to help break a deadlock between the DRC Government and the Joint Investigative Mission mandated by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to investigate allegations of massacres and other violations of human rights which arose from the situation in eastern Zaire since September 1996. The Government objected, inter alia, to the participation of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Zaire in the Mission and to the period covered by its mandate. They urged that the mandate be extended back to 1 March 1993, in order to include: the ethnic violence which, from that time, pitted self-styled “indigenous” Zairians, originally supported by the Forces Armées Zaïroises (FAZ), against Zairians of both Hutu and Tutsi origin, as well as subsequent developments such as the influx of Hutu refugees from Rwanda in July 1994, following the genocide in that country; the insecurity generated, both in Zaire and in Rwanda, by armed members of the ex-Forces Armees Rwandaises (ex-FAR) and Interahamwe militia who maintained strict control over the refugees and launched raids into Rwanda; and the increasing violence to which Zairian Tutsis were subjected until the October 1996 uprising. A detailed account of those developments, which the Team recommends be further investigated, is provided in Annex I. . . . In response to the Government, I extended the period under investigation back to 1 March 1993. I appointed Chief Justice Atsu-Koffi Amega (Togo) as leader of my Investigative Team, with a mandate to investigate serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law alleged to have been committed in the DRC up to 31 December 1997. My initiative to establish the Team neither suspended nor supplanted the original Joint Investigative Mission, whose mandate has since expired and has not been renewed. The events described in the report of the Team did not occur in a vacuum. The background to them is the terrible 1994 genocide in Rwanda which cast an enormous shadow, which has not lifted yet, over the whole Great Lakes region of Africa. This genocide led directly to the violence of the 1994–1996 period in eastern Zaire, which was publicly denounced by the Rwandan Government as a resumption in a neighbouring country of the 1994 genocidal practices. That same violence resulted in the creation, in September

1996, of the ADFL, and its successful military campaign against the regime of President Mobutu Sese Seko, which ended in Kinshasa on 17 May 1997. It is a source of serious regret that, between its first deployment in August 1997 and its withdrawal in April 1998, the Team was not allowed to carry out its mission fully and without hindrance. But in spite of the difficulties outlined in the report, the Team was able to reach a number of conclusions that are supported by strong evidence. Two of these conclusions stand out. The second is that the killings by the ADFL and its allies, including elements of the Rwandan Patriotic Army, constitute crimes against humanity, as does the denial of humanitarian assistance to Rwandan Hutu refugees. The members of the Team believe that some of the killings may constitute genocide, depending on their intent, and call for further investigation of those crimes and of their motivation. As they read the report of my Investigative Team, Mr. President, the members of the Council will encounter one of the root causes of the recent conflicts in the Great Lakes region of Africa: a vicious cycle of violations of human rights and revenge, fuelled by impunity. This cycle has to be brought to an end if lasting peace and stability are to be restored to the region. Those guilty of violations must be brought to book; human rights need to be monitored closely wherever they are under threat; the efforts of Governments to build national capacities and, to promote respect for human rights must be supported; and those members of civil society who foster a culture of tolerance should be assisted. The international community, and especially donor countries, have a prominent role to play in all this. In considering this report, members of the Council will no doubt wish to respond to it in a way which reflects their responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Violations of human rights on such a scale as to constitute crimes against humanity must be regarded as posing a threat to international peace and security. At the same time, full weight must be given to the importance of consolidating the fragile stability in the region, which plainly requires a great deal of international assistance. It would, in my view, be a serious mistake if the international community were to turn its back on the countries concerned. What is needed is a consistent policy of critical engagement. Ultimately, though, stability in the region lies

29 June 1998 • 445 with the Governments of the region. They have, above all, an obligation to respect the human rights and security of their own citizens. They can be assured of the goodwill of the international community, but they must also show that they are receptive to its concerns and mindful of their international legal obligations. This includes acknowledging and addressing the very serious findings of the Team, and taking appropriate action if members of their forces have been involved in any of the alleged violations. I am sending a copy of the report of my Investigative Team to the Chairman-in-Office and the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity, with a request that it be transmitted, for their information, to the members of the International Panel of Eminent Personalities to Investigate the 1994 Genocide and Surrounding Events, from the Arusha Peace Accord of 4 August 1993 to the fall of Kinshasa on 17 May 1997. In closing, I would like to pay tribute once again to the members of my Investigative Team; who have displayed the highest integrity, professionalism and courage throughout their difficult mission. I should be grateful if this letter and its attachment could be circulated as a document of the Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

29 June 1998 Press Conference at the Vienna International Centre

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6622) FRED ECKHARD, spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral: First, the Secretary-General has a brief statement to make. Let me introduce the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming this morning. As you know, I announced in my remarks to the Vienna Public Assembly on Saturday afternoon the sad news of the crash of the aircraft carrying my Special Representative in Angola, Maître Alioune Blondin Beye. Yesterday, I received the tragic confirmation that Maître Beye and all those travelling with him had lost their lives. I wish to express my profound grief at the irreplaceable loss of this valued colleague, a dedicated and dynamic peacemaker, and a great son of Africa whom the Angolans dubbed “the Messiah of Peace”. I also wish to convey my deep sorrow to the

families of the five colleagues accompanying him—Koffi Adjoyi, Beadengar Dessande, Moctar Gueye, Ibikunle Williams and Captain Alvaro Costa, and the two pilots, Jason Hunter and Andrew McCurrach, who were killed with him. Their loss adds to the heavy toll of those in the United Nations who have given their lives in the cause of peace. The United Nations family is in mourning today. I have spoken to the family of Maître Beye and the President of Mali to express my grief. I have also telephoned the Force Commander of the United Nations operation in Angola to wish him and his staff strength as they continue the important task that Maître Beye had undertaken in the last five years. I renew my appeal to the parties in Angola to redouble their efforts to complete the work for peace that Maître Beye has sadly left unfinished. I am sure that all African leaders, as well as the international community, will join me in this appeal so that Maître Beye will not have perished in vain. I have a second important announcement to make. Following this press conference, instead of returning directly to New York, I will leave Vienna for Abuja, the capital of Nigeria, on an urgent mission to meet with the authorities of that country. For more than a year now, I have been in close contact with the military leadership in Nigeria, and in particular with the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha, in an effort to promote the release of political prisoners, the commutation of the death sentences of General Diya and five others convicted on charges of plotting to overthrow the Government, and a return to democratic rule in Nigeria. These contacts have continued in recent weeks with the new Head of State, General Abubakar. I have been much encouraged by the discussions I have had with General Abubakar and the initial steps he has taken in this direction. I have throughout made clear that I would like to do everything I can to encourage the acceleration of a credible process that would return Nigeria to democratic rule, starting with the release of the remaining political prisoners. Following intensified discussions in recent days, and a personal invitation from General Abubakar, I have decided that the time is ripe for me to undertake a visit to Nigeria. I look forward to meeting with General Abubakar and his colleagues, as well as with a wide range of Nigerian political opinion and civil society. I am hopeful that my visit will contribute to progress towards the objectives sought by all the

446 • 29 June 1998

Nigerian people with the full support of the international community. Let me also say once again that it has been a pleasure for me to be back here in Vienna, we had a very successful human rights assembly over the weekend. And, I am also very proud of the work Mr. Pino Arlacchi is doing, and the global conference we had on drugs was an absolute success. And, I think this is what I would like to see, not only here in Vienna, but in all other United Nations offices—a renewed dynamism, a rededication of the staff to the ideals for which we continue to serve. Now I am ready to take your questions. QUESTION (Austrian TV): Richard Holbrooke just declared that the situation in Kosovo is near to becoming a war. Will the Security Council agree to a military intervention and will the United Nations give NATO a UN mandate? S-G: That is an issue for the Security Council. I know that there has been a draft resolution on the table for a while, but that discussion was suspended to allow diplomatic efforts to go ahead and this was just before President Yeltsin invited Mr. Milosevic to go to Moscow for discussion, and, as you know, Ambassador Holbrooke is also continuing his shuttle diplomacy. But the issue of how the Council will act I will leave for the Council to decide. But I think the situation is critical, I think the international community should be as engaged as it is and do whatever it can to stop what could be a second Bosnia, and that will mean being on top of the problem and acting quickly to contain the crisis before it spreads. QUESTION (Austrian TV–ORF): Do you know already something about the Russian standpoint? S-G: No, the Russians have said at the time that diplomacy has not been exhausted. They believe that we should continue that effort and they are going to do whatever they can to bring President Milosevic around. QUESTION (CBS Radio): You observed the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights over the weekend, and Mr. Clinton has been travelling in China. What impact do you think President Clinton has had on human rights in China? S-G: I notice he made an important statement on human rights in China. I think that kind of a discussion and open dialogue on human rights in China, as in any other country, is important for the process and it advances the cause of human rights. It is not every day that the Chinese population hear that kind of statement from a prominent statesman, and so I was happy he made that statement. Later

this year, in September, Mrs. Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, will also be visiting China to have discussions with the Chinese authorities. The Chinese have also indicated that they will sign the convention, and I think we are seeing some progress on that front. QUESTION (Deutsche Welle): You said the situation is critical in Kosovo. Do you have any plans to go to Belgrade and perhaps to try to make the situation better? And, I want to ask you about the United Nations planes, because you just had another one that has crashed: Are they safe? Has enough been invested in the planes to make sure it does not happen again? S-G: I have no immediate plans to go to Kosovo at the moment. The contact group of six nations is leading the effort in an attempt to find a solution. We have United Nations forces in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, whose mandate we have just extended with the possibility that the force may be strengthened. I am in touch with those leading the process. A few days ago, three days ago in fact, I spoke to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke who was in the region and called to brief me. I met with NATO Secretary-General Solana in Rome to discuss the situation. So, I am following events very closely, supporting those who are leading the mediation and making the efforts to find a solution. At some appropriate time, maybe I will go, but in these situations, you have to make sure that you do not have multiplicity of mediators. And about the plane, it was a tragic accident— we don’t, as you know, have any planes of our own—we rent, we do either commercial arrangements or use military planes from governments participating in peacekeeping operations. This was a plane we have rented and have used for over a year in this peacekeeping operation. I don’t know exactly what happened, whether it had hit the tops of the roofs of the trees—it was a deep forest, it was almost a rain forest area, the plane was coming in at night. We are doing an investigation. We have tried to set up minimum standards, security standards, that companies we are dealing with must meet before we hire planes from them. So, I hope these standards are correct and that the companies we deal with are respecting them, but we will look into that again. QUESTION (Al-Ahram and Egyptian TV): Mr. Secretary-General, what is the United Nations’ reaction on the latest decision of the Netanyahu Government on the illegal enlargement of Jerusalem?

29 June 1998 • 447 S-G: I did issue a formal statement on that out of New York—you probably did not see that— basically pointing out that I was distressed by that decision and that it was a violation of resolutions taken by the Security Council and the General Assembly. QUESTION (Der Standard): Whatever happened to the United Nations reform plans that you launched and presented last year? S-G: I think the reform is alive and well. And, not only is it alive and well, it was approved by the General Assembly last October. About 85 to 90 per cent of the proposals were approved and we are moving ahead with implementation. Quite a lot of the proposals have already been implemented. There are other aspects that are still being discussed by the General Assembly and some that we are still working on, like the “millenium summit”, where I have suggested that in the year 2000 the General Assembly should meet at the summit level to reflect on the years ahead the type of the United Nations they would want to have, as we move into the next millenium. I would hope that it will be practical but also a reflective session—the sort of gathering which led to the creation of the United Nations in 1945, after World War II. We have had the most brutal century in history and, as we move into the next one, what changes should we make, how should we strengthen the United Nations, what sort of world will we see? Alongside that, I have also suggested a people’s assembly where we would have a forum for civil society—for non-governmental organizations and others to also give us their views that would hopefully be fed into the summit. But, the reform is alive and well. QUESTION (Austrian Press Agency): Mr. Secretary-General, you came to Austria some days before the European Union presidency of Austria starts. What do you expect of Austria’s contribution to the United Nations while holding the European Union presidency? S-G: As you know, the United Nations has always had a very good relationship with Austria. I am proud of the Austrian contribution to our work and I hope to continue our cooperation with the European Union and the Commission under the Austrian presidency. We do work well with the European Union, and I hope that, given the good relations with Austria, this will also help in our dealings with Brussels. QUESTION (Hungarian TV): You have opened an exhibition last Saturday of Hungarian fine artists on humanity and values. How do you see

the challenges of such small countries like Hungary, where there are no wars but there are still great problems? S-G: I think the issue of human rights applies everywhere, not only in situations of conflicts. I think when we are talking of human rights, we are talking of tolerance, of understanding, we are talking of compassion for the human condition and we are talking of the rule of law and good governance. I think that requirement applies to all countries, whether countries in conflict or countries at peace trying to improve a society. I personally feel that one of the great challenges we have today is one of governance. Good government in countries, and governing is becoming more and more difficult, whether you are managing a country in crisis, a country with difficult economic conditions, or even an ordinary country, because you have in each country today organizations at subnational level—some of them are not elected or appointed, but self-organized—who have a lot of influence, who are pulling at the centre and, at the same time, at the global level. You have to deal with global issues, the organization of which also pulls a national government the other way. So, you need the best brains in public service and in government, but everybody wants, rather, to make money; everybody wants to go into the private sector, and we are not able to attract good people into public and government service. I hope we will find some ways of turning these things around. Maybe, since the private sector has become so attractive, a friend of mine once said, everything that costs money we leave to government, and everything that makes money we privatize. So maybe, he said, let’s privatize poverty and some of the difficult issues and see if these great “creative managers” can do something about them. QUESTION (Austrian Radio–ORF): On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights, could you briefly outline your ideas or plans for a more efficient implementation of human rights worldwide? S-G: I thought we exhausted those issues over the weekend. Let me say that in my view—I think Mrs. Mary Robinson shares this view as well— that today the United Nations is involved in quite a lot of human rights monitoring in various countries across the world. We believe we should work with governments for them to establish their own human rights mechanisms and human rights centres. We should train people, we should raise awareness and we should reach out to the public—

448 • 29 June 1998

and here I am talking of human rights in all its dimensions, not just political. We are talking about economic, as well as cultural and political, rights. We also believe that we should play the role of advocate, and get the public to become engaged in human rights as their struggle, and for each individual to play his or her own role on two fronts: for people to understand that these are their rights, inherent and intrinsic, and that they should be aware of this. By becoming aware, they feel empowered, and it is much more difficult for governments to push them around. We as individuals should also be alert in protesting suffering and abuse of rights, not just of our own, but for others. We have an obligation to do so. I think over the weekend I made it clear that the United Nations is, after all, the United Nations of “we the peoples”, not “we the governments” and, therefore, the United Nations was created to protect the rights of individuals and to protect individuals. And if indeed that is correct, then the responsibilities of the Organization does not only fall on the Member States, but on each and every one of us as well. I hope, particularly in the area of human rights, that we all will play our role. QUESTION (Agence France Press): A two-part question on nuclear tests: Your Special Envoy is currently in Pakistan, and I gather he is due to meet the Pakistan Prime Minister today to deliver a personal message from you. Could you give us an idea what is in that message? Second part: In Vienna over the weekend have you met anybody, for example from the CTBTO [Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty Organization], to discuss this issue, and what is your feeling, how confident are you that we are moving towards some sort of resolution to the problem on the Indian subcontinent? S-G: I cannot give you the full details of a personal letter I sent to a head of State, but basically lets say that my efforts are designed to help reduce tensions in the region. It is also public knowledge that I have been making every effort I can to encourage India and Pakistan to now come forward to resume their bilateral talks on peace and security issues and on Kashmir. With regards to your second question, I have seen Mr. Hoffmann [executive secretary, Provisional Technical Secretariat, CTBTO], and we have discussed the issue. I think the world is faced with some important issues with regard to nuclear armaments. I think the issue goes beyond what happened on the Indian subcontinent. Yes, we should focus in the immediate on the situation created by the nuclear explosions of India and

Pakistan. The next thing we need to do is to take steps to ensure that other governments do not follow the examples of India and Pakistan, particularly governments in regions with tension. We need to reactivate this whole idea of nuclear disarmament and reduction of nuclear weapons, to really move on non-proliferation and, eventually, to make an effort to disarm, to eliminate nuclear weapons all together. That is going to take some time. But, I think the nuclear Powers also have a great responsibility and have to show the way by honouring all the commitments they have taken and lead the world in nuclear disarmament. We would need to find an appropriate forum to discuss this issue and bring everyone around, the nuclear Powers, India and Pakistan, governments with capacity to create nuclear weapons but which have decided not to do so, and the others, because this is a problem for the whole world. We need to find a way of tackling it and of discussing it in a broad frame work. QUESTION (Okaz Daily, Saudi Arabia): Mr. Secretary-General, what is your evaluation of the latest developments of the peace process in the Middle East, and what is the initial role of the United Nations concerning the implementation of Security Council resolution 425 in South Lebanon, after the conditional acceptance of the Israeli regime? S-G: I regret to say that in the Middle East peace process—if by that you are referring in the first place to the Palestinian/Israeli discussions— there is an impasse, and I hope everything can be done to break the impasse. Discussions and talks are going on, and I think it is essential that we find a way forward because, if we do, tensions in the region could be reduced considerably. On your next question, I have had discussions, with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Hrawi, on the question of implementation of 425, as well as with President Assad of Syria. In my judgement, there can be no comprehensive peace in the region without Syria. I think 425 should be implemented unconditionally and the language is clear, I think. The Israeli offer should be looked at seriously, but we need to move ahead in tandem with other developments in the region. The Lebanese Prime Minister, when he came to see me in New York, made it clear that they are all prepared to discuss and sign a peace agreement with Israel and would also want to see movement on the Golan, because the territories are so closely knit together that unless you have a comprehensive peace, just withdrawing the Israeli troops from

1 July 1998 • 449 Lebanon, in his judgement, will not bring peace, but that following a peace agreement which he believes can be done in three months, if there is good will, the withdrawal and other things can follow. In the meantime, I am following developments and, of course, I believe that every Security Council resolution should be implemented. QUESTION (UNO Radio): Mr. SecretaryGeneral, you know more about the United Nations, not only than any previous Secretary-General, but anyone else. You have been around longer you know the United Nations very well. What would you reply if I say that the policy of all Israeli governments for the last 50 years towards the United Nations was proven completely correct at one historic moment, when Serbian soldiers dragged the Muslim Deputy Prime Minister of Bosnia out of a United Nations armoured vehicle, and then, surrounded by heavily armed United Nations soldiers, shot him dead, which is something Israel has always appreciated. S-G: I am not sure I quite understand your question, and I do not see the relationship . . . UNO RADIO: The powerlessness, basically, of the United Nations, which was proven at that moment when the United Nations troop did nothing when a man who was under their protection was killed in front of their eyes. S-G: I think you are referring to an incident in Bosnia, at a very difficult and critical period, where the United Nations soldiers had not expected what happened to happen. But that linkage you are making that is something that I do not understand. We were talking about peace process, we were talking about comprehensive peace, we were talking about treatment of neighbours and fairness to each other. Whether one believes the United Nations is powerful or not should not dictate how one behaves with one’s neighbours. So I really do not understand the relevance of your question. Thank you very much.

30 June 1998 Secretary-General Concerned About Violence in East Timor

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6620); East Timor The Secretary-General is concerned by recent violent incidents in East Timor which have resulted in the death of innocent civilians. While he welcomes the atmosphere of greater openness that has created wider possibilities for a discussion of the future of East Timor, he urges all sides to exercise maxi-

mum restraint and to ensure that such discourse is carried out in a peaceful manner, with full respect for basic human rights and tolerance for differing views. The Secretary-General calls on the Indonesian authorities, as well as the political, religious and community leaders in East Timor, to exercise their responsibility and influence in easing tensions and encouraging peaceful and orderly conduct as people exercise their right to free expression. The Secretary-General remains closely engaged, personally and through his Personal Representative for East Timor, Ambassador Jamsheed Marker, in intensified efforts to find a comprehensive, negotiated settlement of the question of East Timor.

1 July 1998 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Letter to secretary-general of the Organization of African Unity, Salim Ahmed Salim. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, As you may know, I transmitted today to the President of the Security Council the report of my Investigative Team charged with investigating serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The DRC and Rwandan Governments were given advance copies of the report on 15 June 1998, with an invitation to comment on its findings. Their comments were issued yesterday as documents of the Security Council, as was the report. You will note that in my transmittal letter to the President of the Council, I emphasized the importance of the international community contributing to the stability of the region not only by addressing firmly a cycle of human rights violations fuelled by impunity, but also by providing the international assistance so necessary to the reconstruction and development of the countries concerned. The subject of the Investigative Team’s report is central to the concerns of both our organizations in the Great Lakes region of Africa. When I put the Team together in July 1997, I trusted that establishing the truth on past violations of human rights would help prevent their recurrence and contribute in the long teen to the reconciliation of the populations concerned. The Team’s report, incomplete as it may be, is an important step towards that goal. For that reason, I decided to forward immedi-

1 July 1998 • 449 Lebanon, in his judgement, will not bring peace, but that following a peace agreement which he believes can be done in three months, if there is good will, the withdrawal and other things can follow. In the meantime, I am following developments and, of course, I believe that every Security Council resolution should be implemented. QUESTION (UNO Radio): Mr. SecretaryGeneral, you know more about the United Nations, not only than any previous Secretary-General, but anyone else. You have been around longer you know the United Nations very well. What would you reply if I say that the policy of all Israeli governments for the last 50 years towards the United Nations was proven completely correct at one historic moment, when Serbian soldiers dragged the Muslim Deputy Prime Minister of Bosnia out of a United Nations armoured vehicle, and then, surrounded by heavily armed United Nations soldiers, shot him dead, which is something Israel has always appreciated. S-G: I am not sure I quite understand your question, and I do not see the relationship . . . UNO RADIO: The powerlessness, basically, of the United Nations, which was proven at that moment when the United Nations troop did nothing when a man who was under their protection was killed in front of their eyes. S-G: I think you are referring to an incident in Bosnia, at a very difficult and critical period, where the United Nations soldiers had not expected what happened to happen. But that linkage you are making that is something that I do not understand. We were talking about peace process, we were talking about comprehensive peace, we were talking about treatment of neighbours and fairness to each other. Whether one believes the United Nations is powerful or not should not dictate how one behaves with one’s neighbours. So I really do not understand the relevance of your question. Thank you very much.

30 June 1998 Secretary-General Concerned About Violence in East Timor

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6620); East Timor The Secretary-General is concerned by recent violent incidents in East Timor which have resulted in the death of innocent civilians. While he welcomes the atmosphere of greater openness that has created wider possibilities for a discussion of the future of East Timor, he urges all sides to exercise maxi-

mum restraint and to ensure that such discourse is carried out in a peaceful manner, with full respect for basic human rights and tolerance for differing views. The Secretary-General calls on the Indonesian authorities, as well as the political, religious and community leaders in East Timor, to exercise their responsibility and influence in easing tensions and encouraging peaceful and orderly conduct as people exercise their right to free expression. The Secretary-General remains closely engaged, personally and through his Personal Representative for East Timor, Ambassador Jamsheed Marker, in intensified efforts to find a comprehensive, negotiated settlement of the question of East Timor.

1 July 1998 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Letter to secretary-general of the Organization of African Unity, Salim Ahmed Salim. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, As you may know, I transmitted today to the President of the Security Council the report of my Investigative Team charged with investigating serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The DRC and Rwandan Governments were given advance copies of the report on 15 June 1998, with an invitation to comment on its findings. Their comments were issued yesterday as documents of the Security Council, as was the report. You will note that in my transmittal letter to the President of the Council, I emphasized the importance of the international community contributing to the stability of the region not only by addressing firmly a cycle of human rights violations fuelled by impunity, but also by providing the international assistance so necessary to the reconstruction and development of the countries concerned. The subject of the Investigative Team’s report is central to the concerns of both our organizations in the Great Lakes region of Africa. When I put the Team together in July 1997, I trusted that establishing the truth on past violations of human rights would help prevent their recurrence and contribute in the long teen to the reconciliation of the populations concerned. The Team’s report, incomplete as it may be, is an important step towards that goal. For that reason, I decided to forward immedi-

450 • 1 July 1998

ately to you a copy of the report, with a request that it be circulated to the members of the International Panel of Eminent Personalities to Investigate the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda and the Surrounding Events. I hope that they will be able to build on the foundations laid by my Investigative Team when they come to consider the tragic events of the period 1993–97 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

2 July 1998 Secretary-General Denies Reported UN Role in Peace Negotiations in Colombia

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6627); Colombia I wish to clarify that, contrary to press reports out of Bogotá, Colombia, neither the SecretaryGeneral nor any authorized official has proposed that the United Nations play a role in peace negotiations in that country.

2 July 1998 Secretary-General Appoints Panel of Eminent Persons to Visit Algeria

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6623); Algeria At the invitation of the Government of Algeria, the Secretary-General has today established a panel of eminent persons to visit that country. The purpose of this mission will be to gather information on the situation in Algeria and present a report to him, which he will make public. The Government of Algeria has assured the Secretary-General that it will ensure free and complete access to all sources of information necessary for the panel to exercise its functions, in order to have a clear vision and a precise perception of the reality of the situation in all its dimensions in Algeria today. The following personalities have confirmed their availability up to now: Mario Soares (Chairman), former President of Portugal; I.K. Gujral, former Prime Minister of India; Abdel Karim Kabariti, former Prime Minister of Jordan; Donald McHenry, former United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations; Simone Veil, former Secretary of State of France; and Amos Wako, Attorney-General of Kenya. The Secretary-General is deeply appreciative

of the readiness of the members of the panel to undertake this mission. The panel will travel to Algeria as soon as arrangements have been made for it to start its work. It will be supported by a small technical team from the Secretariat.

6 July 1998 Secretary-General Pays Tribute to Angola Mission Victims of 25 June Air Crash

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6630); Angola Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at a UN headquarters memorial service for the victims of the 25 June crash of an aircraft of the UN Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA), and commemoration of the first peacekeeping fatalities in Palestine in 1948. We have gathered today to pay homage to colleagues fallen in the cause of peace. On 25 June, Alioune Blondin Beye and seven members of his team made the ultimate sacrifice in the search for peace in Angola. Maître Beye from Mali, Koffi Adjoyi from Togo, Beandegar Dessande from Chad, Amadou Moctar Gueye from Senegal, Ibikunle Williams from Nigeria, Alvaro Costa from Portugal, and their pilots—Jason Hunter and Andrew McCurrach from South Africa—we will always remember them. In a tragic sense, history has come full circle. For we are also here to remember the first to give their lives while serving the United Nations in the cause of peace. Rene de Labarriere, of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine, was killed 50 years ago today; his colleague, Ole Bakke, died a week later. This may give us occasion to pause and reflect upon what we do. It would be melodramatic to say that our work is to wage a war for peace; but it is appropriate to say that we seek to build defences against violence, poverty, injustice and destruction. It would be boastful to say our actions change the course of history; but it would be wrong—and just as destructive—not to recognize that our work does have importance, and does make a difference. And so we must carry on that work—in Angola as anywhere else, we can make a difference—no matter how great the risk, no matter how absent the immediate reward. Our thoughts and prayers go today to the friends and families of the fallen. They go to the men and women who continue to risk their lives in the field every day. But they also go to the people of Angola. For the sake of Maître Beye, his team,

7 July 1998 • 451 and all those who have perished in this conflict, and for the sake of the future generations of Angola, I have one prayer above all: that this yet to be united nation will one day reap the fruits of peace. That those we mourn today will know, wherever they are, that their work on behalf of the United Nations will not have been in vain. Thank you.

7 July 1998 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6634); Nigeria SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Nigerian Government has confirmed to me this afternoon the death in Abuja today of Moshood Abiola. I am shocked by the news, as you can imagine. I saw him exactly a week ago today. I had met with him just after I arrived, and he seemed in good health. I expected his imminent release from detention by the authorities, along with other detainees, and the beginning of the process to restore democratic civilian rule to Nigeria. My heart goes out to his family, and I wish to express to them my sincerest condolences. I hope the Government of Nigeria will make good on its pledge to release all remaining political prisoners unconditionally and to define a credible process for the democratic transition to civilian rule within a reasonable period. I call on all Nigerians to unite in support of this effort. Thank you. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, could you give us some impressions of your feelings and of Mr. Abiola when you met with him? Did he seem well, and what did you think of him? You had never met him before? S-G: He seemed well; he seemed in good health. He was alert and asked lots of questions, but as I indicated, from the questions and the reactions it was obvious that his isolation—he was in solitary confinement—had been almost total. For example, he did not know who I was. I walked in and shook hands and smiled, and I thought that if he did not know who I was, he had at least been informed whom he was going to meet. But he had only been informed that he was going to meet a very important man, so I walked in and shook hands and started asking about his health. He asked who I was, and I explained that I was the Secretary-General of the United Nations. And then he asked, “What happened to the Egyptian? Is he gone?” (This was my predecessor.) But it was

obvious that he had been confined. Apart from that, he seemed to recollect facts and seemed to be in very good health, but with these things you never know. QUESTION: What kind of surroundings was he in? Was he well tended to? He was in isolation, house arrest? S-G: I am not in a position to answer that question because I did not go to meet him in the prison. They brought him to a villa, where I met him. He had arrived at the villa just 10 minutes before I got there. They had asked him to get dressed and said that he was going to meet an important man. So I am not in a position to describe the conditions under which he was kept. Let me just say that he had been in solitary confinement and was allowed no television, no press, no media except the Bible and the Koran. This was obvious in the conversation in that he did make references to Biblical and Koranic quotations. QUESTION: Aren’t you concerned that Abiola’s death will lead to serious upheavals in Yoruba circles? And as for General Abubakar, does Abiola’s death work for or against him? S-G: It’s true, I think it is very possible. I just spoke with General Abubakar 15 minutes ago, and he also is shocked by this development, because he had some plans in coming days for the prisoners, including Mr. Abiola. I hope that they will be able to keep the people calm. Perhaps if they manage to release the other political prisoners, it might work. But one has to be very careful, because there is the possibility that the people who supported Abiola are going to be a bit disappointed. QUESTION: I wanted to get you to say that in English—what you said to Pickering and Abubakar and what they said to you, and, as a supplementary, what effect do you think that his death might have on the transition to democracy? S-G: With Ambassador Pickering, we just exchanged views on what had happened, because they had had very constructive and useful discussions all around and then went in to see Abiola, and in a relatively short period he started having pain and had to be taken to hospital. So it was really a conversation that never took place, but I should not speak for Ambassador Pickering. I expect that when he comes out he will speak about it. And the Head of State, as I indicated, was rather shocked and downcast by what had happened, because when I saw him he was moving methodically into not only working on the release of the prisoners but also working on the pro-

452 • 7 July 1998

gramme for a peaceful, democratic and credible return to civilian rule. I encouraged him to go ahead despite the setback, and he was aware that some in the nation may be as surprised as we are about it, but there may be some agitation—hopefully not too much—and he was aware that measures have to be taken to reassure the nation, and I expect that in time he will address the nation himself. But he was a leader who was pained, a leader who was shocked by what has happened. QUESTION: What effect do you think it might have on the transition? S-G: That is difficult to say. There may be some initial unhappiness, some initial initiatives by certain groups who may not believe what has happened. But I think that down the line, the leadership and the people of Nigeria should move ahead as speedily as possible for the return to civilian rule. I think that even if Mr. Abiola had not died and had come out—of course, he had the choice of participating in the civilian elections, in the political elections and there were those who felt, of course, that he should come out and be President, it did not seem likely that that would ever happen. He would have probably had to participate in the elections if he had decided to remain in politics. And my own plea to the Government, the authorities and to the Nigerian people is that they come together and see this process through, and set a Nigerian path and bring stability, peace and eventually peace to the people of Nigeria, who have suffered so much. QUESTION: When you were in Nigeria, you met with the leaders of Liberia and Sierra Leone. They agreed in principle to accept United Nations observers on their border. Do you see that happening, and do you see any role for the United Nations in the transition to democracy in Nigeria? S-G: On the Sierra Leonean-Liberian discussions, in addition to eventually accepting observers on their border, which we will send a team to look at if the Council approves, they also decided to take steps that will strengthen their own cooperation. They agreed to ensure that no steps are taken along their border that would destabilize one Government or the other. They agreed to pay frequent visits to each other’s capital and really cooperate much more effectively. I think if the Council were to approve any proposal like that, the two Governments would accept it. They did give me that assurance. On the return to civilian rule in Nigeria, I did indicate to the Head of State that if asked we would assist with the elections, but it would have to depend on a request from the Government.

QUESTION: Will you accept a 12-month delay or any delay the Government comes up with regarding the civilian elections? What did Moshood Abiola concretely tell you about his understanding of not claiming the election result of 1993? And when you heard about the death, did you find it suspicious? Two key leaders on the Nigerian scene, heart failure, and were you given assurances by the Government that there was no foul play? S-G: First of all, the Government has ordered a post-mortem with the participation of his personal physician and the family, so I think we need to await the results of the post-mortem. Could you remind me of the other part of your question? QUESTION: How long would you accept any delay in civilian elections? S-G: I don’t think it is up to me to accept or reject. But what I advised the Government is that the transition period must be reasonable—and I would define “reasonable” as a long-enough period to give people time to organize, to prepare for the elections and to try and get as broad a participation as possible—and that the process has to be credible, has to be fair and has to be democratic. Whatever timetable, therefore, that the Government puts out has to be rational and defensible. The head of State has undertaken extensive consultations, and based on those consultations he is intending to announce a programme for transition to civilian rule. Then, of course, we will know how long that is going to take. QUESTION: When you met with Abiola, he definitely accepted the fact that he no longer had the right to claim the presidency? S-G: He did indicate that he knew that in four years the world has moved on, and that he didn’t expect to come out and automatically be made president. But I did tell him that the military had indicated that, as far as politics was concerned, he was being released unconditionally, and he could participate in subsequent elections if he wanted to.

8 July 1998 Letter (EOSG); India and Pakistan Letter to the president of the Security Council, Sergey Lavrov. Dear Mr. President, In resolution 1172 (1998), adopted on 6 June 1998, the Security Council condemned the nuclear tests by India and then Pakistan on 11 and 13 May 1998 and 28 and 30 May 1998, respectively, and set out a number of steps to be taken by the two

8 July 1998 • 453 countries. The Council requested me to report urgently on the implementation of those steps by the two countries, while welcoming my own efforts to encourage them to enter into a dialogue. Ever since India’s 11 May tests, I have been in frequent contact with the Governments of India and Pakistan at the highest levels, as well as through other channels, including their Permanent Representatives to the United Nations, by letter, telephone and personally. In these contacts, I have expressed my acute concern at the alarming consequences of these tests and urged both Governments to enter into a dialogue in order to reduce the increased tensions in the region. I have also appealed to both Governments to adhere without conditions and without delay to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and to consider freezing their nuclear weapons and missile development programmes. Furthermore, I advised India and Pakistan on my readiness to support any efforts conducive to successful negotiations on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. In the context of my ongoing efforts to encourage India and Pakistan to enter into dialogue which were welcomed by the Council in paragraph 6 of resolution 1172 (1998), Assistant SecretaryGeneral for Political Affairs Alvaro de Soto travelled to the South Asian region on 24 June carrying letters to Heads of Governments, in order to raise with them, on my behalf, the aboveexpressed concerns, as well as the possibility that I might visit the region, at the appropriate time. He visited Bangladesh, where he met Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who had recently called on the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan in New Delhi and Islamabad and with Foreign Minister Abdus Samad Azad. He subsequently conferred with Prime Minister Mohammed Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan well as Foreign Minister Gohar Ayub Khan. Finally, in Sri Lanka, host of the forthcoming summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), he was received by Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, M.P.. Regrettably, the Government of lndia did not find it possible to receive Mr. de Soto during his mission, which was concluded at the end of last week. Mr. de Soto’s contacts with regional leaders, while not as complete as would have been desirable, nevertheless confirmed my concern that the new situation which had emerged following the developments of May, compounding as it does the long-standing causes of friction between India and Pakistan, may have serious implications for peace

and security in the region and beyond and therefore needs to be addressed in earnest. It is my intention, therefore, to continue my efforts with a view to encouraging the commencement of substantive talks between the two Governments at the earliest possible date. In this connection, I have been encouraged by indications from both sides of their readiness to enter into a dialogue addressing peace and security matters and causes of tension, including Kashmir. In paragraph 15 of resolution 1172 (1998) the Security Council requested me to report urgently on the steps taken by India and Pakistan to implement that resolution. Immediately after the adoption of the resolution, in a press statement issued by the official spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs of India on 6 June and in a statement to the Security Council by the Permanent Representative of Pakistan on the same date, respectively, both Governments expressed reservations about different aspects of the resolution. But, in subsequent communications and statements, both Governments have offered suggestions relevant to various provisions of resolution 1172 (1998). Specifically, the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, addressed a letter to me on 30 June inviting my attention to a “number of proposals” made by India. On 2 July, the Permanent Representative of Pakistan wrote to me setting out in an annex “Pakistan’s position and proposals” (S/1998/605). Similar proposals were conveyed by the Acting Foreign Secretary of Pakistan to Mr. de Soto in Islamabad on 28 June. In addition, the following documents and statements are also relevant to the subject matter: Letter from the representative of the Chair of the Nuclear Suppliers Group dated 29 June Letter from the Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission for the CTBTO dated 26 June Letter from the Chairman of the Zangger Committee dated 26 June Letter from the Director-General of IAEA dated 25 June Pakistan’s press statement of 11 June Statement by India’s Ministry of External Affairs on 5 June Reply of the Prime Minister of India in discussion in Parliament on 29 May Suo Moto Statement by the Indian Prime Minister and paper presented to the Parliament on 27 May Letter from the Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the Secretary-General dated 6 July

454 • 8 July 1998

For the purpose of the report requested by the Council, the proposals and positions expressed by the two Governments and other relevant information emerging from the above-mentioned sources can be summarized as follows: Paragraph 3 of resolution 1172 (1998) demands that India and Pakistan refrain from further nuclear tests. Since the adoption of the resolution, both Governments have announced unilateral moratoriums. India has also stated its willingness to convert this moratorium into a de jure obligation. Pakistan, for its part, has indicated readiness to engage constructively with India and other members of the international community with the aim of formalizing the moratorium and reaching an agreement with India on a bilateral nuclear test ban or on a wider regional ban involving other countries in the region. With reference to paragraph 4 of the resolution, frequent firing across the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir has continued as has also the irregular warfare in the area administered by India between militants and Indian security forces. During his visit to Islamabad, Mr. de Soto was advised that in recent months there had been a significant increase in the level of hostilities as reflected in a growing number of civilian casualties. In this connexion, it can also be noted that in a letter which he addressed to me on 26 June 1998, the Permanent Representative of Pakistan referred to “the deteriorating security situation in South Asia, and particularly in Jammu and Kashmir”. In relation to paragraph 5 of the resolution, which calls on India and Pakistan to resume the dialogue between them on all outstanding issues, Prime Minister Vajpayee advised me in his letter of 30 June of his Government’s intention to pursue bilateral dialogue with Pakistan while rejecting any outside involvement as counter-productive. As for Pakistan, its Permanent Representative indicated to me in his letter dated 2 July 1998, that his Government would be ready to “engage with India and the international community to promote a process which in the first instance should accord priority to the avoidance of conflict, the promotion of nuclear and conventional restraint and stabilization between Pakistan and India, as well as the peaceful and just resolution of the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir”. Earlier, the Government of India had extended an invitation to Pakistan on 12 June 1998, to resume talks at the level of Foreign Secretaries in Delhi on 22 June 1998. On the same day, while rejecting India’s offer on the grounds that the proposed agen-

da was not acceptable, Pakistan made a counteroffer for talks to resume in Islamabad on 20 June 1998. This proposal was not acceptable to India. Subsequently, on 23 June the Prime Minister of Pakistan addressed a letter to the Prime Minister of India affirming his readiness to meet with him during the SAARC summit at Colombo, Sri Lanka at the end of July. It is my understanding, based on subsequent indications by representatives of both governments that such a meeting is likely to materialize. In paragraph 7, the Council calls on India and Pakistan to immediately stop their nuclear weapons programmes and specifies a number of steps to that effect. In this regard, India indicated in a statement issued by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee on 27 May 1998, that it would be ready to enter into discussions with Pakistan and other countries on an agreement on the “no-firstuse” of nuclear weapons. In document S/1998/605, Pakistan has recalled its proposal for a Non-Aggression Agreement, on the basis of a just settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. It suggested that, “perhaps, as a first step, the two countries could (a) solemnly reaffirm their commitment to non-use of force as prescribed by the UN Charter; (b) undertake to create transparency in military preparations and (c) discuss further CBMs, e.g. the creation of a ‘risk reduction’ centre”. While adding that “it had not declared itself a “Nuclear-Weapon State”, it indicated that it was prepared to enter into a bilateral and/or multilateral dialogue to evolve an agreement for the maintenance of strategic parity and stable deterrence between India and Pakistan, at an agreed level. It underlined that it would not accept a position of strategic inequality vis-a-vis India. Pakistan also addressed the issue of a “conventional balance” between India and Pakistan which it “considers a necessary complement for nuclear stabilization”. It expressed interest in entering “into discussions bilaterally with India and/or together with the major powers to establish new confidence-building measures, ‘command and control’ and monitoring of implementation of CBMs.” It expected the international community, particularly the five permanent members of the Security Council, to persuade India to exercise restraint and forego acquisition of sophisticated weapons systems which will further de-stabilize the situation. On the issue of weaponization, Pakistan assumed that some weaponization had already occurred. It felt that the two countries should be encouraged to restrain their build-up of warheads

8 July 1998 • 455 to the minimum and refrain from deployment of missiles. It pointed out that it could “not accept a situation of inferiority in missile capabilities”, but that it was prepared to discuss the issue of mutual restraint in the production and deployment of missiles. Paragraph 7 also raises the issue of export policies. In this context, India has confirmed, in a statement issued by the Prime Minister on 27 May 1998, its commitment to continue to observe stringent export controls on nuclear and missile related technologies as well as those relating to other weapons of mass destruction. For its part, Pakistan has declared that it has never and will not transfer sensitive technologies to other states or entities. Regarding paragraph 13, India has reiterated its known position regarding the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It stated that India’s becoming a nuclear-weapon State had been inevitable because the non-proliferation regime neither led to nuclear disarmament nor did it prevent proliferation in the region. It pointed out that it could not accept a flawed nonproliferation regime and appealed to the international community to join in re-examining the present international security regime which remained committed to the complete elimination of all nuclear weapons. India also stressed that the regime must be comprehensive, universal and nondiscriminatory and expressed support for the recent eight-nation declaration: “Towards a Nuclear-Weapon Free World: The Need for a New Agenda”. Pakistan has stated that under the circumstances it would have to rely on nuclear deterrence and stressed the importance of building comprehensive arrangements for peace and security with India including a conventional arms balance and the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. It underlined, however, that it was in favour of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. India has recalled that its decision not to subscribe to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) had been approved by its Parliament in 1996. Its perception then was that subscribing to the CTBT would severely limit its nuclear potential to an unacceptably low level. Its reservations deepened as the CTBT did not prove to carry forward the nuclear disarmament process. Pakistan has stressed that “its position on the CTBT will be shaped by an assessment and analysis of its security requirements in the context of the nuclear and conventional threat posed by India”. Concerning paragraph 14, both States have

reiterated their readiness to participate in negotiations on a convention banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT). In the framework of the Conference on Disarmament (CD), members of the G-21 to which India and Pakistan belong, have proposed that negotiations on the fissile material cut-off threat should be one element of broader negotiations on “nuclear disarmament”, i.e., an Ad Hoc Committee dealing with (a) a Convention committing all States to the elimination of nuclear weapons; (b) negotiations on the programme for nuclear disarmament; and (c) FMCT. India has also called for a global and comprehensive approach working towards adopting a Nuclear Weapons Convention in the shortest possible time. Pakistan has stressed that an FMCT should only be discussed in the CD and supports the G-21 approach. It has also sought a clarification from the five permanent members of the Security Council and those interested in the FMCT whether India would enter the talks as a nuclear or nonnuclear-weapon State bearing in mind that obligations for the two categories of states would differ. It is noted that the Conference on Disarmament, which concluded the second part of its 1998 session on 25 June, has not been able to move forward on the issue of a fissile material cut-off. Positions among States remain divided over the issue. Most Western and Eastern European States wish to see an immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty in the CD. Non-aligned countries maintain that the issue could be dealt with within the framework of an ad hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

8 July 1998 Letter (EOSG); International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Letter to the president of the Security Council, Sergey Lavrov. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to the resolution 955 (1994) of 8 November 1994, by which the Security Council established an International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law

456 • 8 July 1998

Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the International Tribunal for Rwanda”). I also have the honour to refer to Security Council resolution 1165 (1998) of 30 April 1998, by which the Council established a third Trial Chamber of the International Tribunal for Rwanda. Article 12 of the Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda, as amended by Security Council resolution 1165 (1998), provides as follows: “Qualification and Election of Judges”

“1. The judges shall be persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices. In the overall composition of the Chambers due account shall be taken of the experience of the judges in criminal law, international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights law. “2. The members of the Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’) shall also serve as the members of the Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal for Rwanda. “3. The judges of the Trial Chambers of the International Tribunal for Rwanda shall be elected by the General Assembly from a list submitted by the Security Council, in the following manner: “(a) The Secretary-General shall invite nominations for judges of the Trial Chambers from States Members of the United Nations and nonmember States maintaining permanent observer missions at United Nations Headquarters; “(b) Within thirty days of the date of the invitation of the Secretary-General, each State may nominate up to two candidates meeting the qualifications set out in paragraph 1 above, no two of whom shall be of the same nationality and neither of whom shall be of the same nationality as any judge on the Appeals Chamber; “(c) The Secretary-General shall forward the nominations received to the Security Council. From the nominations received, the Security Council shall establish a list of not less than eigh-

teen and not more than twenty-seven candidates, taking due account of adequate representation on the International Tribunal for Rwanda of the principal legal systems of the world; “(d) The President of the Security Council shall transmit the list of candidates to the President of the General Assembly. From that list, the General Assembly shall elect the nine judges of the Trial Chambers. The candidates who receive an absolute majority of the votes of the States Members of the United Nations and of the nonmember States maintaining permanent observer missions at United Nations Headquarters shall be declared elected. Should two candidates of the same nationality obtain the required majority vote, the one who received the higher number of votes shall be considered elected. “4. In the event of a vacancy in the Trial Chambers, after consultation with the Presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly, the Secretary-General shall appoint a person meeting the qualifications of paragraph 1 above, for the remainder of the term of office concerned. “5. The judges of the Trial Chambers shall be elected for a term of four years. The terms and conditions of service shall be those of the judges of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. They shall be eligible for reelection.” On 24 and 25 May 1995 the General Assembly elected the following six persons as judges of the International Tribunal for Rwanda, for terms of office to expire on 24 May 1999: Mr. Laity Kama (Senegal) Mr. Lennart Aspergren (Sweden) Mr. T. H. Khan (Bangladesh) Mr. Yakov Ostrovsky (Russian Federation) Ms. Navanethem Pillay (South Africa) Mr. William Sekule (United Republic of Tanzania). In its resolution 1165 (1998) of 30 April 1998 establishing a third Trial Chamber of the International Tribunal for Rwanda, the Security Council decided that the elections for that third Trial Chamber and for the other two Trial Chambers shall be held together. The Security Council also decided in that resolution that the terms of office of all judges elected in those elections shall expire on 24 May 2003. The Security Council further decided in that resolution, as an exceptional measure to enable the third Trial Chamber to begin to function at the

13 July 1998 • 457 earliest possible date, that three newly elected judges, designated by the Secretary-General in consultation with the President of the International Tribunal and in compliance with the requirement that none of them shall be of the same nationality as a judge who is currently serving on the Tribunal, shall commence their term of office as soon as possible following the elections. The other judges shall commence their term of office, or, if they are judges who are currently serving on the Tribunal and are reelected, commence their new term of office, on 25 May 1999. Pursuant to paragraph 3 (a) of Article 12 of the Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda, States Members of the Organization and nonmember States maintaining permanent observer missions at United Nations Headquarters were invited, by a letter dated 4 June 1998, to submit nominations for the nine judges of the three Trial Chambers of the International Tribunal for Rwanda and were informed that, within thirty days of the date of that letter, they might nominate up to two candidates meeting the qualifications set out in paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Tribunal’s Statute. They were also informed that, in accordance with Article 12 (3) (b) of the Statute, no two of the candidates so nominated might be of the same nationality and that no candidate so nominated might be of the same nationality as any judge on the Appeals Chamber. The Appeals Chamber currently comprises judges who are nationals of China, Colombia, Guyana, Malaysia and the United States of America. Accordingly, nationals of those countries may not be nominated as candidates for judges of the International Tribunal for Rwanda. I would take this opportunity to note that, pursuant to paragraph 5 of Article 12 of the Statute, the judges of the International Tribunal for Rwanda are to serve on a full-time basis and so may not engage in any other occupation of a professional nature during their term of office. Once elected to the Tribunal, they are expected to take up residence at its seat in Arusha, Tanzania. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of article 12 of the Statute, I have the honour herewith to forward to the Security Council the five nominations which have been received from States Members of the United Nations within the thirty-day period specified in Article 12 (3) (b) of that Statute. The list of candidates, in alphabetical order, is annexed to this letter, together with the curricula vitae which

have been provided in connection with their nominations. In this connection, I would draw the attention of the Security Council to paragraph 3 (d) of Article 12 of the Statute, which provides in relevant part as follows: “From the nominations received, the Security Council shall establish a list of not less than eighteen and not more than twenty-seven candidates, taking due account of adequate representation on the International Tribunal for Rwanda of the principal legal systems of the world”. I would note that the list of five candidates is short of the minimum number of eighteen which is required by paragraph 3 (c) of Article 12 of the Statute. I would accordingly suggest that the Council extend the deadline for nominations until 4 August 1998, which deadline would coincide with the deadline for nominations for judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. If the Security Council were so to extend the deadline, the Secretary-General would notify States Members of the United Nations and non-member Staters maintaining permanent observer missions at United Nations Headquarters accordingly. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. Annex List of Candidates Nominated by Governments (alphabetical order) Number Name 1 2 3 4 5

Nationality

Mr. Laity Kama Senegalese Mr. Yakov Russian Ostrovsky Ms. South African Navanethem Pillay Ms. Indira Rana Nepali Mr. William Tanzanian Sekule

Nominated by Government of Senegal Russian Federation South Africa Nepal United Republic of Tanzania

13 July 1998 Letter (EOSG); Sierra Leone Letter to the secretary-general of the Organization of African Unity, Salim Ahmed Salim. The letter was also sent to the executive secretary for the Economic Community of West African States, Lansana Kouyaté, and the member states of ECOWAS. Excellency, I am writing to invite you to participate in a

458 • 13 July 1998

high-level Special Conference on Sierra Leone to be held at United Nations Headquarters in New York on 30 July 1998. The meeting is being convened in consultation with the Government of Sierra Leone and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). It will bring together the Member States of ECOWAS and of the European Union, Members of the Security Council and a number of other United Nations Member States, the Organization of African Unity, Organization of the Islamic Conference, Commonwealth, the Bretton Woods Institutions, and relevant United Nations Departments, Agencies, and Special Programmes. The Special Conference, which will be chaired by the United Nations, will focus on issues relating to the Government’s efforts to restore peace and stability and extend its authority throughout Sierra Leone, with special consideration being given to its proposed disarmament and demobilization plan for former combatants and other peace-building measures. The peace-keeping and related activities of the Monitoring Group of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOMOG), including its need for financial and other support in order to alleviate the manpower and logistical constraints which it currently faces, will be reviewed. The Conference will also consider the humanitarian situation and plight of refugees in Liberia and Guinea. Whilst being convened as a political consultation, it is hoped that the Special Conference will result in a mobilization of resources for the issues under consideration. A draft agenda and programme of work is attached. A background paper on each of the agenda items will be prepared by the Secretariat and distributed to participants in advance of the meeting. I would like to draw your attention to the first part of the draft programme of work during which, as indicated, it would be most appreciated if a short statement could be made on behalf of the OAU. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

14 July 1998 Secretary-General Addresses Parliamentary Group in Brazil About the Growing Role of Civil Society

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6638); civil society Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the parliamentary group Parlatino, in São Paulo, Brazil. It is a pleasure to be here, and it has been a privi-

lege to visit Brazil as the first part of my journey through Latin America. In the past decade, the transformation which Latin America has undergone has provided a source of inspiration to all the world. The region has entered an era of democracy and stability, upheld by the pillars of good governance and the rule of law. It will be as much of an inspiration for the world to see the region build a future where these pillars become unshakeable. And much of the foundation for that future, I would venture, lies in people like you here today. It lies in the development of civil society, because democracy is ultimately the product, not the creator, of civil society. A strong civil society promotes responsible citizenship and makes democratic forms of government work. A weak civil society supports authoritarian rule, which keeps society weak. I know that Brazil has understood this symbiotic partnership well. Your First Lady, Ruth Cardoso, spoke eloquently about that partnership at a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) conference at the United Nations last year. She spoke of the unique role that the non-governmental, non-profit sector can play as an agent for change and as a partner in development—about the youth literacy programmes in this country financed by the private sector, undertaken by universities and supported by UNESCO, that have brought literacy to thousands of people across Brazil. As Ms. Cardoso rightly noted, “We know from experience that the State by itself cannot meet the challenges of equitable, sustainable development, and that civil society’s participation is essential.” The nature of diplomacy, too, is changing everywhere to take in civil society. Traditionally, diplomacy has been an activity conducted exclusively by State actors and a subject debated exclusively by paid experts. In the United Nations a few decades ago, the Governments of Member States were virtually the sole players in the international process; non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were seen as supporters, allies, and mobilizers of public opinion in favour of the goals and values of the United Nations Charter. There is now a growing awareness among the public that any national project is influenced by international conditions—whether these be the environment, Mercosul, intellectual property negotiations, or reform of the United Nations Security Council. And that awareness has been matched by engagement. A milestone in civil society’s engagement in

14 July 1998 • 459 intergovernmental processes was reached here in Brazil six years ago. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development at Rio became a focal point for NGOs involved in environment and sustainable development everywhere who understood that the summit agenda was their agenda. It attracted an unprecedented level of grass-roots engagement, from the preparations through the meetings to the follow-up to this day. And to this day, Rio has become the benchmark against which future conferences and summits are measured in terms of civil society response—whether it be the summit on women in Beijing, the human rights conference in Vienna, Habitat in Istanbul, the population conference in Cairo or the conference on climate change at Kyoto last December. The global information revolution has transformed civil society before our very eyes. Take the international campaign to ban landmines—the driving force behind last year’s Treaty to ban the production, stockpile, export and use of these abominable weapons. The campaign demonstrated that there are no limits to what civil society can achieve in partnership with governments. A growing awareness among ordinary people, a grassroots movement of conviction matched by courage, made governments acknowledge that the cost of landmines far outweighed the need to use them. Propelled by the demands of citizens everywhere, promoted tirelessly by regional and NGOs, the elimination of landmines became a truly global cause. How did they do it? One thousand NGOs in 60 countries were linked together by one unbending conviction and a weapon that would ultimately prove more powerful than the landmine: E-mail. Or more recently, look to the role of civil society in advocating the establishment of an effective and just international criminal court. A conference is currently under way in Rome to establish such a court, the missing link in the international legal system. In the run-up, the NGO coalition for an International Criminal Court brought together a broad-based network of hundreds of NGOs and international law experts to develop strategies and foster awareness. Again, the key to their network was E-mail and the World Wide Web. It stands to reason that the relationship between the United Nations and civil society has changed beyond all recognition. Five years ago, when I was Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping, an incident occurred in Somalia that

taught us—both in the United Nations and in the NGO community—a lesson about the importance of understanding each other well. With the United Nations Operation in Somalia came the first mandate of a peacekeeping operation to include the protection of humanitarian workers. On one occasion the NGO representatives—40 of them—decided to have a picnic on the beach at Mogadishu. When the NGO workers were attacked there, they asked for the protection of United Nations peacekeepers. The United Nations commander’s first reaction was: “Why didn’t they tell me they were going to do this?” I sometimes tell this story to illustrate a cultural gap between non-governmental organizations and the United Nations that is rapidly and happily disappearing. If the global agenda is to be properly addressed, a true partnership between NGOs and the United Nations is not an option; it is a necessity. Today, NGOs are often on the ground before the international community gives the United Nations a mandate to act. They are indispensable operators in areas ranging from demining to human rights, from health care to refugees. And they are seen not only as disseminators of public information or providers of services, but also as shapers of public policy. Yet despite the growing manifestations of an evermore robust global civil society, the United Nations has been inadequately equipped to engage it and make it a true partner in our work. And so when I took up the position of SecretaryGeneral and embarked on a quiet revolution to reform the United Nations, enhanced cooperation with NGOs formed a crucial theme in my proposals. This stemmed from a recognition that our common work will be more successful if it is supported by all concerned actors of the international community. Under the reforms I introduced last year, all substantive departments of the United Nations are designating an NGO liaison officer to facilitate access to the Organization. At the country level, where appropriate, the United Nations system is creating more opportunities for tripartite cooperation with civil society. Training programmes for United Nations staff will include a component dedicated to cooperation with civil society. This will be reflected in the curricula of the United Nations Staff College. Since taking office, I have similarly placed a high priority on building a stronger relationship with the business community, and on rebuilding

460 • 14 July 1998

private sector confidence in the United Nations. The basis for this new partnership is solid. The Organization is no longer prisoner to conflicting ideologies. We fully recognize that business is the main creator of wealth, jobs and prosperity, without which development cannot occur nor peace be sustained. That is why we have engaged in a very constructive dialogue with business groups such as the International Chamber of Commerce. And that is why we have instilled a new awareness throughout the United Nations family that working with the business community can bring benefits to all. Indeed, all United Nations agencies are searching for practical ways to translate the potential of cooperation into concrete action. One of the biggest challenges we face today is to secure an open and rule-based international economy. Markets are global, while governments remain local. National economies are becoming more and more interdependent. Our choice today is between regulatory consistency and chaos, and between spreading the benefits of globalization or reserving them for just a few. The United Nations has a keen interest in ensuring that markets remain open and that global engagement prevails over an inward-looking orientation. As I stand here in the business powerhouse of Sao Paulo—which, if it were a country, would be the twentieth biggest economy in the world—let me suggest some practical ways in which business can interact with the United Nations: First, you can make your views heard in United Nations debates, at world conferences and in the drafting of international conventions. Business was an important presence at the Rio Summit. This past April, the Commission on Sustainable Development conducted a groundbreaking dialogue among delegates from businesses, trade unions, citizens’ groups and governments. The United Nations is not just open to your participation, it needs your expertise. Second, you can cooperate on projects. This is taking various forms, a sign of great flexibility and creativity. • Some businesses see great value in advocacy. Insurance companies, for example, concerned about the cost of disasters caused by climate change. • Others, such as banks, are helping to promote investment through micro-finance projects to help poor people, especially women, start their own businesses. • Still others are focusing on “know-how”.

Information technology companies are contributing technical assistance to an automated customs system developed by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, so as to improve trade efficiency in developing countries. • And then of course there is fund-raising, as we have seen in the generosity of Ted Turner, Rotary Clubs and many others. Such generosity is easily matched in the goodwill that accrues to the company or business on the giving end. This past year, I have been hosting a series of gatherings involving eminent leaders of business and NGOs alike. And, in the year 2000, alongside the Millennium Assembly of the United Nations, civil NGOs will be holding a Millennium Forum that will provide an excellent opportunity to further cement our relationship. As we move towards the end of the decade, NGOs agendas are focusing increasingly on ways to implement the goals reached at the conferences of the 1990s. But I hope you will also continue to share with us your vigilance in identifying future needs and priorities, for in a world where change is an essential condition of life, these will continue to evolve. This changing world presents us with new challenges. Not all effects of globalization are positive; not all non-State actors are good. There has been an ominous growth in the activities of the drug-traffickers, gun-runners, money-launderers, exploiters of young people for prostitution. These forces of “uncivil society” can be combated only through global cooperation, with the help of civil society. Information technology has empowered civil society to be the true guardians of democracy and good governance everywhere. Oppressors cannot hide inside their borders any longer. A strong civil society, bound together across all borders with the help of modern communications, will not let them. In a sense, it has become the new super-Power— the peoples determined to promote better standards of life in larger freedom. Every movement starts somewhere—usually from scratch. There are no limits to what the campaigns of tomorrow can achieve—campaigns not yet born, for causes not yet articulated, championed by hearts and minds still being formed. And it is often those single-minded enough to believe their mission to be the most important, who are also likely to make it the most successful.

16 July 1998 Letter (UN archives); Tajikistan

18 July 1998 • 461 Letter from the Secretary-General to the minister of foreign affairs of Tajikistan, Talbak Nazarov. Excellency, Thank you very much for your kind letter of 11 July 1998. I was pleased to learn that your Government is satisfied with the results of the recent visit to your country by Under-SecretaryGeneral for Humanitarian Affairs Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello. Upon his return, Mr. Vieira de Mello reported to me his findings and his recommendations on further actions that the United Nations could undertake to provide tangible support for Tajikistan at this critical juncture in the peace process. In this regard, I should like to urge you not to spare any effort in widening and consolidating this process. From our side, I can assure you that the United Nations, and I personally, will continue to do everything in our power to assist you in this and to enlist the efforts of the international community in supporting peace and reconciliation in Tajikistan. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

18 July 1998 Secretary-General Speaks at Ceremony Celebrating the Adoption of the Internationl Criminal Court

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6643, L/2891); International Criminal Court Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at a ceremony held at the Campidoglio in Rome, celebrating the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court at a United Nations diplomatic conference held the previous day. This is indeed a historic moment. Two millenniums ago, one of this city’s most famous sons, Marcus Tullius Cicero, declared that “in the midst of arms, law stands mute”. As a result of what we are doing here today, there is real hope that that bleak statement will be less true in the future than it has been in the past. Until now, when powerful men committed crimes against humanity, they knew that, as long as they remained powerful, no earthly court could judge them. Even when they were judged—as happily some of the worst criminals were in 1945—they could claim that this is happening only because others have proved more powerful, and so are able to sit in judgment over them. Verdicts intended to

uphold the rights of the weak and helpless can be impugned as “victors’ justice”. Such accusations can also be made, however unjustly, when courts are set up only ad hoc, like the Tribunals in The Hague and in Arusha, to deal with crimes committed in specific conflicts or by specific regimes. Such procedures seem to imply that the same crimes, committed by different people, or at different times and places, will go unpunished. Now at last, thanks to the hard work of the States that participated in the United Nations Conference over the last five weeks—and indeed for many more months before that—we shall have a permanent court to judge the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Other crimes, wherever and whenever they may be committed, may be included in the future. The crime of aggression is already mentioned in the Statute. For the United Nations, this decision has special significance. We never forget that our Organization has its origins in a global struggle against regimes which were guilty of mass murder on a horrendous scale. And unhappily, we have had to deal all too recently, in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, with new crimes of the same appalling nature, if not quite of the same magnitude. By adopting this Statute, participants in the Conference have overcome many legal and political problems, which kept this question on the United Nations agenda almost throughout the Organization’s history. No doubt, many of us would have liked a Court vested with even more far-reaching powers, but that should not lead us to minimize the breakthrough you have achieved. The establishment of the Court is still a gift of hope to future generations, and a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law. It is an achievement which, only a few years ago, nobody would have thought possible. It, therefore, gives me great pleasure to be here in person; to place in your custody the Final Act of the Conference; and to transmit to you the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted yesterday. From now on, the Statute will bear the name of this Eternal City, in fitting tribute to the people of Rome and of Italy who have hosted this Conference, and to their Government which worked tirelessly for its successful conclusion. The Statute was opened yesterday for signa-

462 • 18 July 1998

ture. Some States have already signed it, and more will do so during this ceremony. It will remain in your hands until 17 October 1998. After that it will be deposited with me, as Secretary-General of the United Nations, and will stay open for signature in New York until 31 December 2000. It is my fervent hope that by then a large majority of United Nations Member States will have signed and ratified it, so that the Court will have unquestioned authority and the widest possible jurisdiction.

20 July 1998 Letter (UN archives); Rwanda Note from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

French Parliamentary Information Mission on Rwanda

1. Ambassador Dejammet came to see me this morning with a request that you meet with two members of a French Parliamentary Information Mission on Rwanda in New York on Monday, 27 July. (They would be accompanied by two parliamentary officials.) 2. Ambassador Dejammet stressed, at length, that this mission is not undertaking an investigation and will not issue a report or quote anything from its meetings. Rather, its members wish to “inform themselves” and to know that your reaction to the French inquiry is positive. He stated that meeting with them would be a “gesture of courtesy”. 3. The two Deputies also have requested to meet with other UN officials, and Ambassador Dejammet has suggested that Mr. Annabi and I meet with them on Friday, 24 July. 4. Finally, the Parliamentary Mission has requested that the UN forward a questionnaire to General Dallaire. 5. I am consulting OLA on this matter. In the meantime, you may wish to agree to a courtesy visit (i.e. not substantive) by the two Deputies. Thank you.

21 July 1998 Secretary-General Encourages Cambodians to Vote Freely in Upcoming Elections

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6645); Cambodia

As Cambodians prepare to participate on 26 July in national elections in order to choose the members of a new National Assembly and select a government representative of their will, the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations wishes to add his voice to that of His Majesty King Norodom Sihanouk in encouraging the Cambodian people to vote freely according to their own conscience. The Secretary-General has confidence in the secrecy of the voting process and wishes to convey to the Cambodian people that they have the full support of the United Nations and the international community, as they exercise this most important political right. He keenly hopes that the democratic aspirations of the Cambodian people can be fully realized through the holding of truly free and fair elections.

26 July 1998 Amidst Arms, Law is No Longer Mute

Op-ed (OSSG); International Criminal Court Article by the Secretary-General that appeared in The Observer. When is a truce not a truce? Saturday, 18 July, was indeed a historic day. Standing in the Campidoglio in Rome, it was my privilege to hand over to the Italian government the statute of the future International Criminal Court. Two millennia ago, one of the most famous of all Romans, Marcus Tullius Cicero, declared that “in the midst of arms, law stands mute”. From Cicero’s time to our own, his bleak statement has largely held true. But in the future it should be less true than in the past. Until now, when powerful men committed crimes against humanity, they knew that so long as they remained powerful no earthly court could judge them. Even when they were judged as some of the worst criminals were in 1945 they could claim this was happening only because others had proved more powerful. Verdicts intended to uphold the rights of the weak can be impugned as “victors’ justice”. Such accusations can also be made, however unjustly, when courts are set up ad hoc, like the tribunals in The Hague and in Arusha, to deal with crimes committed in specific conflicts or by specific regimes. That is better than nothing, but such arrangements can be taken by some to imply that the same crimes, committed by different people or at different times, will go unpunished. Now at last, we shall have a permanent court to judge those accused of genocide and other comparable crimes, wherever and whenever they may be committed. For the United Nations, this is especially important. Our organisation was found-

29 July 1998 • 463 ed as part of a global struggle against regimes guilty of mass murder on a horrendous scale. In Bosnia and Rwanda, we have had to deal all too recently with new crimes of the same appalling nature. Many of us would have liked a court with more far-reaching powers, and for it to enjoy the full support of all the great powers from inception. But in time, even those who have misgivings will come to realise the value of this great new instrument of international justice. Meanwhile, let us not minimise the breakthrough which has been achieved. The court will have its own independent prosecutor, not beholden to any state, however powerful. It should serve the overriding interest of the victims, and of the international community as a whole. In this year of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we have taken a monumental step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law. It is a gift of hope to future generations. May it serve mankind well.

27 July 1998 Secretary-General Sends Special Envoy to Assess Situation in Angola

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6654); Angola In view of the present impasse of the peace process in Angola, the Secretary-General has decided to send Lakhdar Brahimi (Algeria) to Angola as his Special Envoy. Mr. Brahimi will assess the various aspects of the situation in Angola and advise him on the possible course of action. In this context, Mr. Brahimi will, on the Secretary-General’s behalf, urge the Government and, in particular, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), to desist from any action which would undermine the peace process and to resume negotiations without delay in order to fully and expeditiously implement the remaining provisions of the Lusaka Protocol. He will also make recommendations about the future presence of the United Nations in Angola. After his initial round of consultations, Mr. Brahimi is expected to visit some States of the region. Mr. Brahimi intends to arrive in Angola over the coming weekend.

29 July 1998 Secretary-General Says Structural and Operational Cooperation Needed for Conflict Prevention

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6658); regional organizations

Summary of the Secretary-General’s statement at the concluding session of the 3rd high-level meeting between the UN and regional organizations. I am very pleased that this third high-level meeting between the United Nations and regional organizations has successfully taken place at United Nations Headquarters. I am also gratified by the positive response to my invitation as reflected by your active participation here. I further welcome your support for my proposal to discuss “Cooperation for Conflict Prevention” as the theme of this meeting, and the constructive spirit of dialogue that took place here. I will now try to summarize my understanding of the discussions at this meeting and highlight some of the main points that appeared particularly significant to me. The first two meetings held in 1994 and 1996 focused on general principles and modalities to guide cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations in the field of international peace and security. Based on the understandings reached at the previous two meetings, this meeting examined the potential for greater interaction and cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations in the field of conflict prevention, within the framework of the United Nations Charter and the mandates of regional organizations. In particular, we discussed the challenge of conflict prevention, reviewed how the United Nations and regional organizations are responding to meet this challenge, and identified areas of possible future interaction and collaboration in this area. In an era when the principal threat to human security is increasingly coming from new and more diverse forms of conflicts, the challenge of conflict prevention goes to the very heart of the shared mission of the United Nations and regional organizations. To meet this challenge, the critical need to develop a culture of prevention and specific forms of action and interaction in this field was recognized. To this end, two distinct categories of cooperation were noted. First, we looked at “structural prevention”, namely, the need to address the economic, social, ethnic and other root causes of conflict, and to promote greater respect for human rights, maintenance of the rule of law and strengthening of democratic institutions. Then, we discussed “operational prevention”, which encompasses the traditional forms of conflict prevention and “early warning”. In this context, it was noted that prevention is a continuum that ranges from early warning, through preventive diplomacy, pre-

464 • 29 July 1998

ventive disarmament (particularly of small arms), preventive deployment, and on to peace-building, both before and after conflicts. It was further recognized that the United Nations and the regional organizations possess various strengths and capabilities in the area of conflict prevention, and the focus should now be on how these organizations can work together to achieve greater complementarity as mutually reinforcing institutions, making use of their comparative advantages. Since the United Nations and some regional organizations have recently established new mechanisms for early warning and conflict prevention, there is an increasing need to share experiences in this field. It was particularly noted that the key to conflict prevention lies with Member States and their support for early external involvement to defuse disputes and crises. In this regard, the value of a “rule based” approach to prevention was underscored, as it makes the efforts for avoiding conflicts more effective, as well as more acceptable to the international community. This can be helpful in developing a culture of prevention, thereby overcoming the reluctance of some governments to accept outside help on grounds of sovereignty. In this connection, several speakers emphasized the importance of mobilizing public opinion in support of increased efforts in the field of conflict prevention. The United Nations and regional organizations affirmed their common commitment to developing specific modalities for more effective cooperation in the field of conflict prevention that are practical and implementable. Everyone present placed great emphasis on the need to make this a reality by ensuring practical follow-up to this meeting. While recognizing that no single model of cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations will cover all eventualities, various possible modalities for cooperation were considered, including measures for more regular consultation at the headquarters level, including in the context of early warning; more systematic coordination of preventive activities in the field, including joint missions, as appropriate; the development of common indicators for early warning; the establishment of a database of the conflict prevention capabilities of the United Nations and regional organizations; better flows of information; exchange of liaison officers; visits of staff at working level between the different headquarters; joint training of staff in the field of prevention; building specific links to civil society (including the media

and professional groups) to increase awareness of the value of prevention; and similar measures to be determined on a case-by-case basis. In this context, the need for mobilizing effective resources for early warning and preventive activities was stressed. One possible means of follow-up would be for working level meetings of the staff of the United Nations and regional organizations to be convened to develop further the modalities for interaction and collaboration that were discussed at this meeting. The United Nations will be prepared to convene the first such meeting before the end of this year. The value of periodic high-level meetings between the United Nations and regional organizations was also recognized and it was agreed that such meetings should continue to be convened in the future. I very much hope that this summary has captured the essence of our meeting, and I would welcome your observations.

29 July 1998 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6656) SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We have just held a successful third high-level meeting between the United Nations and regional organizations, with the active participation of a large number of regional organizations and their senior representatives. I trust that you have seen by now the concluding statement which I made at the last session. I will now try to highlight for you some of the main points that appeared particularly significant to me. The meeting examined the potential for interaction and cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations in the field of conflict prevention. In particular, we discussed the challenge of conflict prevention: we viewed how the United Nations and regional organizations are responding to meet this challenge and identified possible areas of future interaction and cooperation in this area. We all felt that the challenge of conflict prevention goes to the very heart of our shared mission. There was wide recognition of the critical need to develop a culture of prevention and specific forms of action and interaction. We discussed how our organizations can work together to achieve complementarity and share experience in this field. We also agreed that the key to conflict prevention lies with the Member States and their sup-

29 July 1998 • 465 port for early external involvement to defuse disputes and crises. Everyone present agreed that great emphasis needs to be put on how we develop specific modalities and more effective cooperation in the field of conflict prevention that are practical and implementable. They also stressed that we need to ensure practical follow-up of the meeting, and we are going to have a working-level meeting before the end of the year to follow up on some of the things we discussed this morning. I am very pleased that there is a genuine will to cooperate and that we are going to hopefully see an improved relationship between the United Nations and regional organizations. I will now take your questions. QUESTION: On questions of follow-up, specifically what measures will be required for a successful follow-up? S-G: I think what we have decided to do is to organize a working-level meeting for them to really look at the decisions we took and to determine what next steps ought to be taken. There are certain areas in which we are already working and which we can continue to enhance—exchange of information, for example. In the room we discussed Kosovo, and I asked who is in touch with whom, what information are they sharing and who is in daily contact with each other. So in some areas things are happening already. What we are trying to do is to enhance that cooperation. QUESTION: What would you, or the United Nations, do to avoid the situation where the United Nations is being blamed for putting too much or too little into conflict prevention and peacekeeping? The second question is, three weeks ago we saw the World Health Organization (WHO) report which said that there is a lack of preparation for people going on the spot, before going. And yesterday the Spokesman said that the civilian population [in casualties] this year has surpassed for the first time the military and the police staff. Does the United Nations itself share a responsibility for avoiding such tragedies? S-G: I think you have raised a very good question. Let me start with the first part: What should the United Nations do to avoid being blamed for failure—either non-intervention or interventions which are not effective? I do not know how long you have been in this building, but you are going to discover very soon that whenever there is a crisis and there is a demand that something needs to be done, that something ends up here at the United Nations and with the

Secretariat. I think that what is important—and I think the Council has begun to do this—is to look at the mandates of some of these peace operations very carefully, and not only look at the mandates carefully, but we should be given the resources which match the task. We should also do very serious analysis as to the nature of the crisis and how it is likely to develop, and, above all, assess critically the threat and risk factors involved. We have seen situations where some governments have been reluctant to put in soldiers because they feel it would be risky. But the aid workers, the humanitarian workers—the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Red Cross—are on the ground, doing what they have to do. And in some cases they have paid the ultimate price. I think it is also important, apart from having the tools and resources necessary, that we should really get the message out that attacking peacekeepers, attacking aid workers is a very serious and heinous crime, and that the international community will take whatever action it can to deal with those responsible. And this is an issue that came up in Rome when they were discussing the establishment of a criminal court. On the question of United Nations blame, obviously one can train some of the staff before they go to the field. Courses are now being offered to prepare people before they go to the field. Some are outside the humanitarian agencies; others are being organized. In fact, three weeks ago I was invited to go and open a course at Hunter College organized by Kevin Cahill, who is a former state health commissioner. This is a course that is being organized with Hunter and the University of Dublin; several of our staff, particularly from UNHCR and others, have participated in that course. But I have asked for a review of this whole situation, which I intend to discuss with the Security Council. Of course, some judgements will have to be made as to what risks we should take in order to assist. And, in some of these difficult situations, are the risks worth the benefits, or should we reconsider our whole approach? I am really concerned about the level of casualties that we have taken this year. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, under your leadership the United Nations is in the process of being reorganized. Some of the regional organizations, like the Organization of American States (OAS), have the legacy of the World War. Don’t you feel that those organizations should proceed in

466 • 29 July 1998

step with the United Nations, trying to reorganize themselves instead of. . . S-G: I don’t know about the specific situation of the Organization of American States, but some of the regional organizations are taking a critical look at themselves. I can only agree with you that it is healthy for organizations to look at themselves periodically to see what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong, and to ask the questions, “What should we be doing? What should our business be?” and not what our business is. I can only agree with you that organizations should periodically go through this sort of questioning, restructuring and reform for them to remain effective and relevant. QUESTION: On Angola, there have been a number of reports over the last couple of days that some of Angola’s neighbours are prepared to support the Government militarily in its fight against the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA). Do you have any indication that that is true? And will Ambassador Brahimi be visiting some of Angola’s neighbours as well to sort of try and urge them to stay out of it? S-G: I have seen some of the reports, but I have no confirmation that it is indeed true. I will be talking to some of the leaders in the region. Mr. Brahimi will not only visit Angola to talk to President dos Santos and Dr. Savimbi; he will visit the neighbouring countries as well. And then when he comes back we will reassess the situation further. QUESTION: What is your assessment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iraq’s nuclear capabilities? Apparently, Iraq and the United States disagree. I don’t know how that is possible, but what is your assessment? S-G: You are surprised, are you? Let me say that this is an issue that the Council is going to take up, and I would not want to prejudge what the Council will decide. But I think the report seems to be clear that, even though Iraq has not been forthcoming in all the areas that they would like it to be forthcoming in, they do not believe it has the capability now—that it possesses nuclear capability now. Although, as I indicated, the talent may still be there for them to reactivate this in the future. But I think I will leave the Council to tackle that issue; those decisions belong to them. QUESTION: Do you fear a deterioration in the agreement you worked out if sanctions are not lifted by October, though, because of this report and the subsequent. . . S-G: There have been a couple of major

events, like the VX that was found on the missile; the letter Mr. Butler [Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM)] wrote to the Council about the piece of document which was not handed over to them. And Mr. Butler himself should be in Baghdad next week to have further discussions with them. I think we will have a better sense of what is going on when he comes back. I think we also have to be quite clear on one thing: the agreement I reached with the Iraqi authorities was not designed to solve all problems and eliminate all conflicts between UNSCOM and Iraq, or the United Nations and Iraq. It was about access, to remove the impediments for the inspectors, and for them to gain access, principally to the presidential sites—which they did, and they have gone beyond. And Mr. Butler himself has indicated that access has not been the problem. But it was not intended to resolve all problems. QUESTION: It is one full year now since you announced the set of United Nations reform proposals. Are you satisfied with the way reforms have gone? And how would you assess the situation of the Organization now as compared to a year ago? S-G: I think we have made considerable progress since we initiated the reform process, and quite a lot has been achieved. There are areas where we are still in discussions with Member States—some critical areas: the “sunset” clause, where apparently, I understand, the Member States don’t want the word “sunset”. They came up with a different expression: they prefer “time-limit” clauses, and not “sunset” clauses. That is still being discussed. We are also looking at the change in the budget: the question of switching to resource-based budgeting, which is also going to take time. And of course we are having final discussions on the Millennium Summit, which I expect to go forward. But on most of the organizational and administrative and efficiency projects, I think we have moved ahead quite nicely. And of course Security Council reform is something which is on everybody’s mind, but the Member States will have to decide. QUESTION: Specifically on United Nations management: are you satisfied with the progress in United Nations management? S-G: I think we have made considerable progress, yes. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, in terms of the report published today in the Financial Times

29 July 1998 • 467 about the allegations against UNHCR, how do you perceive them? What plans do you have in terms of taking it forward in the light of the fact that Scandinavian countries and Britain have already expressed grave concerns about possible financial misdoings in terms of confidence in Mrs. Ogata? S-G: First of all, I have not received the report of the auditors, as you perhaps were informed this morning. The report was mainly based on the preliminary report of the auditors, and usually this preliminary report goes through various redrafts following responses and questions posed to the organization concerned. I have spoken to Mrs. Ogata about this issue this morning—as you know, she is in New York—and I have asked for additional information from UNHCR, which I hope to receive very shortly. What I can say is that Mrs. Ogata in a very difficult period has done very well and provided good leadership to the organization, which has more or less doubled since she took over. So I have confidence in what she has done and what she is trying to do with the organization, but I will need to look at all the papers and the facts when I receive them before I enter into the details you are trying to draw me into. QUESTION: It’s a two-part question. . . S-G: We have eight questions and nine minutes. Make it a one-part question. QUESTION: It comes out of your meeting with Prime Minister Guterres of Portugal yesterday. The first is on the question of East Timor. He essentially, as I understand it, asked you to push the Indonesians to agree to a negotiation process without preconditions. Up until now, they have always said they want the issue of sovereignty resolved before they are prepared to discuss other things. Are you prepared to ask the Indonesians to do that? S-G: Well, first of all, the Prime Minister did not ask me that in specific terms. I am the one who has been asking the parties to show some flexibility so that we can move forward and make some progress. I am hoping that when we meet next week they will show the required flexibility so that we can make some progress. I think there has been a shift in the position of the Indonesian Government, and we will see what happens next week. QUESTION: Do you detect a shift in the position of the Portuguese Government? S-G: I am not unhappy with the position of the Portuguese Government at this stage. QUESTION: Just for a second, back to the regional organizations. To what level could you

agree with the kind of competition among them, regarding the Kosovo conflict, for example? In my opinion, it is a real inflation of recipes that are created through, let’s say, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Western European Union, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and maybe some others. S-G: This is an issue we discussed quite frankly at the meeting, that we should really understand that each of us has a comparative advantage and we should really work on the basis of complementarity and subsidiarity, and that in certain situations the advantage may belong to a subregional organization, a regional organization or the United Nations, and we should really let the organization with the best capabilities take the lead. I agree with you that one has to be concerned in situations where you have a multiplicity of mediators. That in itself can create confusion. The problem is not that there are many organizations, or several organizations, operating in a specific crisis. The important thing is that they be coordinated and they share information, and that there is a clear division of labour as to who is doing what. The High Commissioner for Refugees knows its role on the ground, the human rights people should know that NATO is doing military and contingency planning and the Contact Group is handling the negotiations. I can understand why, when one looks at it, there seem to be so many players, and in the end you wonder who is doing what, but there may be some logic to it that is not apparent. This is what I can share with you. QUESTION: Quick question on Sierra Leone between today’s meeting and tomorrow’s meeting. There has been a successful, obviously, African operation there. The Government has been restored, but now we run into the problem of continued human rights abuses and terrorism, basically, on the part of the rebels. Is there any discussion in some of these groups—many of them do not want to go beyond restoring order, but when it comes to stamping out the kind of violence that is simply going to create another round of civil war—in general, where do you think you stand now in Sierra Leone? S-G: I think in fact the meeting did discuss a structural adjustment that will consolidate peace and really allow governments to establish good government and rule-based government. On Sierra Leone we do have some problems. There is still some fighting going on. I spoke to the President this morning, and, as you know, the Nigerian authorities have flown Foday Sankoh [leader of

468 • 29 July 1998

the Revolutionary United Front] back to Sierra Leone, and I was told by the President that when he arrived, he appealed to his supporters to stop the killing, to stop maiming people, and that he had not asked them to do that and that it was not in the national interest. Will this hold or not? I also discussed with the President the question of those on trial and the fact that it was important to ensure due process. We are hoping that tomorrow’s meeting not only will focus on raising funds for demobilization and reintegration but will go beyond, to the reconstruction stage and really prepare the ground for the international community to assist Sierra Leone to reconstruct and rebuild its society and establish its institutions. But what I am pleased about is that at the meeting with the regional organizations this issue came up, and the need for us really to be aware of the importance of structural adjustments that will help consolidate peace. QUESTION: To go back to the issue of staff security, as you noted, the United Nations has been sending humanitarian workers into areas where Member States refuse to send in soldiers. Do you anticipate a situation where the United Nations might say, “No, we can’t send humanitarian workers into this area regardless of the crisis, it is too dangerous”? S-G: No, I think we should. In fact, the review I have asked for could lead to putting us in that situation. Take Afghanistan, for example, where the international community has pulled back drastically. We have also cut back our activities, maintaining life-sustaining activities only. But I think that you have raised a question here where not only should we say, “It’s too dangerous, we are not going in”, but we should also be able to say that it has become too dangerous for us to operate and to be effective; it has become too dangerous for us to risk that many staff, and it is not worth the effort. We should be able to do that, yes. QUESTION: How do you view the reluctance of some countries—including my own, Norway—to continue to supply troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations? S-G: I think by that you are referring to the Norwegian decision to draw down its troops in southern Lebanon—the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)? Well, I think there may be different reasons why governments may not want to participate in one particular operation or the other, and the reasons differ. In some cases it may be the sense that this is too far away from our concerns, as we don’t want to get involved. In

some situations, it may be that the government feels that we have devoted so much in time and resources to the crisis and we don’t think it’s making any difference, and therefore we are going to withdraw. For others, the risk factor—they don’t want to take the risk of having casualties come back. And there may be other reasons. QUESTION: A question on Algeria. The panel of eminent persons is still in the country gathering information, and tragically, the killing continues in Algeria. In the end, what do you hope this exercise will achieve? What will they achieve? S-G: I really cannot say until they come back with their report. I hope that the fact that they are there would be the beginning of a new opening. I hope that, by being able to talk to people and travel freely and report on the situation—and, as I have indicated, I will make their report public—it will help the situation in Algeria. But I cannot tell you what the report will contain until they complete their work and give me their report. QUESTION: What is your reaction to the elections in Cambodia, particularly the charges of electoral fraud? S-G: Yes, I have read those charges. I think the observers did indicate that there were some problems and some difficulties, but by and large the assessment coming out of the international observers is that it was reasonably free and fair. QUESTION: On Lockerbie, obviously, with heads of regional organizations present here—the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in particular and the Arab League—did you have the chance to discuss with them the latest developments, particularly that the United States and the United Kingdom seem to be ready to explore the possibility of having the trial held in The Hague, and how do you see the formalities of such an agreement? Would you then personally be involved and do you see them turning over the suspects before they become accused? Can you share with us in some detail how you see this playing out, given the new developments? S-G: Let me first of all say that I have not had time yet to discuss with the head of the OAU and the League of Arab States representative. I will be seeing them later; yesterday and today were devoted to the group meetings, and I will see some of them later. Secondly, no concrete understanding has emerged yet as to what will eventually happen to the trial of the Lockerbie two. Discussions are still going on, and when decisions are made or understandings are reached, I will then determine what

30 July 1998 • 469 role the United Nations has to play and what specifically the Secretary-General can do to facilitate the implementation of the Council decisions and the trial.

29 July 1998 Secretary-General Expresses Concern over Standoff in Myanmar

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6657); Myanmar The Secretary-General is aware of the statement issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, regarding the standoff in Myanmar involving Aung San Suu Kyi. He shares her concern regarding this matter and hopes her appeal will be heeded. The Secretariat has been in touch with the Myanmar authorities, and in particular has requested that a visit by his Envoy, Alvaro de Soto, be scheduled at an appropriate date in the not-too-distant future.

30 July 1998 Letter (UN archives); UN reform Memo from the Secretary-General’s special adviser, John Ruggie. The General Assembly decided this afternoon to “continue consideration” of your proposal to initiate time limits on new mandates at the 53rd Session. We made some progress among G77 countries, but not enough. We did manage to prevent the item from being sent to CPC, ACABQ and the 5th Committee, and to keep it at the level of the plenary, where we can fight the battle another day. I’m sorry that we couldn’t achieve more.

30 July 1998 Secretary-General Speaks to Special Conference on Sierra Leone

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6659, AFR/85); Sierra Leone Opening address delivered by the SecretaryGeneral to the Special Conference on Sierra Leone. I am very pleased to greet all the participants of this Special Conference on Sierra Leone. I decided to convene this Conference in consultation with the Government of Sierra Leone and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and I am deeply gratified to see how many of you

have gathered to help give Sierra Leone a new start, and a new promise for a better future. Allow me to begin by expressing my particular pleasure at seeing President Kabbah here with us today, proudly representing his country and our most profound hopes for a democratic, peaceful and prosperous future for Sierra Leone. Indeed, we all have cause to celebrate the return of President Kabbah to office on 10 March of this year as a repudiation of those practices of the past that must be repudiated if lasting peace is to be achieved. Already, President Kabbah’s Government has taken a number of steps to combat the effects of nine months of ruinous and brutal misrule by the illegal military junta. The Government has sought to restore secure conditions throughout the country, to re-establish effective administration and restart the democratic process. Beyond these immediate steps, President Kabbah has also sought to lay a new and lasting foundation for national reconciliation, reconstruction and rehabilitation. We all know that these are tremendous challenges for any people, and that the benefits of peace in some cases will only appear in the long run, as a result of a disciplined and sustained process of national reconstruction. More immediate, however, is the challenge of establishing genuine peace and security throughout the country. ECOWAS and its peace-keeping force Economic Community of West African States’ Monitoring Observer Group (ECOMOG) played an important role in assisting Sierra Leone’s efforts to oust the junta, restore democratic order and re-establish basic security. Despite the progress which has been made towards restoring complete, nation-wide security by ECOMOG with the support of the national forces, the remnants of the ousted junta and the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) are continuing to resist the Government’s authority. In this fighting, horrific attacks have been carried out against civilians, including children, that shame all humanity. Since last March, 500 victims of mutilations including amputations have been admitted to hospitals. And they may be the lucky ones. It has been estimated that for every one victim able to attain assistance, four or five civilians have died or remain in the bush terrified of meeting another human being. I call, therefore, in the strongest terms, on the remaining forces of the junta and RUF to respond to the appeals of the Government and the international community to lay down their arms without

470 • 30 July 1998

further delay. The people of Sierra Leone have suffered too much for too long for the killing and wanton destruction to continue. Those responsible for the atrocities and other gross violations of human rights will in time be brought to justice, but for all others, this is the time to put the past behind them and put the future first, and to join in the process of national reconciliation. The long years of fighting have shown that no one, truly no one, gains from war, but that a genuine peace, supported by legitimate, representative and uncorrupt Government can bring benefits to all. To this end, the Government of Sierra Leone has recently adopted a comprehensive plan for the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration into society, of former combatants. From Bosnia to Cambodia to West Africa, the United Nations has learned that the challenge of reintegrating former combatants, of giving them a stake in peace instead of war, is a central condition of achieving lasting progress. I welcome, therefore, the Government’s initiative and would like to commend the World Bank, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and donor countries for their close cooperation with the Government in developing this important programme. They have recognized that to ensure lasting gains, the long-term roots of conflict— especially poverty—must be addressed as well. Of all the groups that have suffered from Sierra Leone’s years of conflict, it is the children who will bear the scars the longest and for whom, ultimately, we seek this new beginning for Sierra Leone. To an appalling degree, it was children who were, and still are, the victims of war, either as conscripted fighters or as casualties of indiscriminate attacks. I am particularly encouraged, therefore, by the Government’s decision to offer an amnesty for child soldiers from all combatant groups. The efforts to develop a national programme to meet the needs of children who have been particularly adversely affected by the seven years of conflict is a further step in the right direction. All the many pillars on which we will found a safer, more just and more promising future for Sierra Leone will stand only if we can put an end to the fighting and violence that still torments the people of Sierra Leone. It is, therefore, with great satisfaction that I welcomed the recent authorization by the Security Council of the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL).

I am deeply grateful to those countries which have already indicated their willingness to contribute military personnel. UNOMSIL will work in close cooperation with ECOMOG in its principal tasks of monitoring the disarmament and demobilization process, assessing the security situation and reporting on both the military situation and human rights. I was recently able to assess first-hand the improved prospect for peace and mutual confidence in the region, during the meeting I cochaired, with President Abubakar of Nigeria, in Abuja, between Presidents Kabbah and Taylor. Already, the meeting has borne fruit with the visit by President Kabbah to Monrovia on 20 July during which further talks were held on issues relating to the security of the entire sub-region, including Sierra Leone and Liberia. These are, however, early days, and further follow-up in terms of genuine commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes is needed if the effects of the war are to be reversed. To this day, the flow of arms into Sierra Leone continues and all parties—particularly neighbouring countries— must do what they can to stop it if the peace is to last. Sierra Leone today is faced with enormous military, political, humanitarian and developmental challenges. There is no denying or diminishing the obstacles of violence, corruption and hatred that must be overcome if peace is to endure. That is why I convened this Special Conference—to focus international attention on the situation and to ensure that we attack the problems with a collective unity of purpose. Today I have outlined some of those measures, but let me conclude by recalling that when I addressed the Organization of African Unity (OAU) last year, shortly after President Kabbah was overthrown, I said that Sierra Leone would be a key test of whether Africa truly had turned its back on the tyrannical ways of the past. Though we may have hoped for it, few of us then would have predicted that within just one year, President Kabbah’s democratically elected Government would be restored to office. It is a genuine achievement in which all can take pride. But now the weight of history and of responsibility is on his and our shoulders. In Sierra Leone, in Liberia, in Nigeria and in other parts of Africa, there have been too many false starts, too many broken promises of democracy, too many pledges of incorrupt rule violated for us to expect the people to believe in what they

31 July 1998 • 471 have yet to see with their own eyes. Is this the time we say enough? Is this the time where elected leaders honour their mandate, serve the people and begin anew? Sierra Leone must show us that it is.

31 July 1998 Letter (UN archives); Cambodia/human rights Letter from the Secretary-General to the president of the General Assembly, Hennadiy Udovenko. Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to resolution 52/135 by which the General Assembly, recognizing that the most serious human rights violations in Cambodia in recent history have been committed by the Khmer Rouge, noted with concern that no Khmer Rouge leader has been brought to account for his crimes. Both this resolution and resolution 1997/49 of the Commission on Human Rights requested me, in collaboration with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to examine the request by the Cambodian authorities for assistance in responding to past serious violations of Cambodian and international law, including the possibility of appointing a group of experts to evaluate the existing evidence and propose further measures, as a means of bringing about national reconciliation, strengthening democracy and addressing the issue of individual accountability. I wish to inform you that, in accordance with these resolutions, I have decided to establish a Group of Experts, composed of three eminent jurists with the following mandate: (a) to evaluate the existing evidence with a view to determining the nature of the crimes committed by Khmer Rouge leaders in the years 1975–1979; (b) to assess, after consultation with the Governments concerned, the feasibility of bringing Khmer Rouge leaders to justice, their apprehension, detention, and extradition or surrender to the criminal jurisdiction established; and (c) to explore options for bringing to justice Khmer Rouge leaders before an international or national jurisdiction. I have appointed the following persons as members of the Group of Experts: Sir Ninian Stephen (Australia) who will be the Chairman of the Group, Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah (Mauritius), and Professor Stephen Ratner (U.S.A.). Substantive and technical servicing of the Group of Experts will be provided by the Office of

the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Office of Legal Affairs. The Group will be based in Geneva and shall travel, as may be necessary, to New York and Cambodia. As soon as the necessary financial arrangements are made, members of the Group will have their first meeting in New York for briefing by the UN Departments and Offices concerned. In this connection, I have requested the Cambodian authorities to fully cooperate with the Group in the accomplishment of its mandate, to facilitate its work, observe the privileges and immunities of members of the Group and its support staff according to the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, and respond positively to the Group’s requests for security, communications and transportation arrangements. In particular, the Group shall have freedom of movement within the territory of Cambodia to carry out its mandate. It shall have free access to official archives, sites, establishments and sources of information it considers relevant, useful and reliable, and shall have the freedom to interview any person it judges necessary. Upon completion of its work, but not later than 31 December 1998, the Group shall submit to me its report for transmittal to the General Assembly. I would be grateful, Mr. President, if you could bring the contents of this letter to the attention of members of the General Assembly.

31 July 1998 Letter (EOSG); Cambodia Letter to the president of the Security Council, Sergey Lavrov. Mr. President, I have the honour to inform you that pursuant to resolution 52/135 of the General Assembly and resolution 1997/49 of the Commission on Human Rights, requesting me to assist the Cambodian Government in bringing to justice Khmer-Rouge leaders, I have decided to establish a Group of Experts with the mandate, as more fully elaborated in my letter to the President of the General Assembly, to evaluate the existing evidence, to assess the feasibility of bringing Khmer Rouge leaders to justice, and to explore options for bringing them to justice before an international or national jurisdiction. The members of the Group are: Sir Ninian Stephen (Australia), Chairman, Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah (Mauritius) and Professor Stephen Ratner

472 • 31 July 1998

(USA). Upon completion of their work, and not later than 31 December 1998, the Group will submit to me its report for transmittal to the General Assembly. The appointment of the Group of Experts is mandated by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights, and is without prejudice to any other initiative that might be undertaken by the Council in that regard. I would be grateful, Mr. President, if you could bring the contents of this letter to the attention of members of the Security Council.

3 August 1998 Letter (EOSG, S/1998/714); Sierra Leone I have the honour to refer to resolution 1181 (1998) of 13 July 1998, by which the Security Council created the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) and authorized the deployment of United Nations military observers to Freetown. In paragraph 9 of that resolution, the Council welcomed my intention to establish security arrangements for United Nations personnel with the Chairman of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and to conclude a status of mission agreement with the Government of Sierra Leone. By paragraph 10 of the resolution, the Council decided that the UNOMSIL military observers should be deployed when I informed the Council that security arrangements and the status of mission agreement had been concluded. I am pleased to inform you that I wrote to President Kabbah on 29 July 1998 to state the terms of the status of mission agreement and that, on the same day, the Government of Sierra Leone replied, stating its acceptance of the agreement. I have also written to the Chairman of ECOWAS proposing the activities to be undertaken by UNOMSIL and the ECOWAS Military Observer Group (ECOMOG) in accordance with the programme for the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration into society of Sierra Leonean former combatants adopted by the Government of Sierra Leone. In that letter, I drew his attention to the provision in the Government’s plan that ECOMOG would have overall responsibility for security throughout disarmament and demobilization operations. I should be grateful if you would bring this matter to the attention of the members of the Security Council.

4 August 1998 Letter (UN archives); peacekeeping/ UN management Internal note from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, regarding clarification of the relationship between the Department of Political Affairs (DPA) and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). Note to the Secretary-General

The issue of this document is pending the finalization of the formulation for DPA’s providing guidance to peace-keeping operations. DPKO, understandably, is anxious that the concept of “lead department” not be weakened by authorising one Secretariat department to send instructions directly to a body under the authority of another Secretariat department. Accordingly, the following formulation would seem appropriate. Providing political guidance and support to special representatives and other senior officials appointed by the Secretary-General to assist in his efforts in the fields of preventive diplomacy and peace-making. In the case of peace-keeping operations, such guidance and support will be provided through the Department of Peace-Keeping Operations. Approved. —K.A., 4/8

4 August 1998 Foreign Ministers of Indonesia and Portugal Meet at UN Headquarters

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6666); East Timor On 4 and 5 August 1998, the Secretary-General held meetings in New York on the question of East Timor with the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia and Portugal, Mr. Ali Alatas and Mr. Jaime Gama. The meetings took place in an open, cordial and constructive atmosphere. The following points emerged from the two-day talks: The Ministers agreed to hold in-depth discussions on Indonesia’s proposals for a special status, based on a wide-ranging autonomy for East Timor without prejudice to their basic positions of principle. For this purpose, they have requested their senior officials to intensify their discussions under the chairmanship of the Secretary-General’s Personal Representative and to report to the Ministerial meeting at an early date. It is hoped

472 • 31 July 1998

(USA). Upon completion of their work, and not later than 31 December 1998, the Group will submit to me its report for transmittal to the General Assembly. The appointment of the Group of Experts is mandated by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights, and is without prejudice to any other initiative that might be undertaken by the Council in that regard. I would be grateful, Mr. President, if you could bring the contents of this letter to the attention of members of the Security Council.

3 August 1998 Letter (EOSG, S/1998/714); Sierra Leone I have the honour to refer to resolution 1181 (1998) of 13 July 1998, by which the Security Council created the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) and authorized the deployment of United Nations military observers to Freetown. In paragraph 9 of that resolution, the Council welcomed my intention to establish security arrangements for United Nations personnel with the Chairman of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and to conclude a status of mission agreement with the Government of Sierra Leone. By paragraph 10 of the resolution, the Council decided that the UNOMSIL military observers should be deployed when I informed the Council that security arrangements and the status of mission agreement had been concluded. I am pleased to inform you that I wrote to President Kabbah on 29 July 1998 to state the terms of the status of mission agreement and that, on the same day, the Government of Sierra Leone replied, stating its acceptance of the agreement. I have also written to the Chairman of ECOWAS proposing the activities to be undertaken by UNOMSIL and the ECOWAS Military Observer Group (ECOMOG) in accordance with the programme for the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration into society of Sierra Leonean former combatants adopted by the Government of Sierra Leone. In that letter, I drew his attention to the provision in the Government’s plan that ECOMOG would have overall responsibility for security throughout disarmament and demobilization operations. I should be grateful if you would bring this matter to the attention of the members of the Security Council.

4 August 1998 Letter (UN archives); peacekeeping/ UN management Internal note from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, regarding clarification of the relationship between the Department of Political Affairs (DPA) and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). Note to the Secretary-General

The issue of this document is pending the finalization of the formulation for DPA’s providing guidance to peace-keeping operations. DPKO, understandably, is anxious that the concept of “lead department” not be weakened by authorising one Secretariat department to send instructions directly to a body under the authority of another Secretariat department. Accordingly, the following formulation would seem appropriate. Providing political guidance and support to special representatives and other senior officials appointed by the Secretary-General to assist in his efforts in the fields of preventive diplomacy and peace-making. In the case of peace-keeping operations, such guidance and support will be provided through the Department of Peace-Keeping Operations. Approved. —K.A., 4/8

4 August 1998 Foreign Ministers of Indonesia and Portugal Meet at UN Headquarters

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6666); East Timor On 4 and 5 August 1998, the Secretary-General held meetings in New York on the question of East Timor with the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia and Portugal, Mr. Ali Alatas and Mr. Jaime Gama. The meetings took place in an open, cordial and constructive atmosphere. The following points emerged from the two-day talks: The Ministers agreed to hold in-depth discussions on Indonesia’s proposals for a special status, based on a wide-ranging autonomy for East Timor without prejudice to their basic positions of principle. For this purpose, they have requested their senior officials to intensify their discussions under the chairmanship of the Secretary-General’s Personal Representative and to report to the Ministerial meeting at an early date. It is hoped

5 August 1998 • 473 that an agreement could be reached on this issue before the end of the year. The Ministers agreed to involve the East Timorese more closely in the search for a solution. In this connection, they welcomed the SecretaryGeneral’s intention to intensify his consultations with East Timorese representatives in East Timor and outside, individually or in groups, in order to take into account their views and to keep them abreast of developments in the tripartite talks. The Ministers also discussed other aspects of the East Timor issue. They took note of the recent positive developments in Indonesia with respect to the question of East Timor, in particular the Indonesian Government’s intention to further gradually reduce the level of its military presence in East Timor and to expedite the release of the East Timorese political prisoners. They agreed to continue consideration of these and other related aspects of the East Timor question. The Ministers agreed that the All-inclusive Intra-East Timorese Dialogue (AIETD) should resume by October 1998. The Ministers agreed to establish interest sections in friendly embassies in each other’s capitals by the end of 1998 and to relax their visa policies towards each other’s nationals. The next Senior Officials’ Meeting of the two sides under the chairmanship of the Personal Representative of the Secretary-General will take place in New York by the end of September 1998.

4 August 1998 Letter (UN archives); Sudan Letter from the Secretary-General to the president of Sudan, Omer Ahmed Al-Bashir. Excellency, I am pleased that we had the opportunity to talk on Thursday, 30 July 1998, about the famine in the Sudan, the enormity of which requires urgent and concerted humanitarian action to mitigate its disastrous effects. The decision taken by your Government to expand aircraft clearance for Operation Lifeline Sudan to increase its access to people in dire need is commendable. I was also encouraged by the agreement reached on the three-month cease-fire in Bahr Al Ghazal. I was particularly gratified by the declaration of your Government this morning to extend it unilaterally to cover all of southern Sudan. I would very much hope that we can add to these positive developments and fully observe the

agreement we reached last May, by sending a humanitarian assessment mission to the areas of the Nuba Mountains, where humanitarian agencies to date have not been able to gain access, to ensure that the needs of vulnerable populations there are addressed. Following our conversation and your commitment to speak to your Minister of Foreign Affairs, I have asked my Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs to follow up with the Minister on this issue with a view to initiating an assessment mission at the first opportunity. As always, the United Nations will continue to work closely with the Government of the Sudan to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those most in need. While humanitarian aid is essential to alleviate the current, unprecedented suffering, the only lasting solution to the plight of the people of southern Sudan is a cessation of hostilities. In this regard, I believe every effort must be made to make progress in the present IGAD talks in Addis Ababa. As I mentioned on the telephone, please do not hesitate to call upon us should you believe we can be of any assistance in this regard. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

5 August 1998 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6664); East Timor SECRETARY-GENERAL: I would like to tell you this morning that we have made very good progress at this round of talks on East Timor. The Ministers have agreed to hold in-depth discussions on the proposals for special status based on wide-ranging autonomy for East Timor, without prejudice to their basic positions of principle. It is also hoped that an agreement could be reached before the end of the year on this issue. So we will start the discussions and hope that we can come to some understanding before the end of the year. The Ministers have also agreed to involve the East Timorese more closely in the search for a solution, and they have welcomed the SecretaryGeneral’s intention to intensify his consultations with the East Timorese. Further, we have noticed the positive developments in East Timor recently: the beginning of reduction of forces and the Government’s intention to further gradually reduce the level of military presence in East Timor and to expedite the release of East Timorese political prisoners.

474 • 5 August 1998

We have also agreed to continue our consultations on these and other related aspects of the East Timorese question. The Ministers have agreed with me that the all-inclusive East Timorese dialogue should resume by October. The Ministers have also agreed to establish interest sections in friendly embassies in each other’s capitals by the end of 1998 and to relax visa policies towards each other’s nationals. The last decision we took was to have the next senior officials meeting of the two sides under the chairmanship of my Special Representative, Ambassador Jamsheed Marker, by the end of September 1998. I would like to take this opportunity, first of all, to thank the Ministers for their statesmanship and their spirit of cooperation and compromise, which permitted us to make this progress, if not breakthrough. I would also like to thank Ambassador Marker, my Special Representative, for the extraordinary work he has put in. He and the team, a small staff from the United Nations Secretariat, have done a remarkable job, and I am grateful to you and the team. We will now take your questions. I think that copies of the communiqué have been made available to you. QUESTION: The withdrawal of forces has begun in East Timor. At what point do you think you will you be able to say that all the forces will be withdrawn, or do [inaudible] in the foreseeable future? MR. ALATAS: Well, we have been talking in Indonesia about reduction of forces because, to a certain extent—like in all other regions of Indonesia—there may always be a residue of forces there, but in a much more reduced form. This is what is happening now. The first reductions have taken place. They will continue gradually in stages and, of course, always taking into account the security conditions and the security needs of the region. QUESTION: My question is directed to the Indonesian Foreign Minister. Sir, I wonder if the decision to expedite the release of the East Timorese political prisoners specifically includes Mr. Xanana Gusmão. And the second part of my question would be whether the decision to consult East Timorese on a more formal basis through the Secretary-General recognizes implicitly that their views are not represented by the Indonesian Government, as you have said in the past. MR. ALATAS: As to the first part of your question, I have had occasion to explain that Mr. Xanana Gusmão does not qualify for this present

wave of amnesties being given to political prisoners and detainees because Mr. Xanana Gusmão, unlike those prisoners and detainees whom we are now releasing, did not only engage in flag-waving or demonstrations or, you know, other actions usually connected with political actions. Also, during the time that he was leading the forces in East Timor whom we have called security-disturbance perpetrators, he has killed, he has burned villages, he has killed innocent villagers, he has raided the properties of villagers, et cetera. And all these are classified in our penal code as criminal acts. And I am sure they are classified the same way in many other penal codes. And it is for these criminal acts that he has been brought before the courts and convicted. So he does not qualify in the present wave of release of political prisoners and political detainees. However, we have also said at the same time that his is a special case. We do foresee, we do visualize the release of Xanana Gusmão as part and parcel of an overall solution to the East Timor question, which we hope will now come as soon as we can agree on that solution. So he will be released at that time, but not now in the context of the present releases. As to the second part of your question, as we are now reaching, we think, a critical stage in the search for a solution, we do see the need to make sure that certain East Timorese personalities— leaders, both formal and informal—are kept abreast of developments. And perhaps also it would be useful to have their views on the progress of the tripartite talks. The negotiations, the formal negotiations, will continue in the tripartite context. But we will have a channel now, as agreed upon by all sides, whereby the SecretaryGeneral could at his discretion continue to consult the views and keep those whom he is consulting abreast of developments. Now, that does not mean that we are changing our position that those East Timorese who are in Indonesia have always been consulted. In fact, they have been part and parcel of our efforts. But this is specifically, I think, directed towards those who have been abroad and who have not been in a position to be fully consulted. But those who are in Indonesia have always been consulted and indeed, more than that, have always participated in the talks. QUESTION: What kind of calendar is being discussed for the wide-range autonomy? MR. ALATAS: You mean, to talk about it? QUESTION: No, for the autonomy itself. Are you thinking of creating a five-year, 10-year. . .

5 August 1998 • 475 S-G: I think that if you look at the first paragraph of the communiqué, we are going to be holding in-depth discussions on these proposals. I think we are not there yet, because we are going to have in-depth discussions, and we indicated that we hoped we can iron everything out and have an agreement or understanding by the end of the year, if that answers your question. QUESTION: What are the details about this special status for East Timor which was proposed by Indonesia? MR. ALATAS: That is one of the proposals of Indonesia: to give special status, a special autonomous region, to East Timor. The substantive elements of this autonomy are going to be further discussed in depth, in detail now. We have not discussed it in detail yet. But the outline of our proposal is for a special province, a special autonomous region based on wide-ranging autonomy. QUESTION: To the Secretary-General first, whether you have identified any of the East Timorese representatives with whom you intend to hold further consultations, including Mr. Ramos Horta. And the same question to the two Foreign Ministers, with an added coda to them: Have they identified the countries that will have the interest sections? S-G: Yes, we have a clear idea of those we would want to stay in touch with. There may be additional ones, but we do have a clear idea of those. As you know, I will be leaving for Portugal shortly, and already there I will be seeing Mr. Horta and Bishop Belo. So it already begins. And we have quite a clear idea of those key leaders that we would want, both within and without. MR. GAMA: It is the Netherlands. The Netherlands has been representing our interests in Jakarta since we closed our embassy there, and we will ask them to go on in that diplomatic task in cooperation with Portugal. MR. ALATAS: Unlike Portugal, we don’t have a country representing our interests there, so we have not decided yet formally where we are going to place our diplomats. But we hope to get the concurrence of Thailand, which has a representation there, a diplomatic mission there, to be able to accept our diplomats to be stationed there. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, do you think the agreements reached today are fair to the East Timorese? You know, their demand is for total independence, and what you call it here is “autonomy” granted by Indonesia. Do you think it is fair to what they are asking for?

S-G: We have a very serious proposal on the table, and as I said we are going to discuss it. And I also indicated that we all believe that this is progress in the work we have been doing. We are also going to be intensifying our consultations with the East Timorese. And I think after we have done all that they will probably have a chance to answer that question too. But I think we are now in the beginning of a process which is moving forward, and I think let’s move ahead and see after our consultations where we will be. MR. ALATAS: Could I add a request that if you refer to the Timorese, please refer to all the 800,000 Timorese and not only those who are vocal in asking for one particular solution. There is a huge majority in Indonesia which has an entirely different view than the ones to which you are referring. QUESTION: Would you consider this a breakthrough in the 15 years of talks that have been going on on East Timor? S-G: I think, given the history of the record, this has been important progress. You used the word “breakthrough”; I don’t think that is exaggerated given the history and the circumstances of the past. QUESTION: The statement says that this is without prejudice to the basic positions of principle; I am wondering whether Indonesia still wants international recognition of East Timor as part of Indonesia before going any further on the autonomy issue. MR. ALATAS: Well, the sentence says exactly what it means, and that means that for now we are going to hold in-depth discussions first on these proposals without any of the two sides giving up or changing its basic principles. I think it’s very clear; it speaks for itself. When we reach the point, we will cross that bridge. QUESTION: Has the basic position been changed by the annexation of that region? I want to ask the Ministers—the three of them, please. MODERATOR: You want to know if the basic positions have changed? QUESTION: Yes, about the annexation. S-G: I think the last answer Foreign Minister Alatas gave has already dealt with that by referring to what paragraph 1 says. QUESTION: For Mr. Alatas: I was wondering, in terms of the question of wide-ranging autonomy, how far are you willing to consider the sort of functions an autonomous East Timor could take? Could it determine its own governing policies, for example, in terms of tax collection, in terms of

476 • 5 August 1998

basic governance of its people? Or are you considering something more limited than that? MR. ALATAS: In presenting our proposal we have always stressed in one breath that we were willing to sit down and negotiate the substantive elements of this wide-ranging autonomy, which means that this is not a unilaterally conceived or a unilaterally granted autonomy, but an autonomy that conforms with international norms. Now, autonomies in the world—you have various models. But they all conform roughly to one particular norm, and that is that you can only speak of autonomy when you give all the rights to the population except in three fields: foreign affairs, external defence and certain monetary and fiscal policies. Because in whatever autonomy, all over the world, you will see that these three functions are always reserved for the central Government. Now this is precisely what we are thinking about. We are going to discuss, to negotiate in depth or to discuss in depth, what it will take for this autonomy, taking into account the specific conditions in East Timor. And certainly it would include their own Governments, except in the three fields. That means governance in economic affairs, in political affairs, in education, in cultural policy and everything except foreign policy, external defence and certain aspects of monetary and fiscal policy. S-G: That was the last question. I think before we end this session I would ask each of the Ministers to make a brief statement. Jaime, shall we go with you first? MR. GAMA: I thank very much UN SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan and Ambassador Marker for the work they have been doing and the great impulse they have given to these negotiations. Obviously we are moving. It’s not a complete road; it’s a step. It’s not a global solution; it’s a particular negotiation on a particular point. We have moved from the principal positions we keep to a common ground for negotiating those particular matters under the leadership of the SecretaryGeneral. And I hope that in the context of this process, as it has been referred to, Indonesia will be keeping commitments regarding progress, regarding openness, regarding the reduction of the army and the release of the political prisoners. And also, it is very important that, as a decision of this meeting, the Secretary-General is going to consult more intensively with the East Timorese representatives both outside and in the territory individually or in groups, because they also are a part of this process, as the substance of this problem. MR. ALATAS: Mr. Secretary-General I, too,

would like to join my colleague in first of all thanking you, Sir, for the role that you have played in making this progress possible. And I also thank Ambassador Jamsheed Marker and all his able associates for the hard work done. I think that what we have achieved here is indeed not yet a breakthrough in substance, perhaps, but certainly very good progress in the way in which we will proceed towards a solution of the problem. That is, in the words of your predecessor, a comprehensive, just and internationally acceptable solution. Indonesia has put forward a proposal which we believe is the most realistic, viable and most peaceful way towards finding an overall, comprehensive and just solution, because it takes into account all the necessary factors and conditions pertaining in East Timor: the long history of strife, its geopolitical and its geo-strategic position, its socio-cultural make-up and so on. And therefore we hope that at the end of the road, after we have gone through this in-depth discussion, it will be seen, it will be recognized, that it is indeed a most realistic, viable and just solution, and above all a solution that promises to bring peace and reconciliation to the East Timorese people, and not further strife, further intensified tensions, continuing conflict and even resurgence of civil war, as other proposals may result in. And therefore we are very happy now that we can work on this proposal at least to go into depth and see how far we can get. We believe that this is the recognition that, again, Indonesia is putting on the table a very concrete proposal and a very real, genuine proposal for a solution, and not, as was erroneously interpreted by certain quarters, a bogus proposal or nothing new. I think the very fact that we have this agreement now is a recognition that it is a genuine proposal, a concrete proposal that can lead to a just and peaceful solution. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary-General. S-G: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

7 August 1998 Letter (EOSG); International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Letter to the president of the Security Council, Danilo Türk. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to resolution 827 (1993) of 25 May 1993, by which the Security Council established an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for

7 August 1998 • 477 Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the International Tribunal”). I also have the honour to refer to Security Council resolution 1166 (1998) of 13 May 1998, by which the Security Council established a third Trial Chamber of the International Tribunal. Article 13 of the Statute of the International Tribunal, as amended by Security Council resolution 1166 (1998), provides as follows: ”Qualification and Election of Judges”

“1. The judges shall be persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices. In the overall composition of the Chambers due account shall be taken of the experience of the judges in criminal law, international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights law. “2. The judges of the International Tribunal shall be elected by the General Assembly from a list submitted by the Security Council, in the following manner: (a) The Secretary-General shall invite nominations for judges of the International Tribunal from States Members of the United Nations and nonmember States maintaining permanent observer missions at United Nations Headquarters; (b) Within sixty days of the date of the invitation of the Secretary-General, each State may nominate up to two candidates meeting the qualifications set out in paragraph 1 above, no two of whom shall be of the same nationality; (c) The Secretary-General shall forward the nominations received to the Security Council. From the nominations received, the Security Council shall establish a list of not less than twenty-eight and not more than forty-two candidates, taking due account of adequate representation of the principal legal systems of the world; (d) The President of the Security Council shall transmit the list of candidates to the President of the General Assembly. From that list, the General Assembly shall elect the fourteen Judges of the International Tribunal. The candidates who receive an absolute majority of the votes of the States Members of the United Nations and of the nonmember States maintaining permanent observer missions at United Nations Headquarters shall be declared elected. Should two candidates of the same nationality obtain the required majority vote,

the one who received the higher number of votes shall be considered elected. “3. In the event of a vacancy in the Chambers, after consultation with the Presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly, the Secretary-General shall appoint a person meeting the qualifications of paragraph 1 above, for the remainder of the term of office concerned. “4. The judges shall be elected for a term of four years. The terms and conditions of service shall be those of the judges of the International Court of Justice. They shall be eligible for reelection.” On 20 May 1997 the General Assembly elected the following eleven persons as judges of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for terms of office to expire on 16 November 2001: Mr. Antonio Cassese (Italy) Mr. Claude Jorda (France) Mr. Richard George May (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Ms. Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (United States of America) Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba (Zambia) Rafael Nieto Navia (Colombia) Fouad Abdel-Moneim Riad (Egypt) Almiro Simoes Rodrigues (Portugal) Mohamed Shahbuddeen (Guyana) Lal Chand Vohrah (Malaysia) Wang Tieya (China) In its resolution 1166 (1998) of 13 May 1998, the Security Council decided that three judges, additional to those currently serving on the Tribunal, should be elected as soon as possible in order to serve in the Tribunal’s additional, third Trial Chamber. The Security Council also decided in that same resolution that the terms of office of the three additional judges so elected should expire, together with those of the judges who are currently serving on the Tribunal, on 16 November 2001. Pursuant to paragraph 2 (a) of Article 13 of the Statute of the International Tribunal, States Members of the Organization and non-member States maintaining permanent observer missions at United Nations Headquarters were invited, by a letter dated 4 June 1998, to submit nominations for the three judges of the Tribunal’s third Trial Chamber and were informed that, within sixty days of the date of that letter, they might nominate up to two candidates meeting the qualifications

478 • 7 August 1998

set out in paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the Tribunal’s Statute. They were also informed that, should they decide to nominate two candidates, then, in accordance with Article 13 (2)(b) of the Statute, those candidates might not be of the same nationality as each other. They were also advised that, in accordance with Article 12 of the Tribunal’s Statute, no two judges of the Tribunal might be nationals of the same State, and were informed that, consequently, it was not possible to nominate a candidate bearing the same nationality as any of the judges who are currently serving on the Tribunal. I would take this opportunity to note that, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 13 of the Tribunal’s Statute, the judges of the International Tribunal are to serve on a full-time basis and so may not engage in any other occupation of a professional nature during their term of office. Once elected to the Tribunal, they are expected to take up residence at its seat in The Hague. Pursuant to paragraph 2 (c) of article 13 of the Tribunal’s Statute, I have the honour herewith to forward to the Security Council the thirteen nominations which have been received from States Members of the United Nations within the sixtyday period specified in Article 13 (2) (b) of the Statute. The list of candidates, in alphabetical order, is annexed to this letter, together with the curricula vitae which have been provided in connection with their nominations. In this connection, I would draw the attention of the Security Council to paragraph 2 (c) of Article 13 of the Tribunal’s Statute, which, as applied to the current election by Paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 1166 (1998) of 13 May 1998, provides in relevant part as follows: “From the nominations received, the Security Council shall establish a list of not less than [six] and not more than [nine] candidates, taking due account of the adequate representation of the principal legal systems of the world”. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

7 August 1998 Secretary-General Adamantly Condemns Bomb Explosions in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6668, AFR/89); terrorism The Secretary-General was outraged and appalled to hear of today’s bomb explosions in

Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam, which have resulted in a heavy toll of dead and wounded. He condemns utterly this heartless and indiscriminate terrorism against innocent civilians, and extends his deep condolences to the families and Governments concerned. The Secretary-General was concerned to learn that several United Nations staff members were injured in the two explosions. He hopes that they will make a rapid and full recovery from their injuries. The Secretary-General reiterates his adamant condemnation of terrorist acts, whatever their objective.

10 August 1998 Press Conference at Portugal Foreign Ministry

Press conference (OSSG); East Timor MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS [JAIME GAMA]: Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is now in Portugal for a wide range of initiatives and to establish various contacts that we are all aware of. Today, at the Foreign Ministry, I had the opportunity of reviewing with Secretary-General Kofi Annan a series of issues of relevance to Portugal’s external policy, namely the question of East Timor, the situation and the prospects in Guinea-Bissau as well as the Angolan peace process. We also had the opportunity of exchanging views on the participation of Portuguese citizens within the framework of the United Nations system. It was a very fruitful exchange of views. Mr. Secretary-General will continue his visit to Portugal for a few more days. I also had the opportunity to reiterate to Mr. Kofi Annan the invitation to attend the forthcoming Ibero-America Summit which will include the participation of the heads of State and Government of Portugal, Spain, and the Latin American countries, in Oporto, in October. And now Mr. Kofi Annan will take the floor. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen, as you know Jaime Gama and I were together in New York less than a week ago, when he came for the talks on East Timor with his Indonesian counterpart, Mr. Ali Alatas. All three of us were delighted with the progress we were able to make on that occasion. It has been extremely useful for me to come to Portugal immediately after those talks. I have been able to discuss East Timor in-depth with President Sampaio, with Prime Minister Guterres, and to

10 August 1998 • 479 meet Bishop Belo and Mr. Horta. And now [this] morning I have been able to review the progress and where we go next with Minister Gama. All these meetings have been extremely valuable and have shown a very broad measure of agreement between us. In particular, I think that we all agree that last week’s communiqué opens a new chapter, that we all need to move as fast as possible to take advantage of this opportunity and make sure that it is not wasted. And that it is very important that the people of East Timor themselves should participate in the process through a broad representative spectrum of political leaders. I know that President Habibie intends soon to release further political prisoners. I have urged him to continue the withdrawal of troops from East Timor and to proceed as fast as he can with the release of East Timorese prisoners, including Xanana Gusmaõ, who clearly has an important role to play. While I was here I also had a very valuable briefing from President Mário Soares on the work of the Panel of Eminent Persons chaired by him which recently visited Algeria at my request. I am most grateful to him for undertaking this arduous, difficult mission and look forward to receiving the full report of the Panel which he expects to present to me shortly. With Mr. Gama as with the President and the Prime Minister I have also discussed the situation of Angola and in Guinea-Bissau. In both of these countries we welcome the commitment of the parties to resolve their conflicts and differences through negotiation and compromise rather than through further bloodshed. I should particularly like to thank Portugal for the constructive role it is playing in Angola through the Troika and in Guinea-Bissau through the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries, and I would like to thank Mr. Gama for his tireless efforts and constant visits to the region and to the country to work with others in search of peace. But as you know I did not come to Portugal only to discuss these problems in some of your former colonies as important as they are. I came here to attend the closing ceremony of the Youth Forum in Braga and the opening ceremony of the 1st World Conference of Ministers Responsible for Youth. It was a real pleasure for me to do this. We at the United Nations never forget our responsibility to the coming generations and all the challenges the next generation will have to face. It was particularly heartening to see how many young people had come to Braga from so many different countries and how enthusiastically they were discussing world problems and coming up with ideas of their

own as to how to solve them. I was delighted to be able to bring the Youth Action Plan from Braga to Lisbon and I hope that the ministerial conference that is taking place now will make good use of these proposals. The last but not least I came also to visit your beautiful country and to attend EXPO 98 where yesterday we celebrated the United Nations Day and that was certainly an experience not to be missed. Let me once [again] congratulate this country for putting on such a magnificent exhibition, for bringing to the world, to the whole world’s attention the priceless heritage of our oceans, the vital common task we face in preserving it. And let me thank President Sampaio and Prime Minister Guterres and all of you for giving me such a wonderful time. Mais uma vez meus amigos, muito obrigado [Once again, my friends, thank you very much.] We will now take your questions. J.G.: From now on we are at your disposal. Basically Secretary-General is the distinguished guest on this occasion for all the questions you want to raise. Thank you. QUESTION (Reuters): I wanted to ask you a question about Iraq, if I can. After the refusal of Baghdad to allow the inspectors to see any new sites, a crisis seems inevitable, a matter of time. You yourself have said that perhaps it is now time to look for more direct dialogue with Iraq, with Baghdad. I wonder whether, one, do you think a crisis can be avoided and, number two, can you elaborate on this idea of a more direct dialogue. I just wanted to ask you one other question, though, on the bombings in Nairobi. Is there anything that the international community can do in the future to prevent these sort of things happening? S-G: Let me begin with your first question. On the first question, I had stated in New York that I hope that the crisis can be avoided and I think all the Council members, and particularly those with influence over Baghdad and contacts in Baghdad are working very hard to ensure that we avoid another conflict. My own Special Representative in Baghdad has come to Lisbon to discuss this issue with me and would go back with a firm message asking, urging the Iraqis to change their position. I hope they will listen and I hope we will be able to find a way out. On the question of the comprehensive review which I suggested to the Council, I am hoping that the Council is going to take it up this week. There may be other options on the table. This is just a proposal I have put to them and the decision will have to be taken by the

480 • 10 August 1998

Council. And I think you will recall that in that proposal I said we should take stock as to where we are, where we want to go, and how to get there, taking into account what we have achieved and our ultimate objective. And yes, you are right, I did indicate that we should try and engage the Iraqis; the Council should try to engage them much more closely than they have hitherto been. We have been associated in the discussions in the Council in the past but I think we should do it a bit more closely and pull them in, get them to understand what the Council expects of them, in clear and firm terms. With regards to Nairobi and Dar-es-Salam, I would hope that the international community will come together and cooperate to fight terrorism; they would undertake, all countries would undertake not to offer sanctuary to terrorists. I recall when I was in Teheran last December for the Islamic Conference, many leaders of that Conference condemned terrorism and in fact a suggestion emerged that maybe we should have a global conference to collectively figure out how we fight this evil. Maybe the time has come for us to consider a proposal. QUESTION (Emilio Fernandes, 24 Horas, a daily): I prefer to ask you in Portuguese, if you don’t mind. Mr. Annan, I am going to ask you two questions. The first one is this: yesterday, during your visit to EXPO 98 you said that you had received very encouraging indications from your Special Envoy to Angola, Mr. Brahimi. What are those encouraging indications? What do you mean by that exactly? Is there any concrete news, do you know any concrete thing regarding Angola? My second question is: at the bilateral meetings between Portugal and Indonesia, was the possible release of Xanana Gusmaõ mentioned as a possibility? When you speak of the possible release of political prisoners are you referring to Xanana Gusmaõ specifically and will that release take place soon? S-G: Before I answer the question, if I may make an appeal. We have lots of journalists in the room; can I ask each one to try to see if he can ask just one question? If everybody asked two or three others would not get a chance to ask questions. So thank you very much for that. On Angola, Mr. Brahimi, my Special Envoy, has reported to me that both sides, President Dos Santos, the Government of Angola, and Dr. Savimbi have agreed to work with us in the implementation of the Lusaka Protocol. They have all indicated that they would prefer to solve this conflict through peaceful negotiations. There was concern there for

a while that we were drifting towards renewed military conflict. I hope their commitments they have given to Mr. Brahimi mean that those negative tendencies we saw recently would ebb. On the question of the release of prisoners, yes I have raised the question of the release of Xanana Gusmaõ with the Indonesian Government and I think ultimately he will be released. The indications are that they will begin the release with political prisoners. He may not come in the first wave, but sooner or later and I hope sooner rather than later he will also be released. I think that [he] has a role to play and he should be able to participate in the critical discussions regarding the future of the territory. QUESTION (Pedro Coelho, Television in Portugal): I would also like to ask the question in Portuguese, if possible. So the question is: the latest statements made by Minister Ali Alatas seem to be a bit contradictory to what has been agreed in New York. I would ask: Mr. Alatas virtually rejected the possibility of reaching self-determination in East Timor. Do you think that such a possibility could be negotiated in the talks under the auspices of the United Nations? S-G: We are engaged in the process and we are at a very critical stage. And I think that we did make some good progress in New York. What we have on the table is a concrete proposal from the Indonesian Government after years of pressing, after years of negotiation, which will move the process forward and of considerable autonomy and freedom of action for the people living in East Timor; we are focusing on that at the moment and I think everybody should understand where we are now. Thank you. QUESTION (Reuters): Mr. Secretary-General, speaking about Angola once again, do you think there was any chance or possibility that was not used by the Troika observer countries, that is Portugal, Russia, and the United States, or rather should be used in future to facilitate the reconciliation process there and to prevent another war? Thank you. S-G: Yes, we have worked very well with the Troika and we hope to continue to work with them. As I indicated to them we would also want to work with the regional governments. The Troika is very much engaged in our search for a solution, both on the ground, in Angola, and also in New York, in the Security Council. And luckily as from today all three of them are also members of the Security Council and it does facilitate our discussions in the Council? And I am going to continue to count on that. Thank you.

10 August 1998 • 481 QUESTION (The Independent): [inaudible]. S-G: Don’t forget the Minister is also here. Why am I getting all the questions? J.G.: I know. The press conference is from [sic] the Secretary-General. He is our guest. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General are you worried that [inaudible] the situation in Kosovo? S-G: I am worried and I think that I am not the only one. There had been expectation that one would have been able to resolve this conflict through negotiations. I know your own Government played a role in getting President Milosevic to Moscow so that President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Primakov would urge him to sit across the table with Kosovars and work out some mutually acceptable arrangements. That has not happened yet but efforts are being made to get the parties together. One, to get a united Kosovar team to sit across the table with the Serbs, with the Yugoslavs. I would also hope that in the meantime the appeals which have been made for military restraint for particularly the stronger army from Yugoslavia to exercise restraint would also be listened to. I am also aware that NATO is making continuous plans for military action, should that be necessary. I hope we will find a solution before we get the military option, but all would have to cooperate, so for the sake of the Kosovars, you have seen the native people, the native refugees and some of them we have not been able to give assistance to. So, I appeal to all concerned to cease all military activities and think of the people and the suffering of the people and the vulnerability of the displaced and get to the table and have serious talks. QUESTION: Isn’t that late for that kind of appeal? S-G: Is it late for that sort of appeal? I am not sure what you mean by appeal. It is never late to try and get peace. It is never late to try and get people to lay down their arms. It is never late to challenge people to come to the table. I know some news have indicated that we have gone beyond the point of talking and perhaps it is time for military action. The situation is not always that black and white. Thank you. QUESTION (Agence France Presse): Do you think that the position of Iraq was really cooperative since your meeting with Saddam Hussein in February? Thank you very much. S-G: Yes, I think that Iraq had cooperated better since the February agreement and I think that if I may step back a bit and refresh our memories the crisis that took me to Iraq was mainly over access.

Iraq had refused to allow the inspectors to enter eight of the presidential sites and the crisis developed over that. After the agreement the inspectors were given access to all eight presidential sites, and access to other locations where they had been denied access like the Ministry of Defence. Of course they also committed themselves to cooperate and to honor all Security Council resolutions and that is why I have indicated that the recent action by Iraq is a violation of Council resolutions and the agreement they have reached with me, but I should say that they have cooperated since February and in fact Mr. Butler himself said they no longer had a problem of access. It is now a problem of getting documents and other things out of Iraq. Thank you. QUESTION (TSF, Portuguese radio station): I would like to ask you: you say in your first statement that both Xanana Gusmaõ and the Timorese Resistance have a decisive role in the negotiations as regards the question of East Timor. I am asking you whether you have any concrete information that enables us to know whether Xanana Gusmaõ will be set free soon. I would also like you to try to explain how the next steps of the negotiations between Portugal and Indonesia will work. S-G: Sorry, I did not get all the interpretation. I think that I got the drift of your question. I cannot tell you when Mr. Xanana will be released but in our discussions with the Indonesians they will release him as part of those discussions that are going on. It may well be that he will be the last prisoner to be released and others will come. But what is important is that they are not rejecting the idea that he has to be released. He has a role to play and one can even now talk to him about what is happening, the discussions that are going on. And we are going to press, continue to press for his release as soon as it is possible or practicable. On the question of the next steps for the negotiations, I think in the communiqué we did indicate some date lines, indicating that we would have an all Intra-Timorese Dialogue in October. But we had also made it clear that we were going to accelerate and intensify our consultations with the East Timorese leadership, be it in Indonesia or outside Indonesia. And the Indonesia Government understands that we are going to do this and those contacts will be starting very shortly. So we will be consulting with groups and individuals who have an important role, leadership role, in East Timor. QUESTION (Diana Rogers, British News): I think that we have seen crisis in the Congo and

482 • 10 August 1998

murmurs of war. Firstly, I was wondering if you are worried about the crisis in Congo and secondly whether the UN is contemplating any action mediation between the sides in the conflict? S-G: I am extremely worried about the Congo and the whole . . . region. It is a conflict that could spread and have an impact on other countries in the region. Others can be drawn in which can make the situation very, very serious. The regional countries have already met to try and see what they can do to deal with the conflict, and we will support the regional efforts. The Security Council has already issued a statement and we will work with the regional leaders to try and contain the conflict. QUESTION (Cristiana Pereira, Associated Press): I am sorry to bring up Angola again but the Lusaka Protocol is four years old and it has not been fully implemented. What would it take for the United Nations to give up on the leaders of Angola? S-G: That is a very good question. But let me start by saying that in the business we are in the United Nations there are a couple of qualities which is [sic] required: Patience, patience, and persistence. I think what we have tried to do is wherever we think that our presence and our efforts are making a bit of difference and we are making progress however slowly, we try to stay in. When we determine that our presence is not making any difference on the military front, on the peace-keeping front, on the humanitarian front, we are not able to operate, the Council may consider withdrawing. But I don’t think we are there yet. And I appreciate the reasoning behind your question as to whether one stays forever to implement an agreement when the parties don’t seem ready to go, or does one seek other means of doing it, get the parties to make some adjustments, get them to come up with some other creative ideas to move the process forward. But for the time being, the UN is going to stay and work with the leaders. And on television yesterday I did indicate, you know, we have leaders who want to help their country, but the countries are eventually to people. When people are suffering so much, when people have gone through war for as long as Angola has, I think the leadership has to have the courage, the wisdom, the determination and concern for the people to work with us as quickly as we can to find a solution. We are prepared to work with them and I hope that the commitments that they have given to my Envoy, Mr. Brahimi, will be honored and that we can find a way forward, as intractable as this crisis has been.

QUESTION (Agence France Presse): The United Nations declared 1998 Year of the Oceans. I would like to know if it is possible to imagine the creation of an Organization for the Oceans? S-G: I don’t think that is on the cards. I don’t see the UN creating an Organization for the Oceans. But it is a subject matter that exists in UN organizations like UNEP on the environmental side, can play a very important role. I think it is also an issue that should concern all governments and all individuals. We all have a responsibility to protect the oceans; we all have a responsibility to ensure that we do not pollute the oceans. We have a responsibility to check each other to make sure that we protect this precious thing. And so I think as far as the UN is concerned that responsibility will fall on existing institutions without our creating a new one. And I would hope that the public would also take a responsibility and help us protect the Oceans. QUESTION (José Sousa Dias, Portuguese news agency): Do you think the joining of efforts of the international community and CPLP (Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries) will have a positive impact on the conflict in Guinea-Bissau? Do you think that it may contribute to finding a solution to the situation in Guinea-Bissau? Will there be any force that may prevent this? S-G: The Portuguese countries, the group of countries managed to get a cease-fire in a very difficult situation, which is holding. I am very grateful to them for that and I think so are the people in the regions. ECOWAS is coordinating its efforts very closely with them, the two Organizations are working together and in these kinds of situations there are various aspects to the search for a solution: negotiations, humanitarian aspects, the military of peacekeeping aspects and I am really grateful that the two Organizations are coordinating their efforts and are making good progress. And I think with that coordination, with the cooperation of the parties, we should be able to see a viable solution. Thank you.

11 August 1998 Secretary-General Expresses Dismay at Worsening Situation in Kosovo

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6673); Kosovo The Secretary-General takes the opportunity of the Security Council review of his fourth report pursuant to Security Council resolution 1160 (1998), to reiterate his dismay at the steadily worsening

12 August 1998 • 483 situation in Kosovo, with wider implications for the region. He is particularly concerned about reports that offensive operations by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia security forces continue unabated and that they may be adopting a “scorched earth policy” in some areas of Kosovo. He condemns such practices and urges the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Government to order its security forces to avoid such acts of wanton destruction. He equally abhors the resort to violence and any suffering which might be caused by Kosovar paramilitary units. The Secretary-General is concerned that the evolving crisis, if unchecked, could lead to a largescale humanitarian disaster, with the approaching winter. He is deeply troubled by reports of the vast number of displaced persons without food and shelter and the increasing human rights violations. He calls on the international relief organizations and human rights monitors to intensify their efforts in Kosovo to prevent the situation from deteriorating further. The Secretary-General remains convinced that the only path to a solution of the Kosovo crisis is through dialogue. He fully supports the efforts of the Contact Group to this end and reiterates his call on the parties to the conflict to begin immediately such dialogue with a view to ending the current hostilities, in which innocent civilians are the foremost victims. The Secretary-General also believes that a concerted international effort will be needed if a peaceful solution is to be found, given the evident lack of political will of the parties within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women; that a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights is documenting the problem; and that the landmark Beijing Conference in 1995 intensified global efforts to address its causes and consequences. Still, we can do even more to protect women, to prevent discrimination and to uphold women’s rights. I have no doubt that the UNIFEM teleconference will help realize each of these goals. I am particularly pleased that you have chosen to take advantage of the new communications technologies that are re-shaping our world and making possible a kind of diplomacy, solidarity and coordinated action unthinkable just a few years ago. E-mail, for example, was a crucial weapon in the Nobel-prizewinning campaign against anti-personnel landmines. Websites such as “Women Watch”, a joint initiative of UNIFEM, the UN Division for the Advancement of Women and the UN International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW), are bringing vital information to new audiences worldwide and linking people together in common cause. You have rightly recognized teleconferencing as a highly effective weapon in this new arsenal. We must uphold the right of all women to lives free of violence, lives of equality, development and peace. In that spirit, please convey to your colleagues and to all whose help you seek to enlist for the November event my strong support for this important initiative.

12 August 1998 Letter (EOSG); staff safety

12 August 1998 Letter (EOSG); UN Development Fund for Women Letter to the executive director of the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), Noeleen Heyzer. Dear Ms. Heyzer, I write to express my full support for the global teleconference that the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) is planning to hold in November to focus world attention on the issue of violence against women. Rape, domestic assault, forced prostitution, sexual abuse of children, harassment in the workplace: these and the many other forms of violence against women cut across cultural, religious and regional boundaries. I know you share my satisfaction that the General Assembly, in 1993, adopted

Letter to Rear Admiral Ulrich A. Hundt (ret.), European Organization of Military Associations, Brussels. Dear Mr. Hundt, I wish to acknowledge with thanks receipt of your letter of 6 July 1998, by which you seek my support for your lobbying campaign for the ratification of the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. Your efforts in focusing international public opinion on the inadequate protection afforded to UN personnel are very much appreciated, in particular, in the light of the upsurge in indiscriminate attacks against UN and associated personnel, as was most recently demonstrated in the killing of the four personnel of the UN Mission of Observers in Tajikistan, while on a routine patrol.

484 • 12 August 1998

On many an occasion, I have expressed my grave alarm at the increasing number of attacks against UN personnel and property, and reiterated that the ultimate responsibility to prevent such attacks and bring those responsible to justice rests with the host countries in whose territories UN operations are deployed. The ratification of the UN Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel and its practical implementation by the States most directly concerned, remains, however, by far the most important guarantee for the protection of UN and humanitarian personnel on their mission for peace. I recall in this connection that in its resolution 52/126, the General Assembly urged all States to respect and ensure respect for the human rights of United Nations and other personnel carrying out activities in fulfilment of the mandate of a United Nations operation and to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety and security of those personnel. The General Assembly further called upon all States to consider becoming parties to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. Once again, I wish to pay tribute to your Organization and encourage it to continue in this important endeavour.

12 August 1998 Letter (UN archives); UN budget Letter from the US permanent representative to the UN, Bill Richardson. Dear Mr. Secretary General, I wish to reiterate the importance, as I expressed to you in our recent meeting, regarding the maintenance of a zero growth budget projection in the budget outline for the biennium 2000–2001 that will be considered by the Committee for Program and Coordination in late August. I believe that adhering to the zero growth approach is integral to the reform effort you so ably initiated last year and essential to the credibility of that effort. For the 1996–97 biennium, the final appropriation of $2.542 billion included the addition of several key and expensive missions that were not included in the initial budget approved by the UN General Assembly in December 1995, a reflection of the savings that can be achieved over the course of a biennium period. The 1998–99 budget, at $2.532 billion, provides for administrative savings that will be channeled into economic and social programs, and for other increases in programs

deemed high priority by the membership. While not totally inclusive of all expected missions and other requirements (only one year of MINUGUA was included), projected savings and favorable currency exchange rate movement should again allow for full coverage of all expected missions, including the second year of MINUGUA. Thus we see no compelling reason why the next budget should not remain within or below the current level. Your reform efforts should have an increasing effect by the year 2000, providing savings and more focused and evaluated priorities. This is especially true if both results-based budgeting and time limits on new programs are adopted, encouraging members to recognize the value of eliminating or reducing programs of limited or outdated value. At the same time, we will press for greater scope within the next budget, at the current level, for priorities not given adequate support in the current budget, including conflict prevention and human rights. We intend to bring all these issues to the fore during the budget debate next year. Your setting a higher budget outline target, however, will undermine our efforts and send the wrong message to the membership and to our public. Budget discipline is one of the hallmarks of UN reform. Indeed, zero growth was achieved this past cycle throughout the UN system for the first time in recent memory, and won considerable respect for the UN in the public and the parliaments of the world. This is not the time to go back on that achievement, only one year after it was accomplished. It is most certainly a strong factor in our own public and Congress’ support for the UN. While we have not yet won full approval for our arrears to the UN, for which there is no excuse on our part, I am happy to say that with the budget discipline exerted throughout the UN system we have had support over the past year for full funding of our annual dues, to the UN and its specialized agencies. We want to continue that consensus as we work hard on the arrears issue. I strongly urge you therefore to present a budget outline at the current level of $2.532 billion or lower. The United Nations can live within that limit, especially if you point the way to how the reform process can make such a budget productive and effective for all the critical programs the membership will require. We stand ready to discuss this with you in the coming days. Sincerely, Bill Richardson

17 August 1998 • 485 17 August 1998 Letter (EOSG); Sierra Leone Letter to the president of the General Assembly, Hennadiy Udovenko. Excellency, In view of the key role which the United Nations continues to play in providing support to the Government of Sierra Leone in its efforts to restore peace and stability throughout the country, I am writing to inform you of the Special Conference on Sierra Leone which I convened in New York on 30 July 1998. The meeting was organized in close consultation with the Government of Sierra Leone, whose delegation was led by President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, and also the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). It was attended by representatives of fifty-five countries including those of ECOWAS, the European Union and the Security Council, the Secretaries-General of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Commonwealth and the Executive Secretary of ECOWAS, as well as representatives of the European Commission, the Bretton Woods institutions and relevant United Nations departments, programmes and agencies. Representatives of several non-governmental organizations operating assistance programmes in Sierra Leone participated as observers. The purpose of the meeting was to focus international attention on the situation in Sierra Leone and the Government’s initiatives aimed at resolving the conflict, restoring secure conditions and effective administration countrywide and implementing a rehabilitation and recovery programme. Priority was given to consideration of the following issues: the Government’s programme for the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants and its peace-building initiatives; the role of the Monitoring Group of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOMOG) in re-establishing basic security; the actions necessary to help ECOMOG meet its manpower and logistical needs; the humanitarian situation and refugees; and further steps to be taken by the international community in mobilizing and coordinating, support for Sierra Leone. In my opening statement, I noted that President Kabbah’s Government had taken a number of steps to combat the effects of nine months of junta misrule and sought to lay a lasting foundation for national reconciliation, reconstruction and rehabilitation. Many obstacles needed to be

overcome and the Special Conference would ensure that the problems faced were attacked by the Government and international community with a collective unity of purpose. President Kabbah said that the Conference was an act of solidarity with the people in Sierra Leone where remnants of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) junta and the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) were continuing to perpetrate atrocities against civilians. Despite those gruesome actions, the rebel forces had been recently granted a two-week amnesty by the Government. He outlined the emergency needs of the country including: funding for the Government’s disarmament and demobilization programme; logistical support for ECOMOG; repatriation of refugees; emergency humanitarian aid and resources for the rehabilitation of physical infrastructure. The Permanent Representative of Nigeria to the United Nations, on behalf of the Chairman of ECOWAS, and the Secretaries-General of the OAU and the Commonwealth also addressed the opening session. Peace and Security: The Foreign Minister of Sierra Leone, Mr. Sama Banya, provided an update of political and security developments. Normal conditions had returned to Freetown and the provincial and district headquarter towns except Kailahun, Kono and Kabala. Parliament was functioning and a multi-party Cabinet had been appointed. Trials for members of the illegal junta and their collaborators were being carried out with due process in the presence of international monitors. My Special Representative briefed the meeting on the role of the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) and the status of its deployment. Following these presentations, general statements were made by representatives of 16 Member States, as well as the European Union and the European Commission. Major-General Timothy Shelpidi, ECOMOG Force Commander, outlined ECOMOG’s role in reinstating the legitimate Government and restoring basic security in Sierra Leone, indicating that 80 per cent of the country was now free from rebel activity. He noted with appreciation contributions made by the United States of America and pledged by the United Kingdom at the Conference for the provision of logistical assistance to ECOMOG and appealed for further aid to meet the Force’s needs as listed in a document which he made available for distribution to interested donors. He noted that there were currently about 10,000 ECOMOG troops in Sierra Leone, mainly from Nigeria and

486 • 17 August 1998

Guinea, and that a further 5,000 were needed to enable the force to carry out its mandate effectively. Several ECOWAS countries were prepared to contribute further troops but were unable to deploy or sustain them due to financial constraints and he appealed for donor assistance to overcome those problems. Mr. James Jonah, Minister of Finance and Economic Development of Sierra Leone, gave an overview of the Government’s disarmament, demobilization and reintegration plan for an estimated 33,000 former combatants which was developed in close consultation with major donors. He appealed for funding for the programme which will run for three years and cost approximately $33.6 million. The initial phase, under which 5,000 members of the former army and RUF who have already surrendered to ECOMOG will be demobilized, was already under way. My Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict noted that one of the most pressing challenges facing the Government of Sierra Leone was the “crisis of the young” including child soldiers. He recommended that Sierra Leone be adopted as a pilot case to which the international community would give concerted political attention and resources to meet the needs of children and women affected by armed conflict. The Executive Director of the United Nations Childrens Fund also noted that the important task of reintegrating the estimated 4,000 child soldiers into society would require an intensive and long-term commitment of resources. Promoting Recovery: The Under-SecretaryGeneral for Humanitarian Affairs briefed the meeting on the enormous humanitarian needs which the country continues to face as access by humanitarian organizations to some areas of the country remained restricted due to continuing rebel activities. Displacement and security problems have also limited access of farmers to their fields and a serious food shortage is expected. He urged donors to fund the 1998 Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal for Humanitarian Assistance which calls for $20.2 million and which has received only $1 million in donations. The High Commissioner for Refugees indicated that the Sierra Leone refugee crisis had been the largest in Africa in 1998. Since the beginning of the year there had been an outflow of 209,000 Sierra Leonean refugees to Guinea bringing the total to 401,000 and an outflow of 57,000 to Liberia bringing the number to 184,000. The total number of Sierra Leonean refugees was now 595,000. She appealed for donors to contribute to the appeal launched by

UNHCR for $7.2 million for Sierra Leonean refugees for which $3 million has so far been received. Mr. Jonah also briefed the meeting on the Government’s peace-building efforts and stressed the need for a revitalization of the economy, job creation schemes, particularly for youth, and strengthening of the judiciary. The UnderSecretary-General for Political Affairs noted that the Government’s programme for rehabilitation and recovery was aimed at addressing the underlying causes of the conflict and consolidating peace and should not be allowed to falter due to lack of resources. Conclusions and Follow-Up Action: The Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, in his capacity as Chairman of the meeting, summarized the main points made by participants during the proceedings. He noted that the Conference had been welcomed as a timely initiative and that the degree of interest shown was reflected in the high level of attendance and the participation of Ministers and delegations sent from home Governments of various countries. The restoration of President Kabbah and his Government on 10 March 1998 was warmly welcomed and the steps taken since then to restore security, re-establish constitutional order and begin the process of reconciliation, reconstruction and rehabilitation commended. The continued resistance of remnants of the AFRC and RUF, and especially their perpetration of appalling atrocities, was strongly condemned and they were called on to lay down their arms and surrender to the Government. The meetings between Presidents Kabbah and Taylor held in Abuja on 1 July and on 20 July in Monrovia were welcomed and the two leaders were urged to continue to work towards improving relations between their two countries and improving regional security. The importance of stopping illegal supplies of weapons entering Sierra Leone and of neighbouring countries ending direct or indirect support to the rebels was stressed. The need for the Government to pursue policies directed towards promoting national reconciliation while at the same time ensuring that those responsible for crimes and atrocities against the civilian population were brought to justice was acknowledged. All those accused had to be given fair trials with full respect for due process. In this regard, the Government’s invitation to the United Nations and human rights groups to monitor the trials was welcomed. The achievements of ECOWAS and the efforts

20 August 1998 • 487 of ECOMOG in the restoration of the legitimate Government and basic security in many areas of the country were commended. Re-establishing secure conditions was a top priority and the provision of technical assistance to ECOMOG to enable the force to meet its manpower and logistical needs was urgently needed. ECOWAS countries which had yet to contribute troops to ECOMOG in Sierra Leone were urged to do so. The deployment of UNOMSIL was strongly supported and the need for good coordination and cooperation between ECOMOG and UNOMSIL stressed. Several countries indicated their willingness to provide military observers and police advisers for UNOMSIL. The Government’s disarmament, demobilization and reintegration plan was welcomed as a critical element in ensuring durable peace, and the importance of providing adequate resources for it was stressed. Programmes aimed at meeting the needs of youth and women affected by the conflict were of particular importance. The humanitarian situation and the plight of the large number of refugees remained a serious cause for concern for which donor assistance was urgently needed. Appreciation was expressed to those countries providing sanctuary for the refugees, particularly Guinea and Liberia. Finally, the general view was that, while the political, military, humanitarian and social challenges faced in Sierra Leone were daunting they were not unsurmountable. A wellcoordinated international response involving the United Nations and other international organizations, NGOs and the private sector was urgently needed. It was encouraging that several countries and organizations expressed at the Conference their readiness to support the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the country, in some cases by restarting their bilateral assistance programmes which had been suspended following the military coup in May 1997. At the end of the meeting, participants expressed their support for the establishment of an international contact group to mobilize and coordinate further support for Sierra Leone and noted that discussions should be held by interested Member States in the near future to consider its composition and modus operandi. Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

19 August 1998 Letter (EOSG, A/52/102/S/1998/785); regional organizations

Letter sent to the president of the General Assembly and to the president of the Security Council. I wish to thank you for your participation in the third meeting between the United Nations and regional organizations, which recently took place in New York. I am particularly pleased that we had an open and frank discussion and a constructive exchange of views on some of the most important issues affecting cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations in the field of conflict prevention. I have taken careful note of suggestions made for enhancing our interaction in this field. I also welcome the emphasis that was placed at the meeting on the need for effective follow-up and the decision taken to convene a working level meeting between the United Nations and participating regional organizations, before the end of the year, to develop further the modalities for collaboration that we discussed. In the meantime, I have the pleasure to enclose a copy of the summary statement I delivered at the concluding session of the meeting, which highlights some of the main points of our meeting. It is clear to me that there will be a growing need for expanded and more effective cooperation in the field of conflict prevention between the United Nations and regional organizations, and I value the support of the General Assembly in this regard. I would be grateful if the present letter and my concluding statement could be circulated as a document of the General Assembly, under agenda items 31, 33, 34, 40 and 42 of the fifty-second session, and of the Security Council.

20 August 1998 Secretary-General Awaits Details on US Military Actions in Response to Terrorist Attacks

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6675); terrorism The Secretary-General, sharing the views of both the Security Council and the General Assembly, condemns terrorism in all its forms. He was informed by the United States Government of its military actions, minutes after they took place, against targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan in response to the terrorist attacks in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam. He is concerned over these developments and awaits further details.

488 • 24 August 1998

24 August 1998 Secretary-General Says He Is Pleased with US/UK Decision on Trial of Lockerbie Bombing Suspects

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6682); terrorism The Secretary-General was informed this morning by the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of their decision to agree to hold the trial of the two Libyan suspects for the Lockerbie bombing before a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands following normal Scots law and procedures, except for the replacement of the jury by a panel of three Scottish High Court judges. The Secretary-General was requested by the two Governments to convey to the Libyan Government a letter and enclosures delivered to his Deputy this morning, elaborating the American-British proposal. He was also asked to provide to the Libyan Government any assistance it might require with regard to the physical arrangements for the transfer of the two accused directly to the Netherlands. Over the past months, the Secretary-General has been following this issue very closely and has been in contact with all three Governments involved, as well as other interested parties. He is extremely pleased about today’s announcement and hopes that all sides will cooperate in order to reach an early resolution of this long-standing issue. The Secretary-General is also grateful to the Government of the Netherlands for its willingness to assist in this matter.

27 August 1998 Annual Report on the Work of the Organization

Report to General Assembly (GA, A/53/1) Contents Chapter Paragraphs Introduction 1–16 Achieving peace and security 17–72 Prevention 25–55 Diplomacy 31–42 Preventive deployment 43–44 Disarmament 45–55 Peacekeeping 56–61 Sanctions 62–64 Post-conflict peace-building 65–69 Complementary strategies 70–72 II. Cooperating for development 73–121 Eradication of poverty 84–91 Social development 92–105 Sustainable development 106–109 Fostering investment and growth 110–113

Page 1 3 3 4 5 5 7 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13

Chapter Paragraphs Supporting good governance 114–121 III. Meeting humanitarian commitments 122–146 Coordinating humanitarian action 126–135 Delivering humanitarian services 136–141 Assisting refugees 142–146 IV. Engaging with globalization 147–168 The economic dimension 149–153 The environmental dimension 154–162 “Uncivil” society 163–168 V. Strengthening the international legal order 169–183 The human rights regime 171–175 The international tribunals 176–179 The International Criminal Court 180–183 VI. Managing change 184–226 Creating a culture of communication 185–193 Administration and management 194–201 Legal affairs 202–211 Project services 212–216 Accountability and oversight 217–226 VII. Conclusion 227–236

Page 13 15 15 16 17 19 19 19 20 23 23 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 28 31

Introduction

1. Nearly a decade has passed since the end of the cold war, but the contours of the new era remain poorly understood. Nations large and small are grappling with new responsibilities and new constraints. Unpredictability and surprise have become almost commonplace. Uncertainty exists; in some cases even anxiety, about new roles that may be required of multilateral organizations, and more broadly about their place in the international community. Indeed, the peoples of the United Nations, in whose name the Charter is written, are searching for new ways to define how they are united in community though divided by custom and conviction, power and interests. 2. Notwithstanding the extraordinary achievements of multilateralism during the past half century, too many voices remain unheard, too much pain persists and too many additional opportunities for human betterment are forgone for us to rest satisfied with the way things work today. These still unmet challenges must remain uppermost on the United Nations agenda. The Millennium Assembly to be held in September 2000 affords a unique opportunity for the world’s leaders to look beyond their pressing daily concerns and consider what kind of United Nations they can envision and will support in the new century. 3. To facilitate those deliberations, I propose to submit a report to the Millennium Assembly, suggesting to Member States a set of workable objectives and institutional means for the United Nations to meet the challenges of human solidarity in the years ahead. The report will draw on sev-

27 August 1998 • 489 eral reviews of recent United Nations conferences scheduled between now and then. It will also benefit from the diverse views and aspirations expressed at a series of global and regional hearings and seminars that I propose to convene— global town meetings, in effect—and which many individual Governments, civil society actors and other groups are also holding. 4. The “quiet revolution” of institutional reforms that I initiated last year was intended to revitalize an organizational machinery that in some respects had been made sluggish and creaky by the effects of the cold war and the North-South confrontation, and to better position it for the highly complex, increasingly interconnected and far more fluid context of the new era. I can say with some satisfaction that the United Nations family today acts with greater unity of purpose and coherence of effort than it did a year ago. The new teamwork is most pronounced within the Secretariat and in its relations with the programmes and funds. 5. The work programme has been organized in four core areas: peace and security, development cooperation, international economic and social affairs, and humanitarian affairs; a fifth, human rights, is designated a cross-cutting issue. In each cluster, and Executive Committee now manages common, cross-cutting and overlapping policy concerns. 6. To integrate the work of the Executive Committees and address matters affecting the Organization as a whole, a cabinet-style Senior Management Group, comprising the leadership from the various United Nations headquarters, has been established. It meets weekly, with members in Geneva, Vienna, Nairobi and Rome participating through teleconferencing. A Strategic Planning Unit has been established to enable the Group to consider individual frames of reference. Member States approved my recommendation to create the post of Deputy Secretary-General; in the few short months that Louise Frechette of Canada has occupied this office, it has been demonstrated conclusively how critical it is in augmenting the leadership and management capacity of the Secretariat. 7. The Secretariat itself has been streamlined, through the merging and elimination of units; nearly a thousand posts have been cut, to fewer than 9,000; and the budget has been reduced to less than that of the previous biennium. A task force on human resources management that I convened earlier this year has just submitted its report to me; I will act expeditiously and decisively on its recommendations.

8. Productive working relations within the United Nations system as a whole, including the Bretton Woods institutions, have been expanded and deepened through the Administrative Committee on Coordination. Several concrete instances are documented in this report. 9. In my reform programme, I also recommended that Member States refine or revise a number of institutional practices under their jurisdiction. In the main, the General Assembly decided to defer its consideration of such questions or continue them at the fifty-third session. Still to be approved is the proposal that specific time limits be adopted for all new mandates, a relatively simple procedure that would significantly enhance the effectiveness of programme activities and the General Assembly’s own oversight role. The proposal to adopt a results-based budget system also remains under review. This initiative is of the utmost importance, because no single measure would do more to increase accountability and efficiency in the work of the Organization. Member States are also still studying details of the proposed Development Account, an instrument by which savings from administrative efficiencies would be invested in innovative development projects. 10. Lastly, as part the endeavour to reinvigorate the United Nations I have made a particular effort to establish a mutually beneficial dialogue with the international business community. Business has a stake in the soft infrastructure that the United Nations system produces—the norms, standards and best practices on which the smooth flow of international transactions depends. Moreover, business is increasingly coming to appreciate that the work of the United Nations on behalf of peace, human rights and development helps lay the stable foundations that the expansion of its own opportunities requires. In turn, the United Nations appreciates that business has the capital, technology and expertise necessary to fuel economic growth, and that its attitude and readiness to cooperate can critically affect the prospects of a wide variety of other objectives. The dialogue is accordingly premised on my conviction that expanding markets and human security can and should go hand in hand. 11. Engagement with the business community parallels the long-standing and increasingly close working relationships the United Nations has with non-governmental organizations. Whether in human rights or the environment, in development, humanitarian assistance or arms limitation, nongovernmental organizations are indispensable part-

490 • 27 August 1998

ners for the United Nations efforts at the country level, and, in some cases, at policy levels as well. In short, the United Nations is both witness to and participant in the birth of a global civil society. 12. Not long after I proposed my reform agenda to the General Assembly in the summer of 1997, Mr. Ted Turner, Co-Chairman of Time Warner Inc., announced his extraordinary gift of $1 billion to support United Nations programmes. Never before in the history of philanthropy had a single gift of such magnitude been given for this or any other cause. The necessary institutional arrangements to administer the gift are now in place, and the first set of grants, totalling some $22 million, have been allocated. The majority of projects funded in this first round were in the areas of children’s health, family planning and reproductive health, as well as environmental and climate change. The United Nations Fund for International Partnerships has been established within the Secretariat to manage the process of grant allocation and ensure that it remains fully consistent with the Organization’s priorities. 13. This unprecedented act of generosity not only makes available new and additional resources for United Nations work on behalf of the world’s most vulnerable people and its fragile planetary life support systems. It is also an expression of an entirely new phenomenon: an incipient sense of global citizenship and responsibility. 14. Another sign of change in the global arena this past year was the conclusion of negotiations on the Convention banning anti-personnel landmines and the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Governments conducted the actual negotiations in both cases, and groups of so-called likeminded States provided the core support that led to their adoption; but in both instances a new expression of global people power was manifest: individuals and groups animated by humanitarian and human rights concerns, united by the Internet and supported by world public opinion. 15. One of the most profound challenges that we face as a community of nations is to understand better the emerging socio-economic forces and forms of globalization, to shape them to serve our needs and to respond effectively to their deleterious consequences. There is a great deal of talk today about life in the global village. If that village is to be a truly desirable place for all of us on this planet, it must be embedded in and guided by broadly shared values and principles; its policing functions and the provision of other public goods must be strengthened and made more predictable;

and a bridge must be constructed between, in effect, the Dow Jones index and the human development index. 16. No organization in the world is better suited to contribute to these ends than the United Nations, because no other enjoys its scope and legitimacy; but to move forward we need to shed baggage, create new visions and devise new ways to achieve them. We have taken the first vital steps towards transformation, but we have some way to go before we become a truly effective twenty-firstcentury organization. Over the next two years, leading up to the Millennium Assembly, I shall solicit the views of Member States, civil society actors and other interested groups and individuals on the best way to get from here to there. . . . VII. Conclusion

227. One of the founding missions of the United Nations was to prevent the scourge of war between States. As we move towards the new century, the international community has largely realized that goal. However, while inter-State war has become a relatively rare aberration, threats to human security have by no means been eradicated. Savage civil wars persist, terrorism strikes at innocent victims and the AIDS epidemic provides daily proof that not only armies move across borders and kill people. In some parts of the developing world poverty seems endemic. 228. Recent experience has shown that the quest for international peace and security requires complementary action on two fronts: on the security front, where victory spells freedom from fear; and on the economic and social front, where victory spells freedom from want. Human security and equitable and sustainable development turn out to be two sides of the same coin. 229. This past year we learned more clearly than ever before that the forces of globalization profoundly shape our ability to pursue these objectives: that they pose extraordinary opportunities as well as enormous challenges. Globalization has generated an unprecedented surge in prosperity. The market-friendly development strategies that created the so-called Asian economic miracle, for example, delivered hundreds of millions of people from poverty in less than three decades. Those same market forces last year substantially overshot any needed market “correction”. The consequences have been sobering—absolute declines in GDP, increased poverty, hunger, human rights abuses and violent social unrest. 230. Globalization puts a premium on good governance, and it can help devolve economic

1 September 1998 • 491 power from repressive regimes while creating the social space for the emergence of a thriving middle class and a robust civil society. On the other hand, it reduces the ability of Governments to deploy policy instruments free of external constraint and can thereby limit their capacity to help those most in need at home and abroad. 231. Global markets trade not only in economic goods but also in social ills—the illicit arms trade, for example, including components of weapons of mass destruction; the means to evade sanctions; the rapidly increasing traffic in human beings for sexual exploitation; the multitude of environmental challenges. 232. Globalization not only expands economic and social ties that unite; by corroding existing cultural identities it can also reinforce differences that divide. 233. The fact that globalization has these complex and potentially volatile consequences should occasion no surprise. Markets are purely instrumental means for the efficient allocation of resources. Maximizing the beneficial effects of market forces while minimizing their negative consequences has always required that they be coupled with the effective exercise of public authority: instituting the political and legal frameworks that markets require, and providing the safeguards against the deleterious effects they can produce. Whereas markets have become global, Governments remain local, however, and in key respects the capability gap between them is widening. Multilateral institutions have a critical role to play in bridging this gap. Only universal organizations like the United Nations have the scope and legitimacy to generate the principles, norms and rules that are essential if globalization is to benefit everyone. 234. The task ahead, therefore, is not to try to reverse globalization—an effort which, in any case, would be futile. The task is to harness its positive potential while managing its adverse effects. Strengthening multilateral institutions can help accomplish that task. 235. If globalization involves costs as well as benefits, being on the periphery of the global economy is even more problematic. Nowhere is this fundamental reality more starkly confirmed than in the case of Africa. Vicious circles of unsound policies, predatory politics, natural disasters, violent conflict and the neglect of the developed countries have isolated large parts of the continent from the mainstream of global development. In my report to the Security Council in April, I addressed the sources of conflict and how to achieve peace

and sustainable development in Africa, laying out a programme of action for Africa and the international community alike. In the past six months the situation, especially in central Africa, has visibly worsened. There have been too many false starts, too many pledges of uncorrupt rule routinely violated, too many broken promises of transitions to democracy. All of Africa’s leaders must honour their mandates and serve their people, and the international community must do its part so that Africa can, at long last, succeed in the quest for peace and greater prosperity.

1 September 1998 Secretary-General Accepts Honorary Degree from the University of Witwatersrand

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6686); International Criminal Court Speech delivered by the Secretary-General upon receiving an honorary doctorate of law from the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. The honour you have just bestowed on me is one I shall cherish all my life. I cherish it all the more because you have done it to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Like you, Chancellor, I believe the international community has struck a new and important blow for human rights with the adoption of the statute of the future International Criminal Court, and I want to devote my address mainly to that subject. But I also think this is a highly appropriate place in which to commemorate the Universal Declaration—not least because it was the alma mater of the late Duma Nokwe, whose name has become almost synonymous with human rights in this country. Every African, and every internationalist, should know and take pride in the history of “Wits”, as your university is affectionately known around the world. In the darkest days of apartheid, when the nationalist government was brutally and unnaturally separating black from white, and thereby isolating itself and the whole country from normal contact with the civilized world, this place was a brave beacon of universal values. You never forgot your most distinguished alumnus, Nelson Mandela, during the decades when he languished in jail. And as soon as he was available, without waiting for him to become President, you awarded him an honorary degree in 1991. It is a special honour for me today to follow in his footsteps.

1 September 1998 • 491 power from repressive regimes while creating the social space for the emergence of a thriving middle class and a robust civil society. On the other hand, it reduces the ability of Governments to deploy policy instruments free of external constraint and can thereby limit their capacity to help those most in need at home and abroad. 231. Global markets trade not only in economic goods but also in social ills—the illicit arms trade, for example, including components of weapons of mass destruction; the means to evade sanctions; the rapidly increasing traffic in human beings for sexual exploitation; the multitude of environmental challenges. 232. Globalization not only expands economic and social ties that unite; by corroding existing cultural identities it can also reinforce differences that divide. 233. The fact that globalization has these complex and potentially volatile consequences should occasion no surprise. Markets are purely instrumental means for the efficient allocation of resources. Maximizing the beneficial effects of market forces while minimizing their negative consequences has always required that they be coupled with the effective exercise of public authority: instituting the political and legal frameworks that markets require, and providing the safeguards against the deleterious effects they can produce. Whereas markets have become global, Governments remain local, however, and in key respects the capability gap between them is widening. Multilateral institutions have a critical role to play in bridging this gap. Only universal organizations like the United Nations have the scope and legitimacy to generate the principles, norms and rules that are essential if globalization is to benefit everyone. 234. The task ahead, therefore, is not to try to reverse globalization—an effort which, in any case, would be futile. The task is to harness its positive potential while managing its adverse effects. Strengthening multilateral institutions can help accomplish that task. 235. If globalization involves costs as well as benefits, being on the periphery of the global economy is even more problematic. Nowhere is this fundamental reality more starkly confirmed than in the case of Africa. Vicious circles of unsound policies, predatory politics, natural disasters, violent conflict and the neglect of the developed countries have isolated large parts of the continent from the mainstream of global development. In my report to the Security Council in April, I addressed the sources of conflict and how to achieve peace

and sustainable development in Africa, laying out a programme of action for Africa and the international community alike. In the past six months the situation, especially in central Africa, has visibly worsened. There have been too many false starts, too many pledges of uncorrupt rule routinely violated, too many broken promises of transitions to democracy. All of Africa’s leaders must honour their mandates and serve their people, and the international community must do its part so that Africa can, at long last, succeed in the quest for peace and greater prosperity.

1 September 1998 Secretary-General Accepts Honorary Degree from the University of Witwatersrand

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6686); International Criminal Court Speech delivered by the Secretary-General upon receiving an honorary doctorate of law from the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. The honour you have just bestowed on me is one I shall cherish all my life. I cherish it all the more because you have done it to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Like you, Chancellor, I believe the international community has struck a new and important blow for human rights with the adoption of the statute of the future International Criminal Court, and I want to devote my address mainly to that subject. But I also think this is a highly appropriate place in which to commemorate the Universal Declaration—not least because it was the alma mater of the late Duma Nokwe, whose name has become almost synonymous with human rights in this country. Every African, and every internationalist, should know and take pride in the history of “Wits”, as your university is affectionately known around the world. In the darkest days of apartheid, when the nationalist government was brutally and unnaturally separating black from white, and thereby isolating itself and the whole country from normal contact with the civilized world, this place was a brave beacon of universal values. You never forgot your most distinguished alumnus, Nelson Mandela, during the decades when he languished in jail. And as soon as he was available, without waiting for him to become President, you awarded him an honorary degree in 1991. It is a special honour for me today to follow in his footsteps.

492 • 1 September 1998

Many other black South Africans who studied here in the apartheid years are now prominent in public life: people like Dr. Abbey Nkomo in politics, Dr. Nthato Motlana in business and, of course, Chief Justice Ismael Mohamed. It was in 1959 that you unveiled the plaque in the foyer of this hall, with its defiant pledge “to uphold the principle that a university is a place where men and women, without regard to race and colour, are welcome to join in the acquisition and advancement of knowledge”. I think those words should be displayed in all universities everywhere. And in 1980 you invited Nadine Gordimer to speak at your graduation ceremony. That too was an act of courage and defiance, given the bleak political climate of those times. The fact that Nadine is here again today makes this special occasion even more special for me. She has a very special place in the history of this country, but also of this continent, and of the world. As many of you must know, Nadine is one of those Nobel laureates who really has used her international prestige in the service of humankind and of human rights. She is a great novelist but also, in her non-fictional writings, a fearless defender of truth and of personal freedom. And she has always reminded her readers that freedom of choice is an economic issue as well as a political one. It is thus entirely in character that last year Nadine accepted my invitation to become a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Development Programme, focusing on the eradication of poverty. There could be no nobler cause. Let me thank her once again for her efforts, on behalf of the whole United Nations system. But I want to go back for a moment to her speech in this hall in 1980, a moving and eloquent address which should be read and re-read even today. She too quoted those words from the plaque in the foyer, which by then had already been there for 21 years. And she told you bluntly that despite the efforts of just and enlightened chancellors and principals, students and graduates, the ideal expressed in those words had not yet been fulfilled. Of course not. How could it be, given the barbaric race laws then in force? As she said, this was a segregated University, with “only a token, if growing, presence of black students.” But, in common with thousands and thousands

of other South Africans of all races, people here were struggling against the race laws, against the whole evil system of apartheid. Thank God, sooner than many people believed possible, your struggle succeeded. The laws that once prevented you from living up to your historic pledge have been dismantled. Today, therefore, you have no excuse if you do not live up to it. I know that this is still a controversial issue, and that some very harsh things have been said and written about Wits in recent weeks and months. It would not be seemly for me to intervene in those controversies, except to say I am sure Wits will overcome them, and will play as important and valuable a role in the new South Africa as it did in the old. What I think I can safely say is that these controversies in no way reflect on the personal merits of your Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor. Who, after all, could dispute the merits of Professor Bundy, of whom President Mandela said, at his installation as Vice-Chancellor earlier this year, that he has played a key part in the renewal of South African historiography? And who could dispute the merits of Richard Goldstone? I should like especially to say a word about Richard, not because he has just spoken so flatteringly about me, but because of the great services he has rendered to the world and to the United Nations. As Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry regarding Public Violence and Intimidation, Justice Goldstone played a vital part in South Africa’s historic transition, which belied so many gloomy predictions and provided us all with such an inspiring model of conflict prevention. And of course he continues to play an important stabilizing role as a Justice of your Constitutional Court. But as the first Prosecutor of the two United Nations criminal Tribunals, for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, he has perhaps done an even greater service to the international community. The work of those Tribunals, though still incomplete, has been a milestone in the age-long struggle to end the “culture of impunity”; to prove that, when crimes occur of such magnitude that they are rightly dubbed “crimes against humanity”; humanity is not without recourse. Tomorrow, in Arusha, a historic landmark will be passed when the Rwanda Tribunal announces the first judgment ever given by an international court in a case of genocide. Moreover, the establishment of those two

1 September 1998 • 493 Tribunals was an essential step on the road to Rome. In Rome, six weeks ago, it was my privilege to hand over to the Italian Government the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In Rome, for five weeks before that, diplomats and lawyers from 160 States had been working day and night to draft that Statute. South Africa, as one of the “like-minded” countries, played a leading role in that work. It was a prodigious achievement. Divergent and sometimes diametrically opposed national criminal laws and procedures had to be reconciled. Small States had to be reassured that the Statute would not give more powerful ones a pretext to override their sovereignty. Others had to be convinced that the pursuit of justice would not interfere with the vital work of making peace. That last point, I know, was a concern for many of you here in South Africa. Your recent history has been marked by some appalling crimes, which have been painfully chronicled and exposed in the hearings of your Truth and Reconciliation Commission. You have confronted the legacy of the past by offering amnesty, even to the worst offenders, provided they were willing to make a full confession under the eyes of the whole nation, in the presence of the surviving victims. The world has followed those dramatic hearings, with wonder and on the whole with admiration. But now some people have tried to use them as an argument against the International Criminal Court. They have suggested that in the future such an exemplary process of national reconciliation might be torpedoed, since the Statute empowers the Court to intervene in cases where a State is “unwilling or unable” to exercise its national jurisdiction. Ladies and Gentlemen, that argument is a travesty. The purpose of that clause in the Statute is to ensure that mass murderers and other arch-criminals cannot shelter behind a State run by themselves or their cronies, or take advantage of a general breakdown of law and order. No one should imagine that it would apply to a case like South Africa’s, where the regime and the conflict which caused the crimes have come to an end, and the victims have inherited power. It is inconceivable that, in such a case, the Court would seek to substitute its judgement for that of a whole nation which is seeking the best

way to put a traumatic past behind it and build a better future. Some people seem to imagine that this Court will be composed of frivolous or malicious people, roaming the world in search of opportunities to undermine a peace process here, or prosecute a peacekeeper there. Nothing could be more improbable. The judges and prosecutors, according to the Statute, will be persons of high moral character, with extensive competence and experience either in criminal law and procedure, or in relevant areas of international law. They will be chosen by secret ballot in an Assembly of all States that have signed and ratified the Statute, and at least 60 States must have done so before the Court can come into existence. So if any States are worried that the judges or prosecutors of this Court may be inclined to malice, or frivolity, or bias, by far their best remedy is to sign and ratify the Statute, and to ensure that as many like-minded States as possible do the same. South Africa, I am delighted to say, was one of the first States to grasp this vital point. It was one of 39 States that signed the Statute on the very first day. That fact provides the most convincing answer to those who think the Court would somehow interfere with a South African-style process of Truth and Reconciliation. I was equally delighted, though not surprised, to find Richard Goldstone in the forefront of the Court’s defenders after the Statute was signed. In a characteristically trenchant essay, published in Time magazine, he recalled the vital role of the United States in setting up the Nuremberg tribunal after World War Two, and in supporting the two existing Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. He issued a call to the United States to join its closest allies in supporting the new International Court, and so to “resume its position of leadership on behalf of international justice”. As he rightly said, “the United States does have an understandable and legitimate interest in ensuring that such a court would not unfairly subject American citizens to politicized complaints”. But he was equally right when he went on to say that “the careful procedures and demanding qualifications for the selection of the prosecutor and judges . . . will serve as an effective check against irresponsible behaviour”. Richard, I cannot do better than echo those timely words, and thank you for them. Your voice is one that commands great respect

494 • 1 September 1998

in the United States, as it does around the world. And your example, in your work for the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals, is an eloquent demonstration of how responsible the Prosecutor of an international court can and must be. To receive a doctorate of law from your hands is an honour indeed. I too hope that the United States, and many other States, will soon follow South Africa’s example. I hope, moreover, that those who have already signed will soon ratify, so that the Court can assume its functions very early in the new century. I remain convinced that an effective Court, by deterring potential criminals, will give future generations their best hope of a world free from the scourges of aggression and genocide, which have made this century a hell on earth for so many millions of people. We at the United Nations never forget our responsibility to those future generations, nor the challenges the next generation will have to face. Nowhere are those challenges greater than in Africa, and on no country does the responsibility fall more heavily than on this one. Whether the next generation lives up to the challenge will depend crucially on South Africa’s schools and universities; and perhaps especially on you here, the faculty and students of Wits. I am sure you will not fail them. And I am greatly honoured, through this doctorate of law, to be associated with you in your task.

3 September 1998 Letter (UN archives); Sudan Internal note to the Secretary-General prepared by Binta H. Dieye of the Executive Office of the Secretary-General summarizing a mission report on the situation in Sudan. SUMMARY OF AMBASSADOR VRAALSEN’S MISSION REPORT ON SUDAN (11 AUGUST 1998–21 AUGUST 1998)

The report of Ambassador Vraalsen centered on the following issues: Humanitarian Truce

The cease-fire had not allowed for cross line operations by land. A major weakness of the current cease-fire was the absence of monitoring mechanism or a precise understanding between the parties as how it would be implemented and supervised. Dr. John Garang held the position that the OLS

was set up to deliver aid in times of war and should focus on gaining access rather than on a cease-fire. Kenya showed some sympathy for the SPLA position. In a meeting with General Sumbeiyio the following formula was agreed: “A six-month renewable humanitarian truce which would extend to all areas of Sudan where there are humanitarian needs.” The use of the word “truce” rather than “cease-fire” and the inclusion of Nuba and southern East Nile could make this formula acceptable to SPLA. President Moi will undertake to have IGAD propose the formula to concerned parties. Humanitarian Technical Committee

A possible forum for the promotion of a humanitarian truce could be the Humanitarian Technical Committee which was originated in 1994 IGAD talks and which the IGAD chair wished to reactivate. Although there were varied opinions on the importance of the committee, the UK Ambassador in Khartoum believed that the committee would be useful in allowing for a continuation of discussions in the long gap between IGAD meetings. The Kenyan Minister of Foreign Affairs had asked for the committee to be convened as soon as possible to determine what could be expected of it. Food Diversion

There were allegations that OLS was supplying the SPLA for the next dry season. An OLS Task Force, (the Vulnerability and Targeting Task Force) was looking into the issue. Crisis in Wau

The high mortality rates (approximately 70 people are dying daily) in Wau were a direct result of inadequate therapeutic feeding facilities. The government was very slow in clearing NGO expatriate staff for additional therapeutic feeding centers. Ambassador Vraalsen had discussed with ICRC the possibility of filling the gap. The UN response to the crisis in Wau needed urgent strengthening. There was only one international staff member in Wau. NGOs were operating under severe constraints. They had expressed the view that the UN had not always sufficiently supported them. Efforts were required to overcome the confidence gap between the UN and NGOs in Khartoum. Constraints imposed by government seriously affected the security of UN staff. For example, UN vehicles were still not allowed to have HF radios. Another area of concern was the lack of UN access to rebel held areas of Nuba. The Foreign Minister indicated that it would submit a proposal soon.

3 September 1998 • 495 The issue of spare parts for the train which used to run between Babanusa and Wau was raised by the government in almost every meeting. Recommendations

Ambassador Vraalsen formulated a number of recommendations: • In order to promote an extension of the current cease-fire and prepare the ground for a negotiated comprehensive humanitarian cease-fire, the Secretary-General should write to IGAD members. Consideration should be given to seeking the support of the permanent five and the donor community to reinforce these efforts. • Instructions should be drafted from OCHA New York concerning the Humanitarian Technical Committee proposed in the IGAD Communique. These instructions should spell out what the UN would wish to have discussed in the meeting and should ensure that on humanitarian issues, the UN remains in the lead. • With regard to food diversion, the recommendations of the Vulnerability and Targeting Task Force should be carefully studied and implemented. • In Wau, the UN should establish as soon as possible a significant international presence. • Relations need to be further strengthened between INGOs and the UN in Khartoum. • A study of the feasibility of the use of the train to supply humanitarian needs in the Southern Kordofan should be undertaken by WFP. • A local review of the security of humanitarian personnel with particular focus on means of evacuation from remote locations in southern Sudan, should be considered. I have noted recommendations. KP [Kieran Predergast] and [Sergio Vieira] de Mello should review jointly and make a decision. —K.A., 6/9

3 September 1998 Press Conference at the XII Non-Aligned Movement Summit Conference, in Durban, South Africa

Press conference (OSSG) First of all, I would like to thank President Mandela and the Government of South Africa for inviting me here and organising this conference and since I got here Dr. Salim Salim of the OAU [Organization of African Unity] and myself have

had a series of conversations with key players in the Congo crises. I must say that prior to our coming here we have stayed in close touch sharing information and monitoring the situation about the situation and trying to get what collective help we can bring to the situation. I’ve been very encouraged with the consultations and the discussions we’ve had since I got here. This morning’s meeting was particularly usefull; we were brought up to date and got good information as to where the parties stood. I will be meeting President Musevani and President Bizimungu with Dr. Salim later on this morning to pursue our discussions with them. But I think we are going to be leaving here I suspect I also speak for my friend Dr. Salim that we will be leaving South Africa encouraged of what has transpired and would urge all the parties concerned to work closely and effectively to resolve this issue and put it behind us. The people of Congo have suffered too long for us not to bring this to a quick solution. Perhaps I will pause and ask Dr. Salim to say something . . . We will now take your questions. QUESTION (Mike Hannah, CNN): SecretaryGeneral, what sort of role do you feel the United States has to play? Are you just looking at the purely diplomatic role at the moment or is there going to be a need do you believe for peace in the region? SECRETARY-GENERAL: At this stage we are looking at the Diplomatic initiatives and given the situation on the ground obviously there will be a military aspect when you get to questions of withdrawal and monitoring of cease-fire and that sort of thing. I think it is a task in which I would appeal to all governments who can help to assist. Obviously the leaders in the region have taken the lead. But they will require the assistance, the understanding and the support of international community. And so we of the UN and key governments should be able to give the necessary support and to use their influence with the parties to steer everyone in the right direction. QUESTION: Yesterday Kabila said to us that he won’t agree to a cease-fire number one, and he said that Zimbabwean and Namibian troops won’t be withdrawn from the DRC, what messages is it sending, are we having mixed messages here, because you said there won’t be a cease-fire in the DRC? And is that not a snap [sic] to the SADC? S-G: That was yesterday and this is today. QUESTION: [Inaudible]. S-G: I think you are trying to draw me out. We have indicated that very constructive and useful

496 • 3 September 1998

discussions are going on and these are discussions which are best not conducted on television or on public. And I think usually when you do it that way and there is public posturing, you are not likely to succeed. But I think you should take it from us that we are making good progress and the discussions cover all aspects on the situation. Everybody wants peace. How do you get it? It means cease-fire, it means withdrawal of forces and it means that there will be other issues to be dealt with later. But I think for the moment I have said that helpful and constructive and crucial talks are going on and we are making progress and I think if you are patient perhaps in a few days you will get a bit more. QUESTION: The DRC can I ask you about the Zimbabwe (question to President Mandela) [inaudible]. S-G: I think I have answered your first question when your other colleague asked the question and I said that was yesterday and this is today. By that I meant the situation is evolving, we are dealing with an evolving situation and not a static situation and what is heard or done yesterday may be affected by developments within 24 hours. So my sense is that the governments who are working with President Kabila, who are providing assistance and were at this meeting today and are in constant touch with him also know his feelings and I think you should take it from me that we are moving in the right direction. And there are no diversions at this stage. I can say that as someone who was at the meeting this morning about SADC is at one with this issue, and the atmosphere was very harmonious, there were no kind of disagreements you are referring to I did not witness. QUESTION: Last night, Mr. Kabila said that he invited Angolans and the Zimbabweans to come to his country, but he views the involvement of Uganda and Rwanda as aggressive as he said in his speech yesterday, how do you view this and do you share his opinion on the situation in the region and also there were some rumours last night that the Angolans and Zimbabweans are going to hold their advice militarily, are you aware of this in this meeting this morning? S-G: On the second one, I cannot go into the issues of the second question you have raised, but if you did listen to President Kabila yesterday as you did, he listed the countries that were invited and it implies that those who are there have not been invited are there illegally, and should not be there, and so I think you have the answer to your question.

QUESTION: You’ve drawn a clear distinction between the two, can we therefore look forward to, I mean, if we see this as progress would mean the removal of those who are there illegally? S-G: I think I referred to peace talks, and the fact that everybody wants peace, and once we begin to make progress, the withdrawal of forces in whatever sequences and phases will follow down the line eventually. One would want to see the withdrawal of all foreign troops, but this obviously will have to be done in sequence and in phases and these are things that will have to be discussed. QUESTION: [Inaudible]. S-G: There have been consultations going on between them again this morning, but there has been a whole series of meetings as I indicated earlier, first of all, Dr. Salim and myself met with President Mugabe and Sam Nujoma, who has had an earlier meeting with the four governments engaged on one side in Congo, that is the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe and President Mugabe was authorized to act for them and speak for them. So we had a very frank and long discussion with the two Presidents. President Mugabe and Sam Nujoma also met President Bizimungu and Musevini and had a long discussion. And I have had discussions with them since. Then I’ll be seeing President Museveni and Bizimungu after this meeting and of course President Dos Santos was in the meeting this morning. But there is quite a lot of work going on behind the scenes and away from the congress and you should take it from us that a lot is happening.

4 September 1998 Letter (EOSG); Cyprus Letter to the president of the Security Council, Hans Dahlgren. Dear Mr. President, I have received the following letter dated 2 September 1998 from His Excellency Mr. Denktash: “I have the honour to enclose herewith a copy of the proposals I have made to Mr. Glafkos Clerides, the leader of the Greek Cypriot administration, on 31 August 1998, towards a viable and just settlement of the Cyprus dispute. The said proposals, which are self-explanatory, have been made in good faith with a view to creating the basis on which negotiations between true equals can take place. They present an historic opportunity for the final settlement of this long-

11 September 1998 • 497 standing dispute and, if seized upon, will contribute to the strengthening of peace and stability in our entire region. I am sure you will appreciate the particular importance of this, at a time when the other side is engaged in policies raising tension and perpetuating division in the island. You will no doubt observe that our proposals uphold the principle, of the equality of the two peoples in the island. This equality which was enshrined in the 1960 Agreements has always been the fundamental basis of the search for a solution in Cyprus in the exercise of the mission of good offices of the Secretary-General. Furthermore, the proposals aim to uphold and strengthen the all-tooimportant balance between Turkey and Greece over Cyprus established by the Agreements and the state of affairs created by them. We sincerely hope that, in spite of its initial reaction, the Greek Cypriot side, after serious consideration of this constructive initiative, will give a positive response, in a reciprocal spirit of goodwill. We trust that both Your Excellency and all those who wish to contribute to the settlement of this dispute, will urge the Greek Cypriot side to do so. I would be grateful if the present letter and its annex could be brought to the attention of the members of the Security Council.” You may wish to inform the Members of the Security Council of this letter and its enclosure, which is attached. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

10 September 1998 Letter (EOSG); Sweden Letter sent to Hans Dahlgren in his capacity as permanent representative of Sweden to the United Nations. A similar letter was sent in French to Alain Dejammet as permanent representative of France, inviting the family of René de Labarrière of France to a ceremony commemorating 50 years of UN peacekeeping. Excellency, I have the honour to refer to the ceremony that will be held on 6 October 1998, to commemorate 50 years of United Nations peacekeeping and honour those United Nations peacekeepers who have lost their lives in the service of the Organization. The Security Council has established the Dag Hammarskjold medal as a tribute to these men and women. The first three medals will be awarded posthumously to Secretary-General Dag Hammar-

skjold, Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden and Commandant René de Labarrière of France. During the 6 October ceremony, I will have the honour personally to present these medals to the representatives of the honorees. I would be grateful if the Government of Sweden would extend, on my behalf, an invitation to the families of Secretary-General Hammarskjold and Count Bernadotte to attend this ceremony in New York and be presented with the Dag Hammarskjold Medal. The United Nations would be pleased to cover the expenses of one representative of each family, including travel to New York and a two-night stay. We would, of course, welcome any other family members who may wish to attend the ceremony, although the United Nations will be unable to cover their expenses. I look forward to welcoming the Hammarskjold and Bernadotte families to the United Nations and joining them in paying tribute to our fallen peacekeepers. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

11 September 1998 Letter (EOSG); African development Letter to the minister of foreign affairs of Australia, Alexander Downer. Excellency, As you are aware, I submitted to the Security Council, in April 1998, a report on the “Causes of Conflict and the Promotion of Durable Peace and Sustainable Development in Africa”. I attempted, in that report, to address ways and means of responding to situations of conflict, building a durable peace and promoting economic growth, and made specific recommendations, as requested by the Council. While African countries have the primary responsibility in implementing those recommendations, there is no doubt that the support of their development partners would greatly enhance their capacity in that respect. I have, therefore, the honour to invite your Excellency to an exchange of views on those aspects of the report that are most relevant to increasing such support. I would like to suggest that such a meeting with Africa’s major development partners take place on 23 September 1998, from 12:15 to 1:15 p.m. This will provide an opportunity for a review of issues such as development assistance and debt relief, taking into account the efforts being made through various bilateral and multilateral initiatives.

498 • 11 September 1998

I would be most grateful if you would confirm your availability to participate in this exchange of views which, I expect, will represent another important step in building increased support for African countries’ efforts. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

14 September 1998 Letter (EOSG); Bangladesh Letter sent to all member states of the United Nations. Dear Mr. Ambassador, I am writing to request your support for emergency assistance to the victims of floods in Bangladesh. These floods are unprecedented in Bangladesh in terms of their duration and the devastation they have caused to its economy and infrastructure. As you will be aware, at present, more than three-quarters of the country is inundated, and more than 30 million people are affected. These people are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance—in terms of food, safe drinking water, medical supplies and shelter. Indeed, until the end of the year, when new crops can be harvested, the affected populations will have little means to stave off hunger and disease. The United Nations has recently issued the attached “Flash Appeal in Support of the Government of Bangladesh for Relief to the Victims of the Floods”, which requests $223 million for emergency relief and initial rehabilitation requirements over the next three to four months. The Appeal, which supports the Government’s own appeal for international assistance on 26 August, targets the most vulnerable groups—homeless women and children—for immediate relief aid. To date, the initial response from the international community has been encouraging. Contributions in cash and kind worth more than $91 million have been reported to the United Nations, either as assistance already provided or as pledged by international donors—and more is being reported each day. But yet more remains to be done. The United Nations is at work in Bangladesh and here at Headquarters, in close cooperation with the Government authorities, the diplomatic community, the Red Crescent Society of Bangladesh and other humanitarian organizations to determine how best we can complement the Government’s own efforts to assist the flood victims and to carry

out critical repairs of infrastructure. Once the waters recede, it is envisaged that a thorough assessment will be undertaken of the longer-term rehabilitation needs, and that these will be incorporated in a later document. I strongly urge your Government to respond generously to the Flash Appeal in order to alleviate the needless suffering of many millions of Bangladeshis and to assist them in restoring their full livelihoods. Please accept, dear Mr. Ambassador, the assurances of my highest consideration.

14 September 1998 Secretary-General Calls for a New UN-NGO Partnership

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6697, PI/1079); nongovernmental organizations Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the annual Department of Public Information– Non-Governmental Organization conference, at UN headquarters. It gives me great pleasure to see you all here, from all corners of the world and all walks of life. Together you form a robust pageant of diversity that is the United Nations at its very best. Welcome to United Nations Headquarters; welcome home. I would also like to address a special greeting to the many eminent speakers who have joined us this year, including the First Lady of Egypt, Suzanne Mubarak; and the First Lady of South Africa, Graça Machel. I myself have just returned from South Africa, from a country and a summit meeting where the document we commemorate today—the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights—was very much at the forefront of our minds. South Africa was of course the scene of one of the world’s most prolonged and pernicious affronts to human dignity. But, from the horror of apartheid came signal achievements for the United Nations and the community of non-governmental organizations alike. For the United Nations, an important principle was affirmed: that international concern for human rights does not stop at a country’s borders. As for non-governmental organizations (NGOs), they— that is you—demonstrated again the role you play in raising public awareness, tweaking the world’s conscience and shaping policy. But it was not just South Africa’s recent history that made me think of the Declaration. Nearly all the issues raised just 12 days ago at the summit

14 September 1998 • 499 meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement were linked directly to the ideals and standards set out in 1948. Conflict in Central Africa? The Declaration’s words on equality and non-discrimination can help point the way towards a solution. Poverty in the developing world? Turmoil in global financial markets? The Declaration was one of the first international instruments to recognize the value of economic and social rights, and their equal and interdependent relationship with civil and political rights. So Dag Hammarskjold was right in calling the Declaration a “living document”. Not only has it stood the test of time, it takes on greater force— both ethically and juridically—with every passing year. The Declaration was adopted by governments. But non-governmental organizations were every bit its authors as the delegates who cast the final votes. The historical record is clear. Before the founding of the United Nations, NGOs led the charge in the adoption of some of the Declaration’s forerunners. The Geneva Conventions of 1864, multilateral labour conventions adopted in 1906, and the International Slavery Convention of 1926, all stemmed from the work of NGOs, who infused the international community with a spirit of reform. Such efforts continued at the San Francisco conference at which the United Nations was founded. The NGOs played a key role in securing language in the United Nations Charter, making clear the Organization’s fundamental commitment to human rights. Among those activists was Minerva Bernardino of the Dominican Republic, a pioneering feminist who dedicated her life to human rights and who was one of only four women to sign the Charter. I was saddened by her death last month, but gladdened to know that the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women stands as one of her enduring legacies. That Commission was not mentioned in the Charter. Only one was: a commission on human rights, which promptly took up the task of elaborating a declaration of human rights. Non-governmental actors were again central players, offering their views and even draft texts. Third Committee Chairman Charles Malik of Lebanon later wrote that there was “hardly an ultimate problem in human life—from God and the State to children and social security—that was not brought out and discussed” in the process. Some

1,300 votes later, after an article-by-article tally, NGOs were fully entitled to share pride in the achievement. Your efforts since then have been equally impressive. You have fought against tyranny, sometimes serving as the de facto opposition. You have braved conflict and natural disaster to protect refugees and provide humanitarian assistance. You have raised vast sums for development. Raised global awareness about the environment. Attended United Nations conferences and meetings by the thousands. The Nobel committee has recognized this work. Amnesty International, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Pugwash Conference, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines are among the many non-governmental groups that have won the Nobel Peace Prize. But NGOs have also come in for another, less welcome sort of recognition: you have been censored and denied access to meetings and information; harassed, jailed and exiled; tortured and murdered. Here we see an essential paradox. In adopting the Declaration, governments pledged to achieve universal respect for the full body of human rights and accepted the primary responsibility to do so. But when governments suppress dissent with violence or sham justice; when they void elections or fail to hold them; when they divert precious resources into excessive military spending; when they are purveyors of discrimination and hatred; when they siphon money intended for the public good into private numbered accounts in financial havens; it is governments themselves who put into doubt our hopes of realizing the Declaration’s ideals. So we need partnerships: partnerships that will allow democratic participation in decision-making; that will enable governments to back down from their mistakes; and that will enable United Nations fact-finding missions and other mechanisms to operate with integrity. We need partnerships that will produce new milestones on a par with the Ottawa Convention banning landmines and the International Criminal Court. To do so, the United Nations–NGO relationship will need to strike a balance. There will be times for bold actions and uncompromising words, and times for more deliberate approaches. Purism and pragmatism both have their place, as do public and private diplomacy. Our challenge is to

500 • 14 September 1998

know when, and then to calibrate our weapons and coordinate our actions. So where do we go from here? The Universal Declaration has given birth to an extensive body of human rights law. This is a great success, on paper. But there are important gaps in coverage. We are far from our goal of universal ratification of all the major conventions. Indigenous peoples have yet to see the adoption of a declaration of their rights, despite many years of drafting. There are other such examples. One drawn-out negotiating process with direct relevance for NGOs seems about to reach a conclusion. At long last, 14 years after the idea was first taken up by a United Nations working group, the General Assembly will consider, at its current session, a draft declaration on the protection of human rights defenders. The declaration rests on a basic premise: that when the rights of human rights defenders are violated, all our rights are put in jeopardy and all of us are made less safe. Accordingly, the draft states that everyone has the right: to meet or assemble peacefully; to form, join and participate in NGOs; to seek and obtain information about human rights; to complain about the policies and actions of officials and government bodies; and to enjoy unhindered access to and communication with international bodies. It obligates States to protect those who exercise these rights from violence, threats, retaliation, discrimination or any other arbitrary action. This official recognition is long overdue, and like you I look forward to the day the declaration is adopted. So there is more law to make. But we cannot rest easy at the thought that so many laws are in place. Instead, we must respond to one of the central realities of our day: the chasm that exists between laws on the books and situations on the ground, in people’s lives. Suffering remains rampant. We see acute emergencies—from Kosovo to Central Africa—and chronic poverty and deprivation the world over. We must do better. I am encouraged that this year, in which we commemorate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has also been the year of the International Criminal Court. As the campaign for ratification of the Rome statute now gets under way, I hope that NGOs will continue to display the interest and commitment that has helped bring us this far. The conviction of Jean-Paul Akayesu, the ex-Mayor of Taba, Rwanda, of genocide and crimes against humanity, including rape, shows the utility of an international tribunal. It also shows that the United Nations can deliver.

Just as heartening is the growth of the NGO community itself. Linked by e-mail and the Worldwide Web into evermore effective national and global networks, civil society groups are changing diplomacy and changing the world. It stands to reason that the relationship between the United Nations and civil society should also change. We are opening up, training our staff to work with NGOs and providing funding and other assistance to NGOs, particularly in the developing world. The United Nations International Drug Control Programme, for example, is helping NGOs enhance their technical skills to fight against illicit drugs. We do this because we are convinced that there are no limits to what a strong civil society can achieve in partnership with governments. But that is also why I am so troubled when the NGO idea is abused: when NGOs are established to procure funding and nothing more; or when NGOs are used as fronts claiming to be one thing when, in fact, they are another. The proliferation of NGOs reflects your great success. But it has also contributed to this problem and feeds suspicion on the part of governments and others about the whole NGO enterprise. Indeed, this is one of your main hurdles and it may be time for NGOs to consider ways to protect your own invaluable franchise. The growing pains felt by NGOs are also being felt in the wider international community. It is here where the debt to NGOs is especially profound. You have helped give life to the very idea of an international community, an idea that is often questioned and mocked. The international community is, admittedly, a work in progress. It has failed many tests. But, it passes many more, if still not enough. It certainly succeeded 50 years ago when, before the eyes of a world still recovering from the Second World War and the nearextinction of human rights, the General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the representative of the Philippines said at the time, the United Nations had been on trial for its life and justified its existence by producing that text. The Declaration has now been translated into more than 200 languages. Its tenets have been woven into the fabric of national and international life. It is many things at once: a manifesto; a blueprint; a contract; a roadmap. To me it represents a single voice: the great song of global pluralism and diversity by which an international community intones its hopes for a better world.

16 September 1998 • 501 Friends, we cannot leave it to governments or institutions to do for us what we ourselves fail to do. Each and every one of us has a responsibility to speak up, to get involved, to be aware and to care. Eleanor Roosevelt knew this. As she said: Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home—so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet, they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerned citizens action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.

There is no turning back in the revolution of human rights. There is no turning back from the global NGO revolution. So let us move ahead in partnership. Thank you.

16 September 1998 Letter (UN archives); women/mainstreaming Letter from the Secretary-General to the undersecretary-general for political affairs, Kieran Prendergast. Prendergast’s letter of 14 August follows. Dear Mr. Prendergast, Thank you very much for your letter of 14 August regarding women’s issues as they pertain to your department. Please accept my warmest congratulations on the progress you and your staff have made to promote gender equality and mainstreaming of the gender perspective in the work of the DPA. I would be grateful if you could share your experiences with the members of the SMG. I will ask Ms. Lindenmayer to liaise with you regarding a suitable date for the discussion, in which we will also ask Ms. King to participate. * * * Dear Secretary-General, Thank you very much for your letter of 19 June 1998 on the representation of women at the D-2 level in the United Nations, which I read with keen interest. Mainstreaming of the gender perspective in the work of the UN has been one of the management issues to which I have attached importance since I joined the Secretariat in March 1997. As you may have noted in your report to ECOSOC

(E/1998/64), the Department of Political Affairs organized its workshop on gender mainstreaming on 20 May this year, the first among various Secretariat units to do so. In response to the recommendations submitted to me as a result of the workshop, I have established the new Departmental Management Advisory Group which will advise me on both gender mainstreaming and relevant management issues. The report of the workshop is attached for your reference. I am also pleased to note that DPA will be able to bring Ms. Carina Perelli on board as the new Director of the Electoral Assistance Division effective 17 August. With this addition, two of the six divisions in DPA will be headed by women. As a result of the departmental workshop, I have also instituted a monthly “town meeting” of the entire DPA staff members. I expect that the Advisory Group and the staff meeting be instrumental in promoting further gender equality and mainstreaming of the gender perspective in the work of DPA. A warm response & congrats. Item should be included on SMG [Senior Management Group] agenda—Ms. [Angela] King to attend. KP [Kieran Prendergast] and others can share experience. cc Ms. King. —K.A., 6/9

16 September 1998 Secretary-General Urges Citizens to Buy Ozone-friendly Products

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6701, OBV/57); protecting the environment Speech delivered by the Secretary-General on the occasion of the International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer. The depletion of the ozone layer—the delicate, protective mantle that shields life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation—was the first major global environmental issue to be tackled by the United Nations system. Nearly 24 years ago, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) initiated efforts that culminated in two treaties that are now acknowledged as models for international cooperation to solve global environmental problems: the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985) and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987). Future historians may well view these treaties as the beginning of a global transition to sustainable development—as moments when the international community summoned the political

502 • 16 September 1998

courage to alter the course of a potentially catastrophic aspect of its economic growth. In the last 10 years, the production and consumption of ozone-depleting chemicals has been reduced by more than 80 per cent, largely due to the efforts of the industrialized countries, where the phase-out is nearly done. The amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere peaked in 1994 and is now slowly declining. These are significant achievements. But the risk to tomorrow’s health and well-being remains acute, and we face many challenges before we can be assured of success. The recovery of the ozone layer will begin in a few years and, owing to the long lifetime of the chemicals in the atmosphere, will take up to the year 2060 to complete. Developing countries, which have been given a grace period of 10 years, will begin their phase-out in 1999. The illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances has to be curbed, and the countries of eastern and central Europe will have to catch up and fulfill their obligations. Credit for the progress attained thus far must also go to the good sense of ordinary people, whose aspirations and hopes the Vienna and Montreal treaties have sought to articulate. Millions of people across the globe have perceived the incompatibility between the use of ozonedepleting substances and the replenishment of the ozone layer. That is why the theme of this year’s International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer is “For life on earth: Buy ozonefriendly”. Indeed, the choices that each one of us makes will determine the health of the ozone layer. Every citizen can help by buying only ozonefriendly products. Such choices cannot only prod industries to switch to ozone-friendly technologies, but can also help reduce illegal trade and ensure that countries fulfill their obligations under the Protocol. Whoever we are, wherever we live, whatever we may do, we all have an important stake in the preservation of the ozone layer.

16 September 1998 Letter (UN archives); Nigeria Letter to Justice Ephraim O.I. Akpata, chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission of Nigeria, from the under-secretary-general for political affairs, Kieran Prendergast, who was also serving in the position of the UN Focal Point for Electoral Assistance Activities. On behalf of the Secretary-General, I should like to acknowledge receipt of your letters of 9 and 10

September in which you requested United Nations assistance in connection with the forthcoming elections in Nigeria. I am pleased to inform you that the SecretaryGeneral has decided to send a needs assessment mission to Nigeria to explore with your Commission and with the Government of Nigeria the nature and extent of United Nations cooperation in support of the electoral process. The mission will be led by Mrs. Carina Perelli, Director of the Electoral Assistance Division of the Department of Political Affairs. The full composition of the team and the exact dates of the mission will be communicated to you when they have been finalized. It is anticipated that the mission would depart for Nigeria towards the end of next week.

16 September 1998 Secretary-General Calls Attention to Crisis of Knowledge in the Third World

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6702) Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the First Eqbal Ahmad Lecture, delivered at Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts. Thank you for that generous introduction. It is a very special pleasure for me to deliver the first Eqbal Ahmad lecture here at Hampshire College. Professor Ahmad is known to you in the five colleges as a distinguished teacher whose intellect and example have enriched your lives. I know him as a public intellectual who crossed many boundaries to engage in struggles for liberation and human rights; a fearless thinker whose analysis of world events has helped me to understand some of the issues with which the United Nations must grapple every day. Among those issues, as this audience will know, is the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Last June, the world witnessed with deep apprehension the decisions of India and Pakistan to conduct nuclear tests. A new and dangerous source of instability was introduced to an environment in which sentiments of rivalry, suspicion and mistrust were dominating all discourse. To the outside world, it appeared that within those two nations, nuclear nationalism had won the day. Voices of dissent were few and far between. But Eqbal Ahmad’s voice was heard by all who wished to listen: warning Pakistan of the perils of following India down the nuclear path; urging leaders and citizens alike to choose reason over rage, moderation over might, the future over the past. It is that com-

16 September 1998 • 503 mitment to putting knowledge to the service of humankind, that example of learning infused with a moral conscience, that we honour today. As students, you have been told, no doubt, by parents and teachers, that education is a great privilege; that you should be grateful for the chance to improve your minds; that you should seize this opportunity to expand your horizons. I do not fault you for sometimes thinking that this is just a way of getting you to study. Sometimes it is. But there is a deeper, more lasting truth to what they are saying. Throughout history there has existed an essential linkage between knowledge and the growth of civilizations. The relationship between knowledge, its communication and progress—be it economic, political or social—has been permanent and organic. The educational process as formalized through schools and colleges is at the heart of civilization. Moreover, throughout history, knowledge has been universal. Only with the age of nationalism and imperialism was knowledge invested with hard boundaries. In fact, knowledge has never recognized boundaries, but rather defied all notions, past and present, of civilizations clashing. The roots of Greek civilization lay deep in Africa. And we know how the Arabs learned from Greece, India and China, making their own advances in science, mathematics, aesthetics and philosophy; how the European renaissance was assisted by the intellectual achievements of the Islamic civilization; and how modern western art has been influenced by the African and Japanese impressions. History is witness to the fact that ambitions, interests and, sometimes, ideologies clash. Civilizations rarely do. In fact, they are based on the exchange of knowledge and artistic influence and, in turn, nurtured by that exchange. Today, therefore, I wish to draw your attention to the crisis of knowledge in the third world; to how that crisis feeds the view that civilizations inevitably must clash; and to why restoring a global culture of knowledge must and will be a priority for the United Nations system of the next century. The crisis in education in the third world is, above all, a crisis of priorities facing States with increasing responsibilities in an era of decreasing resources. This is partly a problem of history. Third world plans of education were drawn up, by and large, by colonial Powers whose outlook and needs were different from those of sovereign States in the last years of the twentieth century.

Yet, in the post-colonial period, expenditures on arms have far surpassed those on books and teachers. Practically no attention has been paid to reformulating educational objectives appropriate to the requirements of these societies. What little attention has been given to the educational enterprise has gone into the physical output of new campuses and school houses. The need for renewal and reform is greater than ever. Our age—the age of globalization—offers a unique opportunity to reverse course. Globalization, as you all know, is a subject of much discussion and research today. But there is a tendency still to view the matter largely in economic terms. Globalization is affecting all aspects of our lives, from the political to the social to the cultural. Only knowledge, it would seem, is not being globalized. In an age where the acquisition and advancement of knowledge is a more powerful weapon in a nation’s arsenal than any missile or mine, the knowledge gap between the North and South is widening. Alas, education often seems the last priority, leading too many third world students to leave for the West to acquire knowledge and education. That is the tragedy of far too many third world countries striving to escape poverty and establish democratic rule. Too many regimes and too many rulers govern by the gun. They allow only those investments that will prolong their rule rather than provide for their people’s progress. Indeed, education is often seen as the enemy of tyranny, for it is the means of dissent and a tool of resistance. We are all consumers of the products of modern science and technology. However, a large part of the world has had no part in the process of their discovery, invention and production. Unless we embark urgently on a programme of globalizing the generation of and access to knowledge, the unequal development of the world will only continue. In recent decades, international agencies have accorded some importance to encouraging primary- and secondary-level schooling. This has some effect in shifting local priorities in favour of basic education. Unfortunately, higher education continues to suffer from neglect. Lack of resources have so drained third world universities of good faculties that all of its Nobel laureates in science have won their prizes for research accomplished in the West. That is why the United Nations will make universal access to knowledge central to all our development activities. Next month, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

504 • 16 September 1998

(UNESCO) will host a World Conference on Higher Education attended by more than 100 ministers of education. Their mission will be to join 2,000 teachers, students and education experts in an effort to renew higher education worldwide. They will seek innovative ways to stop the growing disparity between North and South in access to knowledge through higher education. They will strive to improve national educational systems as a way of preserving our global diversity while opening new channels of communication between peoples. By complementing those efforts in our development and post-conflict peace-building work, we will help ensure that former combatants will become future students; that for them, the first day of peace will be a day for school; and that in those schools, they will learn to resolve differences peacefully. Although I have spoken so far in the context of post-colonial societies, in important respects the challenge is universal. We live in an age in which material imperatives tend to overwhelm the moral and spiritual ones. This affects the learning environment in ways that are harmful to societies no less than individuals. What can get lost in such an environment is the essence of education—its social and moral imperatives. Not that one expression of knowledge is to be implanted everywhere. Nor that one tradition of learning is to dominate all others. Rather, I believe that every society must restore a culture of knowledge that encourages the pursuit of ideas and their application in fostering a universal understanding of the meaning of civilization. Civilizations have always been enriched, and not weakened, by the exchange of knowledge and arts, the freer and more peaceable the better. In the relations between nations, it is rather the lack of education, and the dearth of knowledge which is a chief source of dispute and conflict. Ignorance and prejudice are the handmaidens of propaganda, and in most modern conflicts, the men of war prey on the ignorance of the populace to instil fears and arouse hatreds. That was the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Rwanda where genocidal ideologies took root in the absence of truthful information and honest education. If only half the effort had gone into teaching those peoples what unites them, and not what divides them, unspeakable crimes could have been prevented. This is not to say that ideas and interests do not clash. They do, and always will. But those clashes

can and must be resolved peacefully and politically. That is why the culture of knowledge which we seek will advance not only development, but also mutual appreciation between cultures. Perhaps there is no greater need for such appreciation today than between the Islamic peoples and those of the West. Too often, this question is discussed only through crude, invidious generalizations about the beliefs of one group or the behaviour of the other. Too often, the rhetoric of resistance from one group or other is deemed representative of the views of millions. What is ignored is the historic and ever-growing interaction between peoples; the ways in which individual States—regardless of religious affiliation—define, defend and pursue their interests; and the propensity of States as well as individuals to form alliances and allegiances on other grounds than ethnic belonging or religious affiliation. What this history should and must teach us is that, alongside a global diversity of cultures, there does exist one, worldwide civilization of knowledge within which ideas and philosophies meet and develop peacefully and productively. It is a civilization defined by its tolerance of dissent, its celebration of cultural diversity, its insistence on fundamental, universal human rights and its belief in the right of people everywhere to have a say in how they are governed. This is the civilization for which the United Nations labours and for whose attainment a global culture of knowledge is necessary. Socrates taught us that “There is only one good, knowledge, and only one evil, ignorance”. In that spirit, Eqbal Ahmad has pursued a life of moral and intellectual engagement as teacher and writer. Not satisfied, however, to rest on his laurels, he has now dedicated himself to narrowing as best he can the knowledge gap between North and South. He is working at establishing a centre for higher learning in Pakistan, to be named Khaldunia University, an institution that will seek to build character no less than enlivening a tradition of scholarship and critical thought. Many of you will know the symbolism of naming a university for Ibn Khaldun. This last great Arab historian of the Middle Ages was a globalist long before the age of globalization. Born in northern Africa, he grew up in Spain and crossed many boundaries in search of knowledge and service. He defined the aims of education in a timeless fashion, insisting that knowledge knows no boundary, that its essence is man in relation to his environment, that a people’s

17 September 1998 • 505 well-being is defined by its level of knowledge and its ability to utilize it in the real world. He argued that civilizations decline when they lose their capacity to comprehend and absorb change, and that the “greatest of scholars err when they ignore the environment in which history unfolds”. I can think of no higher ideal for scholarship, and no better model on which to base the pursuit of knowledge. Indeed, these are the values that underlie all that we seek at the United Nations. It is this unity of ideals, this common pursuit of peace through knowledge that has brought me here today.

17 September 1998 Secretary-General Discusses the Politics of Globalization

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6703); globalization Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at Harvard University. Thank you, President Rudenstine, for that kind and generous introduction. I am aware of the saying that you can always tell a Harvard man (or woman), but you can’t tell him much. Still, I hope to share some ideas with you today on the politics of globalization that may provoke some thoughts, and perhaps, even, some actions. Harvard is one of the rare institutions in the world that truly advances the values of knowledge, tolerance, and universal progress—the values that underlie all that the United Nations seeks to achieve in promoting peace and alleviating poverty. Allow me, therefore, to pay special tribute today to two of the eight members of the United Nations family who perished in the crash of Swissair flight 111. Dr. Jonathan Mann and Pierce Gerety, graduates of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, respectively, served the United Nations for decades—Dr. Mann as a pioneer in the fight against AIDS and Mr. Gerety as a courageous leader of our refugee relief efforts, most recently in Central Africa. In their work and in their lives, they honoured the ideals of the United Nations; and, if I may suggest, those of Harvard as well. I speak to you at a time of global turmoil, of economic crisis, political challenge and conflict throughout much of the world. To cast a glance at the map of the world is to be not only concerned, but humbled. Concerned, of course, because longsimmering intra-State conflicts have in recent months intensified and been joined by inter-State tensions, from Africa to Asia.

Humbling, because we all perhaps have been surprised by the swiftness with which these crises have accumulated in the space of 12 months. Any belief that either the end of major ideological competition or the revolutionary process of economic globalization would prevent conflict has been revealed as utterly wishful thinking. And yet, since these crises and conflicts are the product of human folly and human evil, I am convinced that they can be solved by human wisdom and human effort. But if we are to solve them, we must rededicate ourselves to addressing the political roots as well as the economic roots of the problems now gripping much of the world. That is why I have chosen to speak to you today about the politics of globalization. To many, it is the phenomenon of globalization that distinguishes our era from any other. Globalization, we are told, is redefining not only the way we engage the world, but how we communicate with each other. We speak and hear often about the economics of globalization—of its promise and its perils. Rarely, however, are the political roots of globalization addressed in a way that would help us understand its political consequences—both in times of progress and in times of crisis. Rarely, indeed, are the political aspects of globalization recognized by either its friends or its foes. Today, globalization is rapidly losing its luster in parts of the world. What began as a currency crisis in Thailand 14 months ago has, so far, resulted in a contagion of economic insolvency and political paralysis. Globalization is seen by a growing number not as a friend of prosperity, but as its enemy; not as a vehicle for development, but as an ever-tightening vise increasing the demands on States to provide safety nets, while limiting their ability to do so. At a time when the very value of globalization is being questioned, it may be prudent to re-visit the role of politics and good governance in sustaining a successful process of globalization. Before doing so, however, let me say that great efforts are being made in every part of the world to contain and reverse the negative impact of globalization. The fundamental recognition that lasting prosperity is based on legitimate politics has been joined by a growing appreciation of the need to maximize the benefits of the market while minimizing its costs in social justice and human poverty. To do so, regulatory systems must be improved in every part of the world; solid and sustainable safety nets must be crafted to shield the poorest

506 • 17 September 1998

and most vulnerable; and transparency must be advanced on all sides. Globalization is commonly understood to describe those advances in technology and communications that have made possible an unprecedented degree of financial and economic interdependence and growth. As markets are integrated, investments flow more easily, competition is enhanced, prices are lowered and living standards everywhere are improved. For a very long time, this logic was borne out by reality. Indeed, it worked so well that in many cases underlying political schisms were ignored in the belief that the rising tide of material growth would eliminate the importance of political differences. Today, we look back on the early 1990s as a period of savage wars of genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda that cruelly mocked the political hubris attending the end of communism. Soon, we may well look back on the late 1990s as a period of economic crisis and political conflict that with equal cruelty mocked the political hubris attending the heyday of globalism. In time, these twin awakenings—rude as they have been—may be recalled as a form of blessing in disguise, for they will have reminded us that any peace and every prosperity depend on legitimate, responsive politics. They will have shown beyond a doubt that the belief in the ability of markets to resolve all divisions neglected the reality of differences of interest and outlook—differences that can be resolved peacefully, but must be resolved politically. In a sense, it may be said that politics and political development as a whole suffered a form of benign neglect during globalization’s glory years. Extraordinary growth rates seemed to justify political actions which otherwise might have invited dissent. Autocratic rule which denied basic civil and political rights was legitimized by its success in helping people escape centuries of poverty. What was lost in the exuberance of material wealth was the value of politics. And not just any politics: the politics of good governance, liberty, equity and social justice. The development of a society based on the rule of law; the establishment of legitimate, responsive, uncorrupt government; respect for human rights and the rights of minorities; freedom of expression; the right to a fair trial—these essential, universal pillars of democratic pluralism were in too many cases ignored. And the day the funds stopped flowing and the banks started crashing, the cost of political neglect came home.

Throughout much of the developing world, the awakening to globalization’s downside has been one of resistance and resignation, a feeling that globalization is a false God foisted on weaker States by the capitalist centres of the West. Globalization is seen, not as a term describing objective reality, but as an ideology of predatory capitalism. Whatever reality there is, in this view, the perception of a siege is unmistakable. Millions of people are suffering; savings have been decimated; and decades of hard-won progress in the fight against poverty are imperiled. And unless the basic principles of equity and liberty are defended in the political arena and advanced as critical conditions for economic growth, they may suffer rejection. Economic despair will be followed by political turmoil and many of the advances for freedom of the last half-century could be lost. In this growing backlash against globalization, one can discern three separate categories of reaction. All three threaten to undermine globalization’s prospects. All three reflect globalization’s neglect of political values. All three call for a response at the global level to what is, at root, a global challenge. The first, perhaps most dangerous reaction, has been one of nationalism. From the devastated economies of Asia to the indebted societies of Africa, leaders in search of legitimacy are beginning to view globalization, and its down side, as a process that has weakened them vis-a-vis their rivals and diminished them in the eyes of their allies. Globalization is presented as a foreign invasion that will destroy local cultures, regional tastes and national traditions. Even more troubling, political leaders are increasingly seeking to sustain popular support amidst economic difficulties by exploiting historic enmities and fomenting transborder conflict. That these steps will do nothing to improve their nations’ lot—indeed just the opposite—must be evident even to them. But the costs of globalization have given them a rhetorical vehicle with which to distract their peoples’ attentions from the penury of tomorrow to the pride of today. The irony, of course, is that globalization’s promise was based on the notion that trading partners become political partners, and that economic interdependence would eliminate the potential for political and military conflict. This notion is not new. In the early years of this century, the rapid expansion in trade and commerce even led some to predict an end to conflict. However, no degree of

17 September 1998 • 507 economic interdependence between Germany and the United Kingdom prevented the First World War. But this lesson was soon forgotten. It was assumed that the political nature of inter-State relations had been transformed by a quantum leap similar if not equal to that which has revolutionized technology in the information age. The fallacy of this doctrine—that trade precludes conflict—is not simply that nations and peoples often act out of a complex web of interests that may or may not favour economic progress. Power politics, hegemonic interests, suspicion, rivalry, greed, and corruption are no less decisive in the affairs of State than rational economic interests. The doctrine also underestimates the degree to which governments often find that the relentless pace of globalization threatens their ability to protect their citizens. Without addressing this concern, globalization cannot succeed. The second reaction has been the resort to illiberal solutions—the call for the man on the white horse, the strong leader, who in a time of crisis can act resolutely in the nation’s interests. The raw, immediate appeal of this idea seems most apparent in newly liberalized nations with weak political systems, incapable of reacting with effectiveness or legitimacy in the face of economic crisis. As central power disintegrates and breadlines grow, there is a growing temptation to forget that democracy is a condition for development—and not its reward. Again, and again falsely, democracy is seen as a luxury and not a necessity; a blessing to be wished for, not a right to be fought for. Here, too, there is an irony: the proponents of globalization always argued that greater trade would naturally lead to greater prosperity, which in turn would sustain a broad middle class. As a consequence, democratic rule would take firm and lasting root, securing respect for individual liberties and human rights. This, too, proved to be overly optimistic. Some of globalization’s proponents believed too much in the ability and inclination of trade and economic growth to foster democracy. Others, too little in the importance of democratic values such as freedom of speech and freedom of information in sustaining firm and lasting economic growth. Traders will trade, with or without political rights. Their prosperity alone, however, will not secure democratic rule. In all the debates of the post-cold war years about whether political liberalization should pre-

cede economic liberalization or vice versa, one question was left out. What if, regardless of which comes first, the other does not follow? What if economic liberalization, however profitable in the short term, will never beget a political liberalization that is not already integral to economic progress? What if political liberalization, however desirable on its own, is no guarantee of economic growth, at least in the short term? These are the questions that globalization’s friends must face—and answer—in political terms, if they are to win the argument against those who would seek solutions in tyranny. Freedom itself is too valuable, its spirit too important for progress, to be bargained away in the struggle for prosperity. The third reaction against the forces of globalization has been a politics of populism. Embattled leaders may begin to propose forms of protectionism as a way to offset losses supposedly incurred by too open an embrace of competition, and too free a system of political change. Their solution is for a battered nation to turn away and turn inward, tend to its own at whatever cost, and rejoin the global community only when it can do so from a position of strength. In this reaction, globalization is made the scapegoat of ills which more often have domestic roots of a political nature. Globalization, having been employed as political cover by reformers wishing to implement austerity programmes, comes to be seen as a force of evil by those who would return to imagined communities of earlier times. Notwithstanding its flaws and failed assumptions, this reaction is a real challenge with real power. Those who would defend the policies of openness, transparency and good governance must find ways to answer these critics at two levels: at the level of principle and at the level of practical solutions which can provide some kind of economic insurance against social despair and instability. The lesson of this reaction is that economic integration in an interdependent world is neither all-powerful nor politically neutral. It is seen in strictly political terms, particularly in times of trouble, and so must be defended in political terms. Otherwise, the populists and the protectionists will win the argument between isolation and openness, between the particular and the universal, between an imaginary past and a prosperous future. And they must not win. If globalization is to succeed, it must succeed for poor and rich alike. It must deliver rights no

508 • 17 September 1998

less than riches. It must provide social justice and equity no less than economic prosperity and enhanced communication. It must be harnessed to the cause not of capital alone, but of development and prosperity for the poorest of the world. It must address the reactions of nationalism, illiberalism and populism with political answers expressed in political terms. Political liberty must be seen, once and for all, as a necessary condition for lasting economic growth, even if not a sufficient one. Democracy must be accepted as the midwife of development, and political and human rights must be recognized as key pillars of any architecture of economic progress. This is, undoubtedly, a tall order. But it is one that must be met, if globalization is not to be recalled in years hence as simply an illusion of the power of trade over politics, and human riches over human rights. As the sole international Organization with universal legitimacy and scope, the United Nations has an interest—indeed an obligation—to help secure the equitable and lasting success of globalization. We have no magic bullet with which to secure this aim, no easy answers in our common effort to confront this challenge. But we do know that the limitations on the ability of any State or any organization to affect the processes of globalization call for a global, concerted effort. If this effort is to make a genuine difference, it is clear that the creation of lasting political institutions must form a first line of response. Such steps must, however, be combined with a clear and balanced acceptance of the roots of the precipitous collapse of so many economies. To some extent, this collapse was rooted in flaws and failures of already existing economies characterized by unsound policies, corruption and illiberal politics. However, we must not be blind to the fact that irresponsible lending practices and aggressive investment policies pursued by outsiders played their part, too. Without improvements in these practices, we cannot expect political reform to succeed in creating the basis for lasting economic growth. All sides matter; all sides must play a role. I have argued today that politics are at the root of globalization’s difficulties, and that politics will be at the heart of any solutions. But where will solutions be found? In the heyday of globalization, it was assumed that all nations, once secure in prosperity, would turn to multilateral institutions out of maturity; today, I believe, they may turn to those same institutions out of necessity.

The challenge facing the United Nations is to ensure that the difficulties facing globalization do not become an impediment to global cooperation, but rather give such cooperation new life and new promise. We will do so in two key ways: by emphasizing in all our development work the importance of civil society and institutional structures of democracy at the national level; and by seeking to strengthen the effectiveness of multilateralism in sustaining free economies while securing genuine protection for the poorest and most vulnerable of our world. After the Second World War, there was a recognition that ultimately, economic problems were political and security problems. There was a recognition that prosperity and peace are political achievements, not simply natural consequences either of trade or of technological progress. We owe the wisdom of this view and the consequences of its implementation to one man in particular, Franklin D. Roosevelt. In his fourth inaugural address, President Roosevelt—a founder of the United Nations and surely the greatest “Harvard Man” of this century—made a passionate plea for global engagement: “We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations, far away. We have learned that we must live as men, and not as ostriches, nor as dogs in the manger. We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.” In this era, we have learned our lessons, too: that democracy is the condition for true, lasting and equitable development; that the rewards of globalization must be seen not only at the centre, but also, at the margins; and that without free, legitimate and democratic politics, no degree of prosperity can satisfy humanity’s needs nor guarantee lasting peace—even in the age of globalization. Thank you.

18 September 1998 Letter (UN archives); Angola Letter from the Secretary-General to the president of Angola, José Eduardo dos Santos. Excellency, I wish to thank you for your letter dated 10 September 1998, which, at your request, was circulated as an official document of the Security Council. It raises several issues which are crucial for the future of the peace process in Angola.

18 September 1998 • 509 From the outset, I would like to reiterate my conviction that the Lusaka Protocol remains the best foundation for the attainment of durable peace and national reconciliation in Angola. As you are aware, in its resolution 1195 (1998) of 15 September, the Security Council concurred with my views as to which party is responsible for the current crisis and deadlock in the peace process. In this connection, I fully share your frustration with the failure of UNITA to comply fully, and in good faith with its obligations under the Protocol. In the above-mentioned resolution, the Security Council also urged all parties concerned to reject military action, to pursue dialogue and to refrain from taking any other actions which might jeopardize further the already critical condition of the Lusaka process. The Council also unanimously advocated my continued personal engagement in the peace process and urged the parties to cooperate fully with my Special Representative, Mr. Issa B.Y. Diallo, and to guarantee his and all United Nations’ staff freedom of movement and safety. It is in this spirit that I believe it would be important for my Special Representative to maintain contacts with all Angolan parties and groups, old and new, whose cooperation is vital for the expeditious and effective resolution of the crisis, in particular, those who control armed groups. In this connection, I think it would be very useful for my Special Representative, who has already met leaders of the UNITA Renovation Committee, to convey directly to Mr. Savimbi a strong message from the international community that he must fulfill all his obligations without any further delay. In view of the importance of such a message, I would be grateful if you could support and facilitate the necessary contacts and provide appropriate security guarantees. In the meantime, I intend to continue my efforts to mobilise international support for the faithful implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and the Lusaka Protocol, including its provisions on national reconciliation which can only be achieved through the peace process. I would like to express, once again, my appreciation for your Government’s support to the peace process and look forward to our continued cooperation, especially in the next days and weeks which will be crucial for the future of this process. I am mandated to provide to the Security Council another report on Angola by 8 October, and I would benefit greatly from your further views con-

cerning the resolution of the present crisis, the prospects for establishing a lasting peace in Angola, and the role which the international community could play in assisting the Angolan people in this regard. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

18 September 1998 Letter (UN archives); Lockerbie trial Internal note from the under-secretary-general for legal affairs, Hans Corell. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Lockerbie Trial in the Netherlands

Today at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Jan Berteling, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Mission of the Netherlands to the United Nations, called me and informed me as follows: Today the agreement between the Netherlands and the United Kingdom concerning the Lockerbie trial was signed by the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs and the UK Ambassador to the Netherlands. The Dutch laws were passed by Government and will be presented to Parliament on Monday for approval. The seat of the Court will be in the small town Zeist (about 60,000 inhabitants and close to Utrecht). The actual place will be a former army base, earlier used by American troops, but since five years under full Netherlands authority. The Minister for Foreign Affairs had made a statement for the public based on the attached paper which Mr. Berteling sent me by fax. The Minister was now receiving information in preparation for his meeting with you next week. If there were any news, Mr. Berteling would revert to me also during the weekend. I asked Mr. Berteling whether there was now a Dutch position with respect to bringing the two suspects to the Netherlands on a Libyan flight. He said that there was not yet a position on this issue.

18 September 1998 Secretary-General Reminds Staff of “Call” of UN Service

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6705); UN staff Speech delivered by the Secretary-General on the occasion of Staff Day at UN headquarters, in New York.

510 • 18 September 1998

It gives me great pleasure to be with all of you— including staff in Geneva and Vienna joining us through teleconference—for this annual tradition. I am also pleased to welcome Madame Louise Frechette to her first-ever Staff Day as Deputy Secretary-General, as my right-hand woman. I can assure you she has made a difference in my life and in my work. With the opening of the fifty-third session of the General Assembly, another busy season is upon us. Let us draw strength for it from our togetherness today. Since taking office as Secretary-General, I have spoken often about human security in the broadest sense of the idea; about how a broader understanding of human well-being is taking hold and what this means for our work at the United Nations. Today, I would like to say a few words about staff security in the broadest sense of the idea and about the link between staff security and human security. Staff security begins with security of person; the ability to go about your work free from threats, harassment and violence. The past year has been just dreadful in this regard. We have had a fatal helicopter crash in Guatemala and a plane crash that took the lives of 8 of our staff serving in Angola, including the Special Representative. And it was only last Friday that we came together to mourn nine other members of our family who perished in the crash of Swissair flight 111. Staff members have been murdered in Afghanistan and Tajikistan. And Vincent Cochetel of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) remains a hostage, held captive for no reason other than that he is among the many people worldwide who are proud to represent the United Nations. Much of our work carries inherent risks. But we are doing what we can, where we can, to improve this most basic element of staff security. The United Nations Security Coordinator’s Office has issued a handbook containing a wealth of valuable information. In November, staff in three of our most dangerous mission areas—Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan—will receive training from security experts and stress management counsellors. Remarkably, no designated official for security has ever been through a systematic programme of training in this most vital responsibility. I have been a designated official, when I was stationed in the former Yugoslavia. I have also been the United Nations Security Coordinator here in New York, and established the office as a full-

time, stand-alone unit for United Nations and inter-agency cooperation. So, I know that security is complex and expensive. The bottom line, however, is that this is the price of doing business. The primary responsibility for the security and protection of staff rests with host governments. I appeal to them to contribute to the trust fund we have established for training. I also call again on them to sign and ratify the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. So few States have done so that it sends a message—that they do not care. To them I say, these are your own citizens going into the field. Why not give them the same training—the same respect—that they give to the military personnel they provide to the United Nations? I will also be appealing to United Nations bodies, especially the Security Council, to take some difficult decisions about the relative risks and payoffs of United Nations action. Civilians are being encouraged to go to places where governments do not want to expose their troops. This speaks volumes about our humanitarian imperative. The sad truth is that it also means that unless more care is taken, from measures in the field to political decisions at Headquarters, we can expect more heartbreaking news. Staff security also means job security. Job security is more than the fact of having a job; it is also a matter of what staff feel to be possible in that job. Who wants a job with little definition, few duties and even less direction? I recently learned of a disturbing trend: that for the first time in United Nations history we are seeing more resignations than retirements. I repeat, more resignations than retirements. Even worse, two thirds of those resignations are occurring at the P2 and P3 levels. It is as if, having glimpsed the future, those people had decided to try their luck elsewhere. This is yet another sign that we must improve the way we manage such key human resources issues as career development, conditions of service, mobility, accountability, management and vision. These are the considerations that give real meaning to the idea of job security. That is why a task force on human resources was established and why I regard reform of human resources management as central to the overall reform process. The task force has just submitted its report. I will share with you my own proposals for change in the weeks ahead. In the meantime, I have listened carefully to your views and concerns, most recently at a meeting the Deputy Secretary-General and I held with

18 September 1998 • 511 the staff representatives this past Monday. We had a lengthy discussion on the delegation of authority and other issues. I was able to tell staff that I will be proposing the establishment of a management review panel to address the concerns they expressed about the accountability of managers. I was pleased with the constructive spirit that pervaded our meeting and I would like to thank all staff for their contributions to the task force proceedings and the reform effort in general. Without your cooperation, without your ideas, it would not have been as successful as it has been. More than 1,000 of you responded to the staff survey on reform with valuable ideas and opinions on our future. Even more important, there is a convergence of views that is sometimes obscured by rumour, frustration or fear. We agree, for example, on the need for a Secretariat-wide skills inventory. The Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) has embarked on such an assessment. We agree that mobility across functions, departments, duty stations and organizations of the United Nations system should be part of a United Nations career. I am proposing to the General Assembly that managed reassignments throughout the Secretariat be standard during the first five years for all entry-level professional staff. I benefited from that kind of reassignment during my career. We agree on the need for training that goes beyond computer and language skills. OHRM now offers a menu of staff development programmes covering everything from administration and mission readiness to management of human and financial resources, collaborative negotiation, and gender and diversity issues in the workplace. And, in consultation with staff, the Performance Appraisal System has been completely revamped, making it less complicated and time-consuming and more closely linked to staff development. I hope we can continue in this fashion on the many other issues we still need to address. I know there are those who fear the changes coursing through the system. But I have heard even more of you say that change is not happening quickly or dramatically enough. A lot has been achieved in administrative and managerial reform. I want to thank you again for your support and involvement, which have made this possible and have been crucial in bringing us this far along. I will continue to look to you as the process continues. Let me turn now to a third element of staff security, which I think of as security of mind. This is difficult to quantify but crucial to grasp. I have

said on many occasions that service with the United Nations is more than just a job; it is a calling. Security of mind means being secure in that calling. I want us to feel deeply the relevance of the Charter and our role as servants of the world community. I want us to be able to feel at all times that each of us is part of something bigger than ourselves. I want us to be able to look at long-time staff and new arrivals, at colleagues in duty stations far and near, at those above and below us in the chain of command and know that we are unified, that a sense of common purpose prevails wherever the United Nations flag is flown. If personal security and job security are working properly, this security of mind can be achieved. But security of mind is also dependent on each staff member bringing his or her best to the job. This is a responsibility and a challenge, and I count on you to rise to it just as you can rely on me to do my part. Staff Day 1998 is a day on which personal security, job security and security of mind merge and become one. To speak of personal security is to remember that today is the thirty-seventh anniversary of the death of Dag Hammarskjold. Next month, his name will grace the medal to be introduced at the ceremony commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of United Nations peacekeeping—and the anniversary of the first death of a UN staff member in the line of duty. To speak of job security is to recall Hammarskjold as an eloquent defender of our international civil service. And to speak of security of mind is to remember a man of profound spirituality. Among his many gifts to the United Nations was the creation of a meditation room, which he personally planned and supervised in every detail. It gives me great pleasure to announce today the reopening of the meditation room after a long period of closure due to abuse of those premises, which were vulnerable because of the room’s location in the public lobby. Hammarskjold intended the meditation room as “a place where the doors may be open to the infinite lands of thought and prayer”. At a time of uncertainty in international affairs, and at a time when we continue to grieve for lost colleagues, I commend to you the room as a place to contemplate the mission on which we are all embarked. We have yet to attain acceptable levels of either human security or staff security. Our solace and saving grace is that we keep trying. To me, this General Assembly session opens with every bit as

512 • 18 September 1998

much promise as the first. So, let us seize that opportunity and let us do so as a staff united behind the goal of a better world for all. But first, have a wonderful staff day.

21 September 1998 Secretary-General Urges the “Six Plus Two” Group to Agree on Common Approach to Taliban Movement

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6711, AFG/86); Afghanistan Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the opening of the foreign ministers–level meeting of the Six Plus Two, which includes China, Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, the United States, and Russia. I thank you all for coming to this meeting, in spite of the short notice. The fact that most of the Foreign Ministers of the “Six Plus Two” group are present here today clearly demonstrates your concern and that of the international community over recent developments in Afghanistan, as well as our shared commitment to help bring peace to Afghanistan and the region. The situation in Afghanistan has gone from bad to worse in recent weeks, as the Taliban movement intensified its offensives in the northern part of the country. The fighting—regrettably encouraged and fuelled by neighbouring and other countries, despite all our repeated efforts to stop this— has led to further destruction and loss of life in a country that had already been devastated by 20 years of conflict. Of particular concern are the disturbing reports of mass killings that seem to have occurred after the fall of Mazar-i-Sharif, and perhaps in Bamiyan too. Among the victims were the Iranian diplomats and journalist in Mazar. More recently, we have heard this morning of the rocket attacks launched on Kabul in the past day and a half that have led to the loss of well over 50 lives, and maybe many more. As if the wretched people of Kabul have not been forced to suffer enough in recent years, these senseless and random killings of innocent civilians are an abomination. As the war in Afghanistan itself has escalated, so have risks of its becoming a full-scale regional conflict. A particular danger is posed by the increase in tension in the border areas between Iran and Afghanistan. This threat, if allowed to continue unattended, poses a very real danger to the peace and stability of the region. Together with the endless sufferings of the Afghan people, this is

a source of deep concern for me and the international community at large. It is in the interest of all the States represented here to end the conflict in Afghanistan and ensure peace and stability in the region. I hope that today’s meeting will send out a message to those in the region that the high-level delegations represented here this afternoon are united in the conviction that the situation in Afghanistan and the region should not be allowed to deteriorate any further. You have already agreed on the basic principles for a settlement of the Afghan conflict, including that ultimately there can be no military solution. Even if one party could overwhelm the others by force, it would not end the conflict but merely lift it to another stage of endless struggle. What is sorely needed in Afghanistan is a representative and inclusive government which truly reflects the interests of all ethnic and religious groups in the country. The message we must send out today is therefore that all of us remain committed to these principles and that together, we are determined to take action to bring peace to Afghanistan and the entire region. To do this, it might be advisable to try to agree among ourselves on a common approach to the side that appears to have made sizeable gains and—for the moment at least—is in control of most the country: the Taliban movement. The Taliban need to be told what the international community expect of them by way of minimum standards of behaviour, and this group is well placed to start that process. The more we can speak with one voice, the more effective we are likely to be. My Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, is here with us today. He will brief you on the latest developments in Afghanistan and the activities of the United Nations, including those of the United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan (UNSMA). As you may have heard, I have asked Mr. Brahimi to return to the region in the near future to explore ways in which the United Nations might help to reduce the tensions in the region. I believe he should go with the collective endorsement of the members of the “Six Plus Two”, and I very much hope I and he can count on the cooperation of all the countries represented here.

22 September 1998 Letter (UN archives); Lockerbie trial

22 September 1998 • 513 Letter from the Secretary-General to Omar Mustafa Muntasser, secretary-general of the Libyan General People’s Committee of the People’s Bureau for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation. Excellency, I have the honour to refer to your letter of 29 August 1998 which you handed over to me at our meeting in Durban and to the conversation that we had on that occasion. I also refer to my letter to you of 18 September 1998. I note with appreciation from your letter and the views conveyed to me during our discussion the positive response of your Government regarding Security Council resolution 1192 (1998). While accepting that the two accused Libyans be tried in the Netherlands, you sought clarification on certain points. Please find set out below the information you sought, which was conveyed to me by the Governments concerned. As indicated in Security Council resolution 1192 (1998) and confirmed by the Governments concerned, the trial of the two Libyan suspects will be held in the Netherlands by a Scottish Court applying Scottish law. In this connection, I confirm my readiness to assist your Government in the transfer of the accused from Libya to the Netherlands. Your second inquiry relates to the acquittal or conviction of the accused. In the event the accused are acquitted, they would be free to return to Libya. However, if they were convicted, I have been informed by the Government of the United Kingdom, that they would be transferred from the premises of the Scottish Court in the Netherlands directly to the territory of the United Kingdom for the purpose of serving the custodial sentence which may be imposed by the Scottish Court. I have also been informed that any sentence to be served would be served in Scotland; the Order in Council implementing these arrangements in domestic law—which was made on 16 September—makes no change to Scottish law in this respect. The Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, in its Article 16(2)(b), provides for the transfer of the accused on conviction directly to the United Kingdom for the purpose of serving their sentence. As you know, both the draft Order in Council and the draft Agreement were before the Security Council when it adopted its resolution 1192 (1998). With respect to your queries concerning Libyan witnesses who may be required to appear before the court, it has been confirmed to me by the Governments concerned that requests for such

appearance, should they arise, will be handled pursuant to the relevant rules and procedures of the Scottish Court. I have been informed that the United Kingdom cannot rule out the possibility that specific persons from Libya may be called as witnesses, although the prosecution has not at this stage identified any specific witnesses in Libya whom they would envisage calling. No witnesses now in Libya would be called unless the Court requested. It has also been made clear to me that witnesses will be immune from arrest for any offences—including the Lockerbie bombing— committed before they entered the Netherlands. I have been informed that witnesses from Libya need therefore have no concern as regards their safety or their ability to return to Libya after they have given evidence (Article 17(5) and (6) of the Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands), provided that they do not commit perjury or some other crime while in the Netherlands. In that regard, they would be in the same position as anyone travelling from any other country to give evidence. Any further requests for clarification, as well as the physical arrangements relating to the transfer of the accused from Libya to the Netherlands, could be the subject of discussions between the Legal Counsel of the United Nations and the team of legal experts your Government has appointed for this purpose. The Legal Counsel will represent me with regard to the matters arising out of my responsibilities under resolution 1192 (1998). Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

22 September 1998 Letter (UN archives); Middle East peace process Letter from the president of the UN Security Council, Hans Dahlgren. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, The Security Council remains gravely concerned about developments in the Occupied Territories and the region. Recalling its Presidential statement of 13 July 1998 (S/PRST/1998/21), the Security Council continues to be determined to keep developments under review, and to provide the needed backing to the Middle East peace process, giving full support to the Agreements achieved as well as to the timely implementation of those Agreements. The Council calls upon the concerned parties to pursue the negotiations and to fulfil their obligations under the Agreements achieved, so that

514 • 22 September 1998

progress can be made towards a just, lasting and comprehensive peace based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration.

22 September 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Afghanistan/Iraq Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s noon briefing by announcing that a joint statement, issued last night after the meeting of the Six-Plus-Two group on Afghanistan convened by the Secretary-General, had been made available. As mentioned in the last paragraph of that document, Mr. Eckhard continued, the Six-Plus-Two group endorsed the Secretary-General’s decision to send his Special Envoy to Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, to the region, and for him to seek the participation of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in the mission. The SecretaryGeneral of the OIC was arriving in New York on Thursday. Ambassador Brahimi was expected to meet with him and with representatives of Iran and Pakistan this week to work out his itinerary, and then he was expected to go to the region some time next week. The Spokesman then said the SecretaryGeneral would meet with members of the Security Council at 6:30 this evening to discuss the idea for a comprehensive review of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under all relevant Security Council resolutions. The Secretary-General had called the meeting in response to the Council’s invitation to him, expressed in resolution 1194 (1998), which asked the Secretary-General to share his views on the matter with the Council. The meeting would take place in the SecretaryGeneral’s conference room. The SecretaryGeneral was expected to meet with Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, on Monday of next week, 28 September. . . . The Spokesman said the World Health Organization (WHO) Representative and Designated Official for Security in Lesotho had reported that South African troops with armoured personnel carriers and helicopters had crossed the border at approximately 5:30 this morning local time and had entered Maseru in support of the Government of Lesotho. Heavy shooting and shelling was concentrated around the presidential palace and the

military compound in Maseru. The fighting was still going on. All United Nations staff and dependants were safe, the Spokesman continued, and the current Phase Two condition meant all staff were remaining inside their residences. The Designated Official had reported much looting and had said that some houses and offices had been set on fire. Sixty United Nations international staff and 91 dependants were currently in Lesotho. That included seven United Nations volunteers posted outside the capital. . . . Meanwhile, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Sadako Ogata, would visit Kosovo and the surrounding region on a fiveday mission, Mr. Eckhard said. Mrs. Ogata’s spokesman had described the mission as aimed to “scream to the world” that the humanitarian situation was becoming worse by the day. Mrs. Ogata, whose agency was leading the United Nations’ humanitarian effort to provide emergency assistance to more than 270,000 people displaced by the fighting in Kosovo, would meet with the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, in Belgrade. She was scheduled to go to Kosovo, Montenegro and Albania during her trip, which would begin on Thursday. . . . The Secretary-General had appointed Brigadier-General Cameron Ross of Canada as Force Commander of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), Mr. Eckhard said. Brigadier-General Ross would assume command of UNDOF on 1 October and would be succeeding Major-General David Stapleton of Ireland, who had served as Commander from 1 June 1997 until the end of August 1998. “The Secretary-General takes this opportunity to pay warm tribute to Major-General Stapleton for his distinguished service in this peacekeeping mission”, Mr. Eckhard added. Another correspondent asked what the purpose of today’s meeting with the members of the Security Council was, as the Secretary-General had already met with the five permanent members and the ten non-permanent members of the Council. What would happen tonight? “It is a further discussion of the details of the review”, Mr. Eckhard answered. Once there was a common understanding about the review—what the nature of the review should be and how it should work—then the ball was back in Iraq’s court under the terms of the resolution, which said that Iraq had to come back to full compliance with

23 September 1998 • 515 Security Council resolutions before the Council would be willing to consider a comprehensive review. The same correspondent then asked for clarification on consultations with the High Commissioner for Refugees on Kosovo. Mr. Eckhard reiterated that Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his address to the General Assembly yesterday, had mentioned that there was a resolution under discussion on Kosovo, and that he expected the resolution to be adopted this week, but that it was not formally on the Council’s agenda for this week. Did the Secretary-General have an opinion on the option of military force in Kosovo? the correspondent asked. “He certainly hopes that it would not be necessary to resort to military force”, Mr. Eckhard answered. Would the Secretary-General, in his meeting today, use his standing with the Security Council to somehow speed up the putting on the agenda of the resolution proposal at the request of the British Prime Minister? another correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said he would not. A correspondent referred to a toast made yesterday by United States President William Clinton during the luncheon for heads of State, in which Mr. Clinton had quoted American baseball legend Leo Durocher as having said that “nice guys finish last”, in order to make the point that Mr. Annan was an example of “nice guys finish first”. Had the Secretary-General understood the reference? Mr. Eckhard said, “I think the Secretary-General got the President’s point”. Were there any further details on Mrs. Ogata’s trip to the Kosovo area, during which she would meet with Mr. Milosevic? another correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said there were not, but the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) could be contacted for more information.

23 September 1998 Letter (UN archives); landmines Letter from the Secretary-General to the undersecretary-general for disarmament affairs, Jayantha Dhanapala. Dear Mr. Dhanapala, In July 1997, as part of my report “Renewing the United Nations: a Programme for Reform” (A/51/950), the Department of Peacekeeping Operations was designated as the new focal point within the UN system for all mine-related issues and activities. Shortly thereafter, in order to carry

out effectively his new responsibilities, the UnderSecretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations initiated a far-reaching coordination process in which you have all actively participated. I am encouraged by the results of this process and the documents that have been developed. I have discussed them with a number of Member States and a broader group of representatives from civil society. It must be recognized that what has been achieved in a very short period of time is impressive. I want to thank you all for demonstrating so visibly that coordination within the United Nations can work as it is instrumental for securing international confidence and support. The policy document submitted to the Senior Management Group on 1 April 1998 was subsequently amended and finalized by the InterAgency Coordination Group on Mine Action. The key principles it encapsulates are intended to provide a sound basis for UN mine action and to allow our efforts to be mutually reinforcing. In light of the serious and urgent nature of mine action and of the consensus achieved, I have decided that the effective implementation of this policy must be a priority for the United Nations. I trust that it will continue to receive your personal support and commitment. The implementation of our policy depends as much on our collective efforts at the headquarters levels as it does on the work of our country representatives. It is in the field that the success of our endeavours will be determined.

23 September 1998 Letter (EOSG); reform Letter to James Gustave Speth, administrator of the UN Development Programme (UNDP). Dear Mr. Speth, In July 1997, as part of my report “Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform” (A/51/950), the Department of Peacekeeping Operations was designated as the new focal point within the UN system for all mine-related issues and activities. Shortly thereafter, in order to carry out effectively his new responsibilities, the UnderSecretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations initiated a far-reaching coordination process in which you have all actively participated. I am encouraged by the results of this process and the documents that have been developed. I have discussed them with a number of Member States and a broader group of representatives from civil society. It must be recognized that what has

516 • 23 September 1998

been achieved in a very short period of time is impressive. I want to thank you all for demonstrating so visibly that coordination within the United Nations can work as it is instrumental for securing international confidence and support. The policy document submitted to the Senior Management Group on 1 April 1998 was subsequently amended and finalized by the InterAgency Coordination Group on Mine Action. The key principles it encapsulates are intended to provide a sound basis for UN mine action and to allow our efforts to be mutually reinforcing. In light of the serious and urgent nature of mine action and of the consensus achieved, I have decided that the effective implementation of this policy must be a priority for the United Nations. I trust that it will continue to receive your personal support and commitment. The implementation of our policy depends as much on our collective efforts at the headquarters levels as it does on the work of our country representatives. It is in the field that the success of our endeavours will be determined. I would therefore appreciate if you could share the attached documents with your representatives in mine-infested countries with a view to involving them fully in the implementation of this United Nations Policy on Mine Action and Effective Coordination.

23 September 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s noon briefing by welcoming the Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator, Martin Griffiths, to the briefing. Mr. Griffiths was to brief correspondents on his recent visit to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to Rwanda. (Mr. Griffiths’ briefing has been issued separately.) The Security Council had met at 11 a.m. today for further consultations on a draft resolution introduced yesterday on Kosovo, Mr. Eckhard continued. The Council would meet at 3:30 p.m. to adopt the resolution. That meeting would be chaired by the Foreign Minister of Sweden. Under other matters, the Spokesman continued, the Council had agreed that next Tuesday it would discuss the Secretary-General’s report on assistance to refugees and others. In the meantime, the Council would resume work on Monday with

consultations on Croatia and a briefing on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Back on Kosovo, Mr. Eckhard said, there was a report available today from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) on the general situation there. That appeared as an addendum to the Secretary-General’s report to the Council on Kosovo. It provided an analysis of the spillover potential of the Kosovo conflict and concluded that the only hope for a peaceful solution was an immediate cessation of the Serbian military offensive. Again on Kosovo, it had just been learned from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) that an estimated 6,000 people had been displaced as a result of a fresh government offensive that had begun yesterday outside of Pristina, Mr. Eckhard announced. The UNHCR was coordinating the United Nations humanitarian effort to assist nearly 300,000 refugees and displaced persons in the Kosovo conflict. It was receiving reports that at least 17 villages and at least 10,000 people were being affected by the government offensive, which had entered its second day. The Security Council would meet tomorrow from 10 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. at the level of foreign ministers, Mr. Eckhard said. The purpose of the meeting was to assess the progress that had been made in achieving peace and security in Africa since last September, when the last such meeting had been held on the subject. As a follow-up to the Secretary-General’s report on Africa, which was submitted in April, the Security Council had in May established a working group to review for six months the recommendations submitted to the Council by the Secretary-General in his report. The Council had also decided to work closely with the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in the follow-up to the report and to meet at the ministerial level every two years. Further on Africa, Mr. Eckhard said six subgroups had been established to look at the main recommendations of the Secretary-General’s report. Three of those groups had produced documents on their work. The work of the group dealing with regional cooperation was covered in Security Council resolution S/RES/1197, adopted on the 18th of September. The work of the group concerning the strengthening of Africa’s peacekeeping capacity was reflected in a presidential statement on 16 September. And the work of the group looking into strengthening the effectiveness of Council-imposed arms sanctions regimes was

23 September 1998 • 517 covered by resolution S/RES/1196, also adopted on 16 September. Three other subgroups had not yet concluded their work, the Spokesman said. One of those subgroups was concerned with an international mechanism to assist host governments in maintaining the security and neutrality of refugee camps. The work of a second group concerned arms flows, in particular, suppliers and intermediaries. The work of the third group was concerned with enhancing the capacity of the Council to monitor activities authorized by it. Eighteen speakers were expected to take the floor on Africa tomorrow, Mr. Eckhard said. Those speakers would include the 15 members of the Council and the Secretary-General, as well as the Secretary-General of the OAU, Salim A. Salim, and the President of Burkina Faso, Blaise Compaore, who was the current OAU Chairman. Tomorrow was the date for the annual luncheon of the foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the Security Council with the Secretary-General, the Spokesman announced. The group traditionally issued a statement afterwards and the event would be monitored by the Spokesman’s Office on behalf of correspondents. Mr. Eckhard said a statement had been issued on Lesotho, saying that the Secretary-General was very disturbed by the turn of events there and that he was following them closely. He was in contact with leaders in the region, with a view to helping in the restoration of normalcy and the pursuit of a meaningful national dialogue to resolve the recent political problems. He appealed to the leaders in Lesotho on all sides to show statesmanship and to work both together and with the Southern African Development Community (SADC) for the sake of the people of Lesotho. The Secretary-General had a meeting today with the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Spokesman said. The meeting was to foster support for implementation of the Secretary-General’s report on Africa. The Secretary-General was expected to call the attention of the DAC countries to such issues as the need to increase the volume and improve the quality of official assistance, the opening of markets for African exports and possible measures to encourage investment in Africa. The Secretary-General would also urge donor countries to convert the debts of African countries into grants. . . . The Office for the Coordination of Humani-

tarian Affairs had sent word, Mr. Eckhard said, that the United Nations Inter-agency Appeal for Emergency Relief and Initial Rehabilitation in China had been launched in Beijing and Geneva. The Appeal was seeking $139 million to assist over 5.8 million persons affected by the worst floods in decades along the Yangtze River and north-east China. The Secretary-General was deeply distressed over the unprecedented magnitude of the devastation caused by the flooding, which had affected one fifth of China’s population of some 223 million people. A United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) note on that same subject was available in room S-378. . . . The meeting with the United States Secretary of State this morning had lasted about 25 minutes and had covered a range of issues, Mr. Eckhard continued. Those were: United Nations reform; the United Nations budget and the United States contributions to it; the situation in Iraq; the United States/United Kingdom proposal on Lockerbie, which concerned Libya; the Democratic Republic of the Congo; the ministerial-level meeting on Africa; the situation in Afghanistan; and nuclear non-proliferation issues. It was quite a wide agenda. In response to a series of questions by a correspondent on arrangements for the Lockerbie trial, Mr. Eckhard said the United Nations Legal Counsel was clarifying for Libya a number of questions they had raised concerning the United States/United Kingdom proposal. The process was continuing by telephone, through meetings and perhaps in writing. While there was no read-out on the specific issues, Libya’s questions had been described as concerning such issues as where the defendants would serve their sentences if convicted and who could be called as witnesses in the trial. In response to questions on refugees in Kosovo, Mr. Eckhard said the figures would have to be confirmed with the UNHCR, but that, of a total of 270,000 refugees, some 200,000 were within Kosovo. It was not known how many of those were refugees freezing in the mountains, but it was known that tens of thousands were in the mountains or just outside without proper shelter. Would today’s resolution in the Council on Kosovo include language authorizing the use of force? another correspondent asked. Would the Secretary-General support the resolution and the use of force, if it was called for as a way of stopping the aggression against a civilian population? “We don’t get into the business of interpreting what the Council means by its resolutions. You’ll

518 • 23 September 1998

have to ask the Council members”, Mr. Eckhard replied. “The Secretary-General, of course, supports all resolutions of the Council as a matter of principle.” United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) experts had arrived at Headquarters today, a correspondent noted. Were final results expected from the tests conducted in France and Switzerland on the missile fragments found in Iraq? Mr. Eckhard responded that it had been announced earlier in the week that meetings would be held here at Headquarters on Thursday and Friday to review the differing results from the three separate laboratory tests on the missile fragments. The assumption was that the official results had been received, even though earlier it had been announced that UNSCOM did not expect final results until the end of the month. The UNSCOM would be consulted on that. . . .

24 September 1998 Letter (EOSG); Yugoslavia Letter to Hellmuth Strasser, director general of the Danube Commission. Similar letters were also sent to the heads of the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the Western European Union. Excellency, I have the honour to refer to my letter to you dated 4 June 1998 concerning Security Council resolution 1160 (1998), by which the Council decided that all States should, for the purposes of fostering peace and stability in Kosovo, prevent the sale or supply to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including Kosovo, of arms and related matériel, of all types and spare parts thereof, as well as the arming and training for terrorist activities there. By the same resolution, the Council requested that I submit, in consultation with appropriate regional organizations, recommendations for the establishment of a comprehensive regime to monitor the implementation of the prohibitions imposed by that resolution. In my report to the Security Council dated 5 August 1998 (S/1998/712), I submitted my recommendations for the establishment of such a comprehensive regime, taking into account the views of the Danube Commission on this subject, as well as those of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Western

European Union. I informed the members of the Security Council that although the aforementioned organizations had stated their readiness to contribute actively to the monitoring of the prohibitions imposed by resolution 1160 (1998), the overall resources pledged by them would not allow for the establishment of a comprehensive monitoring regime as envisaged in resolution 1160 (1998). Nonetheless, I felt that the proposed contributions of the above organizations, coupled with that of the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP), provided a useful framework for reporting on violations of the prohibitions imposed by the resolution and for assisting the Committee established pursuant to Security Council resolution 1160 (1998) in discharging its mandate. Consequently, I proposed to invite these organizations to forward to the Secretariat, for consideration by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to Security Council resolution 1160 (1998), relevant information based on reports of their own monitors or any other information that may be available to them, concerning violations or allegations of violations of the prohibitions imposed by Security Council resolution 1160 (1998). I further stated that, in the absence of an integrated coordinating mechanism, it would be essential for representatives of participating organizations, UNPREDEP and the Secretariat to hold, as necessary, periodic meetings in order to exchange information on the monitoring of the prohibitions established by resolution 1160 (1998) and to address practical issues arising in that connection. At the informal consultations held on 10 September 1998, the Security Council considered my report of 5 August 1998. The President subsequently informed me of the concurrence of the members of the Council with my recommendation for the establishment of a comprehensive regime as outlined in the report. In this connection, I should like to invite your Organization to forward to the Secretariat, for consideration by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to Security Council resolution 1160 (1998), relevant information based on reports of its own monitors or any other information that may be available to it, concerning violations or allegations of violations of the prohibitions imposed by Security Council resolution 1160 (1998). The initial consultation meeting is scheduled for Monday, 19 October 1998, at United Nations Headquarters in New York and I should be grateful if you could designate a representative to participate.

24 September 1998 • 519 Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

24 September 1998 Secretary-General Reports to the Security Council on Follow-Up Action on the Situation in Africa

Presentation to Security Council (EOSG, SG/SM/6716, SC/6579); Africa Text of the Secretary-General’s address to the Second Security Council Ministerial Meeting on the situation in Africa. It is with great pleasure that I join you for this Second Ministerial Meeting of the Security Council on the situation in Africa. Our meeting is the fruit of your determination to make a difference for peace and for prosperity in Africa. It is an expression of the political will that I called for in my report last April—the political will which is the condition for any success that our endeavours may meet in Africa, as everywhere. Throughout the last six months, and most recently at the Non-Aligned Movement Summit, African leaders have pledged to help implement the report’s recommendations. Just as important, ordinary men and women in every part of Africa heard their United Nations speak in a voice that recognized the realities they face, day in and day out. Let us never forget that it is for them—the peoples of Africa—that our ideas must matter, and make a difference. The report aimed to contribute to Africa’s progress in two distinct, but related ways: first, by paying the peoples of Africa the tribute of truth—by honestly and candidly reporting to the world their challenges and their aspirations; second, from here on, by proposing realistic and achievable recommendations for how those challenges may be met. I am therefore very pleased to witness the serious and constructive manner in which the Council, through its Ad hoc Working Group—has begun to address the report’s recommendations. We have had a good start. Following the submission of the report in April, you asked the Secretariat to provide ideas for practical actions that could be taken by the Secretariat and by United Nations agencies. I can report today that the United Nations Secretariat is vigorously working on follow-up activities to the report, and that I have asked the Deputy Secretary-General to monitor its implementation. Even before this plan is finalized, however, we have begun our work.

In July, we convened two international conferences—one on Guinea and the other on Sierra Leone—to focus international attention on the efforts of those two countries to restore and strengthen peace and stability, and to help them do so. We have also provided the Council with specific proposals for the establishment of an international mechanism to assist host governments in maintaining the security and neutrality of refugee camps. And we have begun discussions on the need to stem illicit arms flows to and in Africa. The Council, for its part, has showed its commitment to the aims of the report—and to lasting peace in Africa. First, by setting up active working groups and adopting very important resolutions on recommendations of the report. Second, by authorizing new peacekeeping operations, in the Central African Republic and in Sierra Leone. I am also pleased to note that the General Assembly will be considering my report in October, and look forward to the conclusions of Administrative Committee on Coordination’s (ACC) fall session devoted mainly to the interagency aspects of the report. In the report, I emphasized that any and all efforts at securing peace had to be combined with steps towards ending Africa’s poverty. Specifically, I called for the promotion of investments and economic growth, of ensuring adequate levels of international aid, of reducing debt burdens and opening international markets to Africa’s products. These are aims on which we all can agree; we can also all agree that they are far from being met. Yesterday, I convened an informal meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Development Assistance Committee countries to highlight five priority areas in meeting Africa’s economic challenges. Those are, first, the need to increase the volume and improve the quality of official development assistance (ODA); second, to consider converting all remaining official bilateral debt owed by the poorest African countries into grants; third, to liberalize access to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative; fourth, to ease access conditions for African exports; and fifth, to encourage investments in Africa, which has largely been marginalized in the process of globalization. I am pleased to say that all the governments represented reaffirmed their support for the recommendations in the report, and, in particular, for the five priority areas I have just indicated. At the same time, they stressed the need, on the part of African states, to create an enabling environment for investment and economic growth.

520 • 24 September 1998

There must be reciprocity. No one can be expected to invest in unstable or insecure neighbourhoods. If we now recognize that peace and prosperity must be sought as one, with equal priority and equal persistence, then we must also understand the broader nature of human security we seek. That is why the United Nations increasingly is taking a comprehensive, holistic approach to all our peacekeeping and peace-building activities. We have learned that electoral assistance must be part of democracy-building; that securing human rights will ensure genuine political liberty; that political development must be integral to economic development; and we are applying these lessons everyday. There have recently been positive developments in a number of African countries seeking to escape conflict or to make the transition from dictatorship to democracy. In this regard, I would like to express my hope that the leadership of Nigeria will continue on the path to good governance and the rule of law—strengthening democratic institutions and organizing free and fair elections in February leading to the handover to civilian rule by the end of May 1999. Regrettably, however, this move away from the rule of the gun has seemed the exception rather than the rule in recent months. Indeed, in the six months that have passed since I presented the report, we have witnessed fighting between Ethiopia and Eritrea, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Guinea-Bissau, in Angola and in Sierra Leone, while humanitarian crises in Somalia and the Sudan seem only to grow with every passing day. The United Nations, in partnership with the Organization of African Unity (OAU), is actively involved in seeking an end to every one of these crises and to alleviate the suffering borne by innocent civilians. But, in a larger sense, we can only appeal to the wisdom and the responsibility of leaders to put the interests of their own people first. Without the determination of the parties themselves to reach political accommodation, there is little we can do except offer the band-aid of humanitarian assistance, often with great difficulties and with great risks. We are in no position to impose peace that the peoples so fervently desire and so richly deserve. What will it take for Africa’s leaders finally to reject military solutions to political challenges? When will the realization arrive that not one—not a single one—of these conflicts can end in the absence of compromise, tolerance and the peaceful solution of disputes? When will the time come

when we all can say that we did our best for Africa—that its leaders came together and resolved peacefully their differences, and that we in the international community finally did our part to help secure durable peace and ensure lasting development? Allow me to suggest that they—and we—look to Nelson Mandela; that they—and we—listen to the final words of the final United Nations address of his Presidency; and that they—and we—show ourselves worthy of his great hope for the continent of Africa: “We hope that there [will] emerge a cadre of leaders . . . which will not allow that any should be denied their freedom—as we were; that any should be turned into refugees—as we were; that any should be condemned to go hungry—as we were; that any should be stripped of their human dignity—as we were.” Against all odds, President Mandela achieved his aim for his nation and for his people. Let that achievement be a source of inspiration for all of us. Thank you very much.

25 September 1998 Secretary-General Stresses UN Involvement in Discussion on New World Financial Architecture

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6719); Group of 77 Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the annual ministerial meeting of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, in New York. I am honoured and delighted to be with you. You all know how much we, in the United Nations Secretariat, value the contribution which the Group of 77 and China make to the work of the Organization, especially in the area of development. This year, it gives me particular pleasure to acknowledge the leadership which your Group has received from Indonesia. Working with Foreign Minister Ali Alatas and with Ambassador Makarim Wibisono is always enjoyable. They deserve special thanks from all of us for the time and effort they have devoted to chairing the Group of 77 in a year which has been one of the most difficult in their country’s history. Thanks to them and to their Tanzanian predecessors, there has been excellent cooperation between us over the past year. I look forward to building on it in the year ahead. In particular, the Group of 77’s constructive involvement has been crucial to the success of United Nations reform. Together we have achieved

25 September 1998 • 521 a great deal and, as I told the General Assembly on Monday, the United Nations family has now begun to act with greater coherence and unity of purpose. It is true that some of our most urgent problems remain unresolved, especially the financial ones. And there is still much to be done to carry the reform forward. We can say proudly, however, that the United Nations is regaining its voice—notably on the economic issues which are central to our mandate. I would mention as examples the constructive debates we had in the Economic and Social Council meeting with the Bretton Woods institutions on 18 April, the high-level segment of the Economic and Social Council on market access, last week’s high-level dialogue in the General Assembly on globalization, and the ongoing discussions on finance for development. I think most people now expect the United Nations to be involved in discussions on the new world “financial architecture”. It is my hope that we will be. Why? Because we have a responsibility, as the universal institution, to stress the global nature of the present crisis—and to insist on the need for global solutions, based on global rules that are fair to all. It is our job to ensure that nations do not react to global crisis by turning their backs on universal values. In such crises we must come together to find solutions based on the founding principles which all our Member States have in common: those of the United Nations Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We also have a special responsibility to speak up for the disadvantaged. We cannot forget, and we must not allow others to forget, the countries in Africa and elsewhere whose debt burdens the crisis has made even more unsustainable. But, once we secure our place at the table, what in substance will we have to say? First of all, the present crisis is not financial only. It has disastrous consequences for millions of people in their everyday lives. Years of efforts are being undone. Secondly, we have to find better ways to protect those being left behind by globalization, as well as those victimized by it. Our goal is to eradicate poverty. Yet, the brutal truth is that this year poverty is increasing. Thirdly, in these circumstances a genuinely free market, governed by clear and equitable rules, becomes even more important. It is vital that industrialized countries make greater efforts to

ensure that their markets are fully and genuinely open to exports from developing countries. Fourthly, I share the concern, expressed in your draft declaration, about the gap between the impressive commitments made at a series of major international conferences and the declining resources available to implement them. As I told the General Assembly, we have to define the political and institutional framework within which economic and financial strategies can be applied. And we have to ensure that States are strong enough, individually and together, to manage the strains of globalization. That means, among other things, that we must help States to govern in a way that commands the confidence and support of their own citizens, and attracts some of the best and brightest young people into public service. We also have to agree on realistic development objectives. In the report which I propose to submit to the Millennium Assembly in two years’ time, I aim to define some very clear and specific ones. Progress in achieving these must be measurable, and it must make a difference that poor people throughout the world can actually feel in their own lives. In this context, I welcome your decision to hold the South Summit in the year 2000. I am sure it will produce many valuable ideas, and I trust you will choose a date early enough for those ideas to feed into the Millennium Assembly. There is no doubting the gravity of the crisis. But, rather than despair, let us treat it as an opportunity. We must make the case that it gives a new urgency to the issue of debt relief. We can argue that it obliges us to reinvigorate, or even reinvent, development cooperation, as an effective weapon in the battle against poverty. On Wednesday, I had a most encouraging meeting with donor countries, grouped in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC), to follow up on my Africa report. I am delighted to say that they, uniformly and strongly, endorsed my call for action in five priority areas: • To increase the volume and improve the quality of official development assistance to Africa; • To convert all remaining official debt owed by the poorest African countries into grants; • To liberalize access to the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative; • To open markets to, and ease terms of access

522 • 25 September 1998

for, African exports; and to encourage investment in Africa. Of course, we must not forget that there are some very poor countries in other continents besides Africa. Those, in Asia, are perhaps suffering most from the present crisis because they have lost investment flows from other Asian countries. Those, in Latin America, have been hit by falling commodity prices. Nor must we forget that there are many very poor people in countries which do not qualify as “least developed,” but whose development has suffered a severe setback. For them, the hope of relief must now seem further off than ever. But the success of the DAC meeting on Africa shows that the gravity of the crisis is helping us get more serious attention for the problems of the poorest. Our task now is twofold: to translate that attention into action, and to widen it to take in the developing world as a whole. The complexity of the crisis in Asia and the direct and indirect impact on Latin America and elsewhere defies a simple one-for-all prescription. We need to formulate a graduated response—region by region, country by country—which matches the magnitude and diversity of the crisis itself. In that vital task, I know I can count on your help.

28 September 1998 Secretary-General Calls for Better Support to LDCs by International Community

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6721, DEV/2182); least developed countries Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the 8th annual ministerial meeting of the least developed countries (LDCs), in New York. It gives me great pleasure to join you again as the General Assembly begins a new session. As you know, last year the Assembly decided to convene, in the year 2001, the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries. This is both a challenge and an opportunity, and I would like to share with you today a few thoughts about this process and about the plight of LDCs in general. Let no one doubt the daunting task implicit in holding such a conference. The nearly 600 million men, women and children who live in the world’s four dozen LDCs are looking to you, their leaders, and to us in the international community, for policies and measures that will reverse the long-term

decline in their socio-economic conditions; that will end their marginalization in the global economy; that will, in short, give them renewed hopes for a better life. The time is ripe for bringing the development problems of LDCs to the forefront of the international agenda. A larger number of LDCs have begun to register positive growth in per capita income. This trend, though still fragile, contrasts sharply with the stagnation and decline of the 1980s and the first half of this decade. Moreover, to achieve this performance, these countries have undertaken reforms that have meant hardship and sacrifice for their peoples. And they have done so amidst an external environment rife with uncertainty and instability. Even as I speak, fears are mounting that the current financial turmoil in different parts of the world could wipe out the gains made by LDCs in recent years. I salute the peoples of LDCs for the courage and determination with which they have faced these adversities and persisted in their painstaking mission of development. Just as the recent economic gains of your countries arose primarily from domestic measures, so will future growth and progress depend primarily on your own actions. Indeed, there is no substitute for national efforts. There is also no mystery as to what the nature of those efforts must be. You must, for example, continue to improve your institutions, which are the bedrock of development. You must put in place the regulations and incentives that will encourage investment, both foreign and domestic. You must persist in the development of your human resources, not only to provide people with opportunities to realize their potential, but also to ensure longer-term competitiveness. You must create an environment that protects human rights, allows civil society to flourish and promotes transparency and accountability in public administration. And you must strengthen democratic governance and the rule of law. In a number of LDCs, progress remains threatened by conflict. In this regard, let me say that the recommendations contained in my report to the Security Council on Africa apply to non-African LDCs as well. No amount of assistance and no degree of hope can make the difference between war and peace unless leaders summon the necessary political will to end conflict and bridge differences through peaceful means. If national action must lead the way, it is also

30 September 1998 • 523 true that the efforts of LDCs merit better support by the international community. There are three areas in which such help would be particularly useful: official development assistance (ODA), debt burdens and market access. The decline in ODA flows to LDCs is especially troubling, because LDCs are not benefiting significantly from increased private capital flows to developing countries as a whole. I will continue to be a strenuous advocate for reversing this disturbing trend. Increased ODA remains imperative if LDCs are to fight poverty and build the social, institutional and other tools they need to compete in the highly competitive global economy. A significant reduction of debt is another necessity. So far, only a handful of LDCs have benefited from the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative. It is essential to extend the Initiative, to implement the Initiative speedily and to convert all remaining official bilateral debts owed by the poorest countries into grants. Enhanced access to markets is equally vital, given the great reliance of LDCs on the export of primary commodities. While the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations resulted in more open markets, LDCs, nonetheless, face high tariffs in key sectors such as textiles and agriculture. I am pleased that some countries have recently announced their intentions to open their markets to specific products from some LDCs, and I will continue to urge other countries to do the same while stressing to LDCs the importance of diversifying their economies. The United Nations is helping LDCs take advantage of more open markets. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are all involved, along with the World Trade Organization. As the focal point for the Programme of Action for the LDCs for the 1990s, UNCTAD has been carrying out analytical work as part of the overall monitoring and review of the Programme’s implementation. Other United Nations funds and programmes are engaged in a wide range of activities that benefit LDCs, including reproductive health and science and technology development. In the weeks ahead, the General Assembly will take important decisions on the preparatory process for the Third Conference on the LDCs. In

choosing the United Nations as the forum, the Assembly has expressed its confidence in the ability of our Organization to promote international solidarity and mobilize new partnerships. As your close allies, we will do all within our capacity to contribute. I know you share my hope that the Conference will rally governments, civil society, the private sector, the United Nations and other international organizations behind a single, unified purpose. As we seek to better meet the needs of a new, interdependent era in world affairs, and as we build the global institutions we need for life in a global society, let us ask ourselves what kind of an international society we envisage. Ultimately, global society will be judged on how well—or how poorly—it treats its weakest and most disadvantaged. With one tenth of humanity living at the margin of survival, our record is not one that can be celebrated. We must change it. We must act collectively and decisively to bring about this change.

30 September 1998 Letter (UN archives); peacekeeping Internal note from the under-secretary-general for peacekeeping operations, Bernard Miyet. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Re: Proposal to Establish a Minimum Age for Participation of Military/Civilian Police Personnel in UN Peacekeeping Operations 1. Further to the DPKO Discussion Paper on “United Nations Peacekeeping” submitted to the SMG on 19 May 1998, in which it was suggested that we seize the opportunity to send a strong signal to the international community regarding the minimum age of peacekeepers, we have prepared the attached recommendations for your approval. As set out in the attachment, we propose, following close consultations within the Department and with Mr. Riza, the establishment of the following minimum age requirements for military and civilian police personnel to serve as UN peacekeepers: Civilian Police and Military Observers: 25 years National Contingent Troops: 21 years advisable, but not less than 18 years. 2. We believe that such a policy will have a very positive impact on the public image of UN peacekeepers at a time when there still appears to be harsh criticism and skepticism in respect of

524 • 25 September 1998

their behavior and, in addition, will be highly appreciated by the main NGOs which are now focusing on this question (following the Land Mine Treaty and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court). Certain countries might react negatively to the adoption of such a policy but, in view of the prevailing “climate”, it would be difficult for them to express their positions publicly. 3. Given that the commemoration of 50 years of UN peacekeeping will be held on 6 October, it would seem opportune to use that occasion to make such a public overture. If you agree with this approach, we will include appropriate remarks in the text of the speech which you will deliver on that date. Approved. —K.A., 2/10

30 September 1998 Secretary-General Outraged by Reports of Atrocities in Kosovo

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6725); Kosovo The Secretary-General is outraged by eyewitness reports of atrocities perpetrated by security forces in Kosovo under the authority of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These reports are particularly shocking to the Secretary-General in light of denials received from the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, whom he met yesterday, that such actions were taking place. The Security Council has recently affirmed the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, from which it follows that the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have the right, and indeed the duty to maintain public order and to defend it from provocative actions such as those that have been committed by Kosovar Albanian separatist extremists. But those actions can never justify the pattern of terror including the burning of houses, looting, killing of livestock and wanton killing that have been reported these past few days. Such actions are totally unacceptable to the international community. It is the duty of security forces to protect citizens, not to intimidate them. The Secretary-General utterly condemns these actions, and renews his strong representations to the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, made directly to the Foreign Minister, to desist from repeating them. He once again calls

upon all parties to cease violence and to concentrate on the search for a negotiated solution to the crisis in Kosovo according to law.

1 October 1998 Letter (UN archives); Arusha peace talks Note from Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, UN controller, to the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza. Following is a note from Hilary I. Iregbulem, which includes the breakdown of cost requirements for the Arusha peace talks. NOTE TO MR. RIZA

Re: Third Round of the Arusha Peace Talks Please refer to the note to me from Mr. Iregbulem dated 29 September (attached for ease of reference) related to United Nations assistance to the Facilitator of the Burundi Peace Process. The estimated cost amounts to $633,550, of which $200,000 will be paid by UNDP. Having reviewed the estimates, I recommend approval of $489,855, inclusive of programme support, to be charged to the Trust Fund of the Secretary-General for Preventive Action. * * * 29 September 1998 NOTE TO MR. J.P. HALBWACHS

Third Round of the Arusha Peace Process

As you are aware, the Secretary-General has committed to provide assistance to the Facilitator of the Burundi Peace Process Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere in connection with the Third Round of the Arusha Peace Talks which is scheduled to commence on 12 October 1998 for an approximate period of four weeks. In order to reduce costs, staff to be required for the talks will be recruited, to the extent possible, regionally or locally. Recruitment would be on an SSA basis for the following: • 12 interpreters to be recruited regionally (salary calculation based on rates for short term staff dated 13 March 1998). • 8 precis writers (4 English, 4 French) • 4 translators (3 French/English, 1 English/ French) • 3 conference officers • 4 bilingual secretaries • 2 documents officers • 2 legal/political advisers

524 • 25 September 1998

their behavior and, in addition, will be highly appreciated by the main NGOs which are now focusing on this question (following the Land Mine Treaty and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court). Certain countries might react negatively to the adoption of such a policy but, in view of the prevailing “climate”, it would be difficult for them to express their positions publicly. 3. Given that the commemoration of 50 years of UN peacekeeping will be held on 6 October, it would seem opportune to use that occasion to make such a public overture. If you agree with this approach, we will include appropriate remarks in the text of the speech which you will deliver on that date. Approved. —K.A., 2/10

30 September 1998 Secretary-General Outraged by Reports of Atrocities in Kosovo

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6725); Kosovo The Secretary-General is outraged by eyewitness reports of atrocities perpetrated by security forces in Kosovo under the authority of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These reports are particularly shocking to the Secretary-General in light of denials received from the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, whom he met yesterday, that such actions were taking place. The Security Council has recently affirmed the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, from which it follows that the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have the right, and indeed the duty to maintain public order and to defend it from provocative actions such as those that have been committed by Kosovar Albanian separatist extremists. But those actions can never justify the pattern of terror including the burning of houses, looting, killing of livestock and wanton killing that have been reported these past few days. Such actions are totally unacceptable to the international community. It is the duty of security forces to protect citizens, not to intimidate them. The Secretary-General utterly condemns these actions, and renews his strong representations to the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, made directly to the Foreign Minister, to desist from repeating them. He once again calls

upon all parties to cease violence and to concentrate on the search for a negotiated solution to the crisis in Kosovo according to law.

1 October 1998 Letter (UN archives); Arusha peace talks Note from Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, UN controller, to the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza. Following is a note from Hilary I. Iregbulem, which includes the breakdown of cost requirements for the Arusha peace talks. NOTE TO MR. RIZA

Re: Third Round of the Arusha Peace Talks Please refer to the note to me from Mr. Iregbulem dated 29 September (attached for ease of reference) related to United Nations assistance to the Facilitator of the Burundi Peace Process. The estimated cost amounts to $633,550, of which $200,000 will be paid by UNDP. Having reviewed the estimates, I recommend approval of $489,855, inclusive of programme support, to be charged to the Trust Fund of the Secretary-General for Preventive Action. * * * 29 September 1998 NOTE TO MR. J.P. HALBWACHS

Third Round of the Arusha Peace Process

As you are aware, the Secretary-General has committed to provide assistance to the Facilitator of the Burundi Peace Process Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere in connection with the Third Round of the Arusha Peace Talks which is scheduled to commence on 12 October 1998 for an approximate period of four weeks. In order to reduce costs, staff to be required for the talks will be recruited, to the extent possible, regionally or locally. Recruitment would be on an SSA basis for the following: • 12 interpreters to be recruited regionally (salary calculation based on rates for short term staff dated 13 March 1998). • 8 precis writers (4 English, 4 French) • 4 translators (3 French/English, 1 English/ French) • 3 conference officers • 4 bilingual secretaries • 2 documents officers • 2 legal/political advisers

5 October 1998 • 525 Please find attached cost estimates for the above peace talks amounting to $631,550. Please note that UNDP had agreed to cover part of the costs up to $200,000. If you agree with the cost estimates, it would be appreciated if an allotment advice is issued as soon as possible in order to conclude all necessary arrangements for the talks beginning on 12 October 1998. It is proposed that the total cost of the talks be charged to the third tranche of $1,000,000 from the Trust Fund to finance unforeseen prevention-related activities and projects already in the pipeline, as approved by Mr. S. Iqbal Riza on behalf of the Secretary-General on 22 September 1998. Thank you.

2 October 1998 Letter (EOSG); Central African Republic Letter to the president of the Security Council, Jeremy Greenstock. Dear Mr. President, As the members of the Security Council will recall, in my report on the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic (MINURCA) dated 21 August 1998 (S/1998/783), I presented recommendations for possible United Nations electoral assistance in the Central African Republic. I am pleased to confirm that the Mixed and Independent Electoral Commission of the Central African Republic decided on 22 September that the first round of the national legislative elections would be held on 22 November, and the second round on 13 December 1998. The two dates for the elections have since been confirmed by a presidential decree. My Special Representative, Mr. Oluyemi Adeniji, has reported that the work of the Electoral Commission is proceeding on course. The Commission started receiving applications from prospective candidates for the elections on 24 September as scheduled. The electoral campaign for the first round of elections is scheduled to begin on 7 November. MINURCA and the United Nations Development Programme are working closely with the Electoral Commission in preparation for the elections. Now that a new calendar for the legislative elections in the Central African Republic has been established, the timely adoption of a Security Council resolution on United Nations electoral assistance is essential.

According to the operational plan prepared by MINURCA in support of the election process, the deployment of United Nations troops to six designated sites outside Bangui should begin no later than six weeks before the election date, that is, by 11 October 1998. The medium-term electoral observers, mentioned in paragraph 22 of my report of 21 August, should arrive in Bangui by 17 October to undergo training, before being deployed to those sites by 25 October. Further delays in the Security Council’s decision on United Nations electoral assistance could seriously affect the already tight implementation schedule and the credibility of the electoral process. I therefore hope that the Security Council will be able to conclude its consideration of this issue in the coming days, in order to ensure adequate and timely support for the legislative elections in the Central African Republic. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

5 October 1998 Letter (EOSG); UN Special Commission Letter to the president of the Security Council, Jeremy Greenstock, with the attached concept paper. Dear Mr. President, Pursuant to the wishes expressed this afternoon, I have the honour to attach, for the information of the members of the Security Council, a possible concept for a comprehensive review which I first proposed to the Council on 6 August 1998. The attached concept is based on my own views on the subject which I was invited to share with the Council in its resolution 1194 (1998) and has benefited from helpful comments and suggestions offered by many of the members of the Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. A Possible Concept for a Comprehensive Review

1. As a prior condition sine qua non for the Security Council to proceed with a comprehensive review, Iraq would have to rescind its decision of 5 August 1998 and demonstrate that it has resumed full cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA. Once the resumption of satisfactory cooperation is confirmed, it is envisaged that the first phase of the review would commence within a relatively short period of time, say a few weeks at most.

526 • 5 October 1998

2. While the comprehensive review would encompass Iraq’s compliance with all relevant resolutions of the Security Council adopted since 2 August 1990, it would be divided into two main phases, the first phase being devoted to Iraq’s compliance with Section C of resolution 687 (1991) and the second phase being concerned with. Iraq’s compliance with all other requirements arising out of the relevant resolutions. 3. The immediate purpose of the first phase of the comprehensive review would be to define an agreed course of action and a timetable which, if followed, would lead to the earliest possible satisfaction of the disarmament-related requirements, described in section C of resolution 687 (1991). It would be so designed as to make it possible for the Security Council to satisfy itself whether all the necessary conditions for lifting the oil embargo have been fulfilled in accordance with paragraph 22 of resolution 687 (1991). In particular, the first phase of the review would: • clearly determine if Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or any equipment for its production; • clarify if Iraq is still undertaking attempts to restart the proscribed military programmes of production of any kind of proscribed weapons; • confirm on the basis of existing evidence the validity of any allegations of non-compliance by Iraq with regard to section C of resolution 687 (1991); • establish a reasonable timetable for investigation of all remaining issues of the Iraqi proscribed military programmes; and • answer the question whether Iraq still constitutes a military threat to the region. 4. For the purpose of enabling the Council to consider the issues mentioned earlier, UNSCOM and the IAEA would be requested by the Council to submit succinct reports detailing: • the achievements made by them in each of the four files (i.e. nuclear, missile, chemical and biological) in terms of the identification and destruction of WMDs and the elimination of Iraq’s capacity to manufacture or develop WMDs; • the work that they judge remains to be done in each of the four areas in order to satisfy the requirements placed on UNSCOM and the IAEA under section C of resolution 687 (1991) while indicating a tentative timeframe for this purpose based on the assumption that Iraq will extend full cooperation; and • relevant evidence at the disposal of

UNSCOM and the IAEA, to substantiate non-fulfilment by Iraq of provisions of section C of resolution 687 (1991), without disclosing the source, if deemed inappropriate. 5. Iraq would be invited to provide its own separate account of how it has complied with the requirements of section C of resolution 687 (1991) with an indication, whenever appropriate, of relevant evidence to substantiate its claims. 6. On the basis of a review of these reports and the material submitted by Iraq, the Council would agree on a list of remaining requirements and demands to be fulfilled by Iraq as a condition for the implementation of paragraph 22 of resolution 687 (1991) and establish a reasonable timeframe for this purpose.

6 October 1998 Secretary-General Commemorates 50th Anniversary of UN Peacekeeping

Presentation to General Assembly (EOSG, SG/SM/6732, PKO/74); peacekeeping Text of the address given by the Secretary-General to the special commemorative meeting of the General Assembly held to mark the 50th anniversary of United Nations peacekeeping. Today, it is my great honour to commemorate with you the fiftieth anniversary of United Nations peacekeeping—the fiftieth anniversary of the year when soldiers were sent on to the battlefield under a new flag and with a new mission: a mission of peace. It would be no exaggeration to say that that mission was without precedent in human history. It was an attempt to confront and defeat the worst in man with the best in man; to counter violence with tolerance, might with moderation, and war with peace. That mission has earned its place in history as the first example of what has come to be known as “peacekeeping”. Ever since then, day after day, year after year, United Nations peacekeepers have been meeting the threat and reality of conflict, without losing faith, without giving in, without giving up. Since 1948, there have been forty-nine United Nations peacekeeping operations. Thirty-six of those were created since 1988, the year in which United Nations peacekeeping was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Well over 750,000 military and civilian police personnel, and thousands of other civilians, from 118 different countries, have served

6 October 1998 • 527 in United Nations peacekeeping operations. Fourteen thousand peacekeepers are serving this very day. No figures, however, can do justice to the ultimate sacrifice that more than 1,500 peacekeepers have made over this half-century. Today we pay tribute, above all, to the brave “blue helmets” who gave their lives in the cause of peace. Whatever success we have had is owed to their sacrifice, their dedication, their heroism. I am therefore particularly honoured to announce that later today I shall bestow on three of our fallen peacekeepers, in the presence of their families, a new Medal named after one of them: Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld. The United Nations, forged from the battles of two World Wars, was dedicated, above all, to the pursuit of peace and, in the enduring words of the Charter, to saving “succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. Undoubtedly, peacekeeping falls fairly and squarely within the spirit of that pledge. Yet you will search the Charter in vain for any specific provision for such operations. “Peacekeeping”, from the start, has been an improvisation. To my mind, that is one of its great merits. It proved, and continues to prove, that the United Nations is not a static or hidebound Organization, but a dynamic and innovative one. Indeed, peacekeeping has been one of many activities through which our Organization has shown its ability to adapt to circumstances, to find its way round obstacles, and to make itself relevant to the actual problems at hand. Not that the evolution of United Nations peacekeeping—from patrolling clearly-marked buffer zones and cease-fire lines to the far more complex, multi-dimensional operations of the 1990s—has been either smooth or simple. Often the expectations placed on peacekeepers have outstripped the resources given to them. Often the demands made of them have cruelly ignored realities on the ground. Over the decades, we have had some unmistakable successes, such as Namibia, Mozambique and El Salvador. But we have also found ourselves maintaining calm in some seemingly intractable stalemates, such as Cyprus and the Middle East. And in some places—Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia—we have found ourselves standing by, in impotent horror, while the most appalling crimes were committed. There, the limits of peacekeeping were graphically demonstrated: we learned, the hard way, that lightly armed troops in white vehicles and blue helmets are not the solu-

tion to every conflict. Sometimes peace has to be made—or enforced—before it can be kept. We yield to no one in our regret and our pain over those calamities: the loss of life; the wanton destruction of towns and villages; the shredding of the very fabric of humanity which, in normal times and places, allows men and women of different ethnic origin to live peacefully side by side. We will forever measure our proudest achievements against the memory of those worst of days. But that does not mean we succumb to the fatalism of those who would rather stay at home when conflict rages and fellow human beings are suffering in a distant land. That is the cynic’s answer and the coward’s solution. It is not ours. We are not here today to declare victory. We cannot claim that peacekeeping has been the answer to every conflict; still less, alas, that it has prevented the recurrence of genocide. What we can and do claim proudly is that, in the first halfcentury of their existence, United Nations “blue helmets” have saved tens of thousands of lives. In recent times the pendulum may appear to have swung away from support for United Nations peacekeeping. But I have no doubt that history will see it as one of the Organization’s most important and lasting contributions to international peace and security. The mission of United Nations peacekeeping must continue. Too much remains to be done, too many innocents are dying even as we speak, for us to think of leaving the field now. Peacekeeping’s promise, after all, was never to end war. Peacekeeping is not the same as peacemaking. It can help prevent, or at least delay, a recurrence of conflict. It can even be used, as we have shown in The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, to help prevent conflict from breaking out in the first place. Above all, it gives time and space for conflict resolution: it gives peace a chance. If the chance is not taken, the peacekeepers are not to blame. Isaiah’s words—“they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall they learn war any more”— will never be more than an ideal for humanity. If, in our service as United Nations peacekeepers, we can help make that ideal more true than false, more promising than distant, more able to protect the innocent than embolden the guilty, we will have done our part. The will to peace must exist among the peoples and the parties, but the path to peace is one

528 • 6 October 1998

that we—the United Nations—can help pave. We have done so for the last half-century, and I am confident we can continue in the century to come.

7 October 1998 Secretary-General and Deputy Minister of Iraq Agree to Continue Process of Dialogue

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6735, IK/253); Iraq The Secretary-General met with the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq to follow up the discussions that have taken place over the last 10 days amongst the Iraqi delegation, the President and members of the Security Council, and the Secretary-General. The meeting took place in a constructive atmosphere. Both sides agreed that the process of dialogue would continue. The Deputy Prime Minister assured the Secretary-General that Iraq is prepared to work with the United Nations in a serious and professional manner to resolve the present situation and to facilitate a comprehensive review of the problem. The Deputy Prime Minister will report to his leadership in Baghdad and revert to the SecretaryGeneral.

Letter to the president of the World Bank, James D. Wolfensohn. Dear Mr. Wolfensohn, I am writing with reference to the forthcoming meeting of the reconstituted Panel of Highlevel Personalities on African Development, which will be held on 15 October 1998, at United Nations Headquarters in New York. The forthcoming meeting will provide an opportunity for an exchange of views on my report on Africa to the Security Council. We hope to focus the agenda on the harmonization of initiatives on African development, external debt and market access. I would like to invite the World Bank to be present at this meeting and would be grateful if you would nominate one of the Bank’s senior vicepresidents to participate in this meeting. A brief note on the meeting is attached hereto for your information. In addition, issue notes to assist in the discussions will be forwarded to your nominee by Mr. Nitin Desai, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs.

8 October 1998

8 October 1998

Letter (EOSG); Angola

Secretary-General Urges Taliban and Iran to Exercise Maximum Restraint

Letter to the president of the Security Council, Jeremy Greenstock, with the attached letter sent to the Secretary-General from Jonas Savimbi of the Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA).

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6736, AFG/88); Taliban The Secretary-General is concerned at reports of border clashes between armed forces of the Taliban movement in Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Secretary-General urges all parties to exercise maximum restraint in accordance with Security Council resolution 1193 (1998) of 28 August 1998. The Secretary-General expects the Taliban to cooperate with his Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, with a view to defusing the existing tensions with Iran. Following a four-day visit to Teheran, where he met with President Khatami, Foreign Minister Kharrazi and other senior officials of the Iranian Government, Mr. Brahimi today arrived in Islamabad. Mr. Brahimi intends to meet with senior Taliban representatives, as well as officials of the Government of Pakistan, during his stay in Pakistan.

8 October 1998 Letter (EOSG); African development

I have the honour to transmit the attached letter dated 7 October from Mr. Jonas Savimbi, President of UNITA, for the information of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. * * * Bailundo, Angola 7th October, 1998 Gabinete do Presidente H.E. Kofi Annan United Nations Secretary General New York, New York, 10017 Excellency, It is evident that the application of the Lusaka Protocol is now experiencing its most serious crisis. It is a fact that this crisis which the MPLA intentionally entertains and deepens a little bit more everyday, is helped by an array of events which are predominantly of an external nature.

9 October 1998 • 529 Nevertheless, events heavily influence Angola’s internal dynamics. However, I respectfully and solemnly reaffirm that the Leadership of UNITA has in Peace, National Reconciliation and Democracy, its most supreme values toward which our commitment is total and unequivocal in accordance with the Lusaka Protocol and the patriotic conscience that inspire our will to serve our country. We confidently await that Your Special Representative in Angola, Amb. Issa Diallo, may be successful in his efforts to revitalize the Peace Process and consolidate the victories already achieved within the organic and structural framework consecrated within the Lusaka Protocol. To that end, Amb. Diallo can count on the total support of UNITA. Excellency, allow me to inform you that the causes of the deep-seated problems that our country is living through, undoubtedly arise from the permanent attitude of the MPLA to exclude and/or domesticate all political opposition parties that are not of its own creation especially, those that have a program and a deep sense of opposition capable of putting together a credible and assertive political alternative as it is the case of UNITA. Excellency, allow me to remind you that beginning in 1988, the MPLA and Mr. José Eduardo dos Santos have obsessively made the decision to destroy UNITA and its President through all possible means. Such a vision and pernicious plan have been a constant in the national and foreign policies of the MPLA. Beginning with the June 1989 Gbadolite Summit, the MPLA has insinuated without shame, a supposedly voluntary, temporary and golden exile for the President of UNITA. Such a plan, today as yesterday, has had the acquiescence of certain Heads of State in our region. Excellency, in short, with a few variations and adjustments to fit the circumstances, the MPLA and Mr. José Eduardo dos Santos have as their main goal the physical exclusion of the President of UNITA in detriment of genuine national reconciliation which according to our understanding demands greater political compromises. That is how all the recent negative developments aimed at demonizing UNITA are mere pieces in a puzzle carefully orchestrated to carry out a strategy that is contrary to the spirit and letter of the Lusaka Protocol. It is also important to underline that while the process of quartering, disarming and demobilizing former UNITA soldiers was taking place, the coun-

try experienced a notable tranquility. This was radically inversed because of the policy of exclusion pursued by the MPLA during the Extension of Central Administration that is supposed to be the utmost expression of National Reconciliation. With some consensual additions, if desirable, we consider valid and current, the program agreed on June 19, 1998 in Andulo, between UNITA and the Government witnessed by MONUA and the Troika. The program aimed at rectifying the serious violations and excesses, which took place mainly in the process of Extension of Central Administration during which officials and militants of my party were victimized by the brutality of the Police. Since then, the Government has not allowed a single step of the program to be implemented. On the contrary, it has systematically resorted to all sorts of deceit to accumulate the errors that could justify the use of generalized violence. As a proof of this option, five weeks after his arrival in our country, Your Special Representative to Angola, Am. Issa Diallo has not been authorized by the Government to contact the Leadership of UNITA, which in itself is a serious obstruction to the peace process. Excellency, It is our conviction that the MPLA and Mr. José Eduardo dos Santos, aware of their current military and diplomatic strength have entrenched themselves in the logic of inflexibility and military victory to the point of recommending to the international community the endorsement of its ongoing Machiavellian maneuvers. These are embodied in the “rejection” of its own partner and only valid interlocutor in the peace process. Lastly, I would like to request that the present letter be circulated as an official document of the Security Council. With my highest consideration, Yours sincerely, Dr. Jonas Malheiro Savimbi President of UNITA

9 October 1998 Opening Assembly Debate on Africa Report

Presentation to General Assembly (EOSG, SG/SM/6738, GA/9476); Africa Text of a statement made by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly debate on the Report on Africa (documents A/52/871 and S/1998/318). I am privileged to introduce this important debate on the report on Africa that I submitted to the

530 • 9 October 1998

Security Council last April and now present to the General Assembly. I am also very pleased to witness the seriousness with which you are treating the questions posed in the report, for it reflects your recognition of Africa’s needs and Africa’s challenges. You know that the real value of the report will be measured by the tangible and lasting difference that it makes to the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable of Africa’s peoples. That is our challenge. That is our mission. The report aims to contribute to Africa’s progress in two distinct but related ways: first, by paying the peoples of Africa the tribute of truth— by honestly and candidly reporting to the world their challenges and their aspirations; second, by proposing realistic and achievable recommendations for how those challenges may be met. In the report, I further emphasized that any and all efforts at securing peace had to be combined with steps towards ending Africa’s poverty. In this regard, I emphasized the need for a comprehensive response to a challenge that has many roots and many facets. Specifically, I called for the promotion of investment and economic growth, of ensuring adequate levels of international aid, of reducing debt burdens and opening international markets to Africa’s products. These are aims on which we all can agree; we can also all agree that they are far from being met. While the burden of responsibility for Africa’s fate lies in African hands, Africa’s development partners can also do more and do better to assist Africa’s struggle for lasting prosperity. I am pleased to say that there are indications that all sides have recognized the urgency of our common challenge. Last month, I convened an informal meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries to highlight five priority areas in meeting Africa’s economic challenges. Those are, first, the need to increase the volume and improve the quality of official development assistance; second, to consider converting all remaining official bilateral debt owed by the poorest African countries into grants; third, to liberalize access to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative; fourth, to ease access conditions for African exports; and fifth, to encourage investments in Africa, which has largely been marginalized in the process of globalization. I am pleased to say that all the governments represented reaffirmed their support for the rec-

ommendations in the report, and, in particular, for the five priority areas that I indicated. Indeed, some governments have already acted on their pledges of support and are taking concrete steps. At the same time, they stressed the need, on the part of African States, to create the enabling environments for investment and economic growth. There must be reciprocity. No one can be expected to invest in unstable or insecure neighbourhoods. Since the DAC meeting, I have had a number of opportunities to emphasize to donors and other international organizations the importance of these initiatives. Last Tuesday, I met with Robert Rubin, United States Secretary of the Treasury, to discuss the current global economic situation, in particular the crisis of globalization and the United Nations response. I also urged immediate and dramatic action on the debt situation facing Africa’s poorest nations, particularly in these dark days of global economic crisis. I pointed out that none of these countries had played any part in this crisis but that they all were suffering from its fallout, not least due to the fall in commodity prices. I again stressed the need to ease access to the HIPC Debt Initiative and urged that its requirements be made more flexible to allow for genuine relief. As many of you know, numerous initiatives in the political and economic fields are under way as part of the follow-up to the report. Most immediately, I will be convening a discussion on debt relief by the Panel of High-level Personalities on African Development next week and expect to hear new and innovative ideas for how we may be more effective in our efforts to end Africa’s debt problem. I am confident that the decision of the General Assembly to consider my report will add renewed momentum to its implementation and inspire all who labour in Africa’s service to do more and do better. Allow me to conclude by noting the added urgency of our challenge in a time when the global economy is facing serious threats and when millions the world over have been thrown back into a life of poverty after years of struggle and success. This crisis is now a threat not only to Africa’s prospects for growth, but to Africa’s attempts to secure free and democratic societies. We must succeed, for we cannot afford to fail.

12 October 1998 • 531 12 October 1998 Secretary-General Authorizes Visit of Special Envoy for Afghanistan to Kandahar

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6740, AFG/89); Afghanistan In view of the dangerous level of tensions between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Taliban, the Secretary-General has authorized his Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, to pay a one-day visit to Kandahar on 14 October. The Secretary-General’s decision follows two days of talks in Islamabad, on 10 and 11 October, between Mr. Brahimi and a delegation of senior Taliban representatives. The Secretary-General wishes to emphasize the exceptional nature of Mr. Brahimi’s visit. It should be recalled that, in view of serious security concerns, all international United Nations staff were withdrawn from Afghanistan on 22 August, one day after the fatal shooting in Kabul of Lieutenant Colonel Carmine Calo, a military adviser serving with the United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan (UNSMA). The Taliban leadership have given Mr. Brahimi assurances that they will address seriously unresolved United Nations concerns, in particular Taliban’s sharing of information of their investigation into the killing of Lieutenant Colonel Calo, as well as other security concerns about the possible return of international United Nations staff to Afghanistan.

12 October 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Kosovo/Taliban Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s noon briefing by welcoming the Director of the Division of Public Affairs at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Djibril Diallo. Mr. Diallo would brief correspondents on events related to the observance of the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, occurring on Saturday, 17 October. On Kosovo, Mr. Eckhard then said, the Secretary-General had met on Friday with the Chargé d’affaires of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the United Nations. The SecretaryGeneral had expressed his concern about the dangerous situation in Kosovo, and he had called for every effort to be made for a permanent solution to be reached. This morning, the Secretary-General had

called President Slobodan Milosevic to personally urge him to take the necessary steps to comply with Security Council resolutions on Kosovo as a prerequisite to a political solution, Mr. Eckhard continued. The Secretary-General had urged Mr. Milosevic to continue to work with United States representative Richard Holbrooke in pursuance of that objective. In view of the dangerous level of tensions between Iran and the Taliban of Afghanistan, the Secretary-General had authorized his Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, to pay a one-day visit to Kandahar on 14 October, Mr. Eckhard said. The Secretary-General’s decision had followed two days of talks in Islamabad, on 10 and 11 October, between Mr. Brahimi and a delegation of senior Taliban representatives. “The Secretary-General wishes to emphasize the exceptional nature of Mr. Brahimi’s visit”, the Spokesman emphasized, recalling that in view of serious security concerns, all international United Nations staff had been withdrawn from Afghanistan on 22 August, one day after the fatal shooting in Kabul of Military Adviser Lieutenant Colonel Carmine Calo serving with the United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan (UNSMA). However, the Taliban leadership had given Mr. Brahimi assurances that they would seriously address unresolved concerns, in particular the Taliban’s sharing of information concerning their investigation into the killing of Lieutenant Colonel Calo, as well as other security concerns regarding the possible return of international United Nations staff to Afghanistan. The Secretary-General’s report on Afghanistan to the General Assembly and the Security Council was on the racks today, Mr. Eckhard added. In that report, the Secretary-General had underlined the critical importance of his Special Envoy’s current mission to the region. The outcome of the Special Envoy’s efforts, the Secretary-General stated, would depend on the determination of all parties involved, Afghan as well as neighbours, to reach agreements on a pragmatic and practical formula to return Afghanistan to stability and an appreciable degree of normality. . . . The General Assembly’s First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) had opened its general debate this morning, Mr. Eckhard noted. The Secretary-General had addressed the Committee saying that, “Given the potential devastation from the use of even one nuclear weapon, nuclear disarmament should be at

532 • 12 October 1998

the top of the United Nations agenda.” The Committee should take the lead in working to rid the world of nuclear weapons and of the menace of chemical and biological weapons, he had added. Also, Mr. Eckhard continued, the SecretaryGeneral had discussed the connection between disarmament and development. He had noted that even when an arms race did not lead directly to conflict, it still constituted a cruel diversion of skills and resources away from development. While so many human needs remained unsatisfied, the Secretary-General said, millions of people earned their livelihood on weapons “they can only hope will never be used”. That was “a terrible waste and deep shame”. . . . Several correspondents asked about the telephone call between the Secretary-General and President Slobodan Milosevic. The Secretary-General had placed the call, feeling it was his duty to urge the President to comply with Security Council resolutions, Mr. Eckhard said, adding, “It was something he had to do” when pressed on whether the SecretaryGeneral had been encouraged by the exchange. President Milosevic had assured the SecretaryGeneral of being in the process of complying and trying to come into full compliance with Security Council resolutions. The two had also discussed some of the details of the discussions between the President and Mr. Holbrooke, which the Spokesman said he was not at liberty to disclose. ...

13 October 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Kosovo/East Timor Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s noon briefing by announcing that the Secretary-General had warmly welcomed the news of a breakthrough in efforts to end the Kosovo crisis. “It is of paramount importance, the SecretaryGeneral feels, that both sides in Kosovo honour their commitments and fully comply with the provisions of the two Security Council resolutions on Kosovo”, the Spokesman continued, adding that the Secretary-General intended to send a mission to Kosovo in the coming days in response to the Security Council press statement of last week. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), whose Office was the leading humanitarian agency on the ground in Kosovo,

had welcomed the report of a breakthrough in principle, Mr. Eckhard said. The UNHCR had said it hoped the reported agreement would contribute rapidly to reducing the level of fear, which was currently keeping so many displaced persons from returning home. Mr. Eckhard then read the following statement on East Timor, which had been issued today: “The Secretary-General is concerned by the rising tensions in East Timor. In particular, he is disturbed by reports of armed clashes in the Territory and by remarks that have been attributed to local officials and appear to have provoked large-scale protests in the last few days. “The Secretary-General would like to underline that, in view of the important opportunities that have been created for a resolution of the question of East Timor through the negotiations under his auspices, and through the commendable efforts made by Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo, the Apostolic Administrator of Dili, as well as by others to foster tolerance and peace in East Timor, it is incumbent on all parties concerned to avoid taking steps that could jeopardize or unnecessarily complicate the delicate efforts to find a just settlement to this long-running dispute.” The Secretary-General had called for a cessation of all military activity and for a substantial reduction of the Indonesian military presence in the Territory, Mr. Eckhard added. Following the latest senior officials meeting between Indonesia and Portugal, held at Headquarters from 6 to 8 October under the chairmanship of the SecretaryGeneral’s Personal Representative, Jamsheed Marker, the Secretary-General intended to further intensify his consultations with East Timorese leaders, with a view to ensuring their active involvement in the negotiating process. Mr. Eckhard then read the following statement on Lesotho, which had also been issued today: “The Secretary-General has been following closely the discussions involving the Government and Lesotho’s political parties, held under the auspices of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). He has noted that constructive agreement has been reached on most of the issues, including the holding of general elections within 18 months. The Secretary-General appeals to all parties in the negotiations to do their utmost to reach agreement on the outstanding issues so that the electoral process can get under way smoothly and the elections can be held in an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity conducive to the development of Lesotho. The United Nations stands ready to pro-

13 October 1998 • 533 vide all possible assistance to facilitate this process.” The Security Council, Mr. Eckhard then said, had begun meeting at 10:30 a.m. on Iraq, hearing the Executive Director of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), Richard Butler, and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammed ElBaradei. The Council would then hold consultations on Angola. The Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Angola, Issa Diallo, would brief Council members on the state of the peace process. At 3 p.m. there would be a troop contributors and Security Council meeting on Angola. . . . Issued yesterday on the late side had been a statement concerning the Secretary-General’s meeting with the Permanent Representatives of Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco and Syria, as well as the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States, Mr. Eckhard said. The Ambassadors had come to express their concern at the current tensions between Syria and Turkey. They had underlined Syria’s determination to find a diplomatic solution and had rejected the threat of the use of force as a means to settle differences between States. Through the Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations, the SecretaryGeneral had received a letter on the matter addressed to him by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey. . . . Asked whether the Secretary-General had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize being announced next week, Mr. Eckhard said there had been no talk of the Secretary-General himself being nominated, but some reports had said the United Nations had been nominated for its work on human rights, this being the fiftieth anniversary year of the Universal Declaration. There was no way to confirm that, the Spokesman added. Asked whether it could be confirmed that Iraq had asked for sanctions approval for liposuction devices, Mr. Eckhard said their requests would be looked into. He was not aware that Iraq had asked for liposuction devices. The Secretary-General’s report on loss of property during peacekeeping (document A/53/34) had come out within days of the peacekeeping anniversary, the same correspondent pointed out. “Can you put on record why dozens of items over $1,500 each had been lost or misplaced in the period from 1992 to 1995—when you were in peacekeeping”? the correspondent added. “Peacekeeping was at its peak during those

years”, Mr. Eckhard said, adding that there had been 80,000 soldiers in 17 different areas of the globe then. The annual peacekeeping budget had been three times the United Nations regular budget during those three years, or over $3 billion per year. Also, in the biggest of those missions, namely Somalia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, peacekeepers had been functioning in a war situation with widespread chaos. Thus, the loss of vehicles and other equipment to theft and accident had been quite elevated. Which did not mean that things would not be done differently as a result of the report, such as instituting tighter security measures, he said. “But again, the amount of loss discussed in the report was about $23 million in goods and equipment out of a budget totalling about 9 billion dollars over 3 years”, Mr. Eckhard emphasized. “That is about .0025 per cent, which again, is not to say that any $23 million loss is acceptable, but it needs to be seen in perspective of size, of the budget and of the operations during those years”. . . .

13 October 1998 Letter (EOSG); US dues to the UN Letter sent to Robert Kasten Jr., president of Kasten and Company and former US senator. The same letter was also sent to Richard Armitage, Lawrence Eagleburger, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Williamson, Richard Thornburgh, William Taft, John Whitehead, Robert Zoellick, Arnold Kantor, and Frank Carlucci. Dear Mr. Kasten, I am writing to express my sincere appreciation for the letter you and your Republican Party colleagues wrote appealing for payment by the United States of its dues to the United Nations. As you know, we are facing a critical moment regarding the United States’ arrears. Unless the United States pays close to $200 million by the end of the year, it will automatically lose its voting privileges in the General Assembly under Article 19 of the United Nations Charter. I sincerely hope your appeal helps break the deadlock between Congress and the Administration on this issue. The United Nations is reforming. We are determined to make this a relevant and responsive Organization, fit to meet the challenges of the next century. I am proud of what we have achieved so far and I pledge to ensure that the reform process continues. Your support and encouragement are greatly appreciated.

534 • 14 October 1998

14 October 1998 Letter (UN archives); Kosovo Internal note to the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, from the under-secretary-general for political affairs, Kieran Prendergast. The draft letters referred to in the first paragraph were not attached to this letter and do not appear here.

sion and reflects comments made by other departments and by Mr. de Mistura himself (by telephone). On timing, we are planning for all concerned to rendezvous in Europe over the weekend. Approved. —K.A., 14/10

NOTE TO MR. RIZA

* * *

Assessment Mission to Kosovo

Terms of Reference: Mission to the FRY

Please find attached a draft letter to President Milosevi´c from the Secretary-General regarding a mission to the FRY. A draft letter to the President of the Security Council is also attached. I believe that the mission, headed by Mr. de Mistura, should be a joint endeavour of DPA, DPKO, OCHA, OHCHR and UNHCR. DPA, OCHA and DPKO would be represented by staff from Headquarters. UNHCR and OHCHR, who have been present on the ground, might most usefully provide officers from the field with significant knowledge of the situation. They are considering this. As indicated in Mr. de Soto’s note to you, the mission would assess how to establish a first-hand capability to monitor developments on the ground with the aim of continuing to report to the Council. In this regard, I would suggest that the mission look into the possibility of either strengthening the UNLO office in Belgrade or establishing a permanent office in Pristina. Both would require the agreement of FRY, who would no doubt find it easier to accept an increase in the role of UNLO. A further important objective would be to look at the requirement for coordination and information-sharing between United Nations and other actors on the ground. If what I hear about the intention to establish an OSCE presence which would handle everything except the humanitarian is true, there may be considerable scope for duplication. Indeed, such plans for OSCE may put in question the very idea of an expanded United Nations “political” presence. I recommend that the inter-departmental mission be funded from the Secretary-General’s Fund for Preventive Action. I do not see where funding can otherwise be found. It will be composed of 3–6 staff from Headquarters, as well as Mr. de Mistura from Rome, and several members in the region. A draft (not yet fully cleared with Mr. de Mistura) of the mission’s terms of reference is also attached for your review. This note follows inter-departmental discus-

In response to the request of the Security Council in the President’s statement to the press, of 6 October 1998, and in lieu of a personal visit, the Secretary-General would appoint a short-term mission to visit the FRY. Objectives: The primary purpose of the mission is to consider how to ensure that the Secretariat has a first-hand capability to assess developments on the ground and to continue reporting to the Council on compliance with resolutions 1160 (1998) and 1199 (1998). The mission will also assess present and proposed arrangements for cooperation and information-sharing among UN entities, the OSCE and other international actors present on the ground and establish appropriate lines of communications in this regard. The mission will consider the possibilities of either (a) a substantial strengthening of the Belgrade liaison office with a view to reporting on the situation in Kosovo, or (b) the establishment of a permanent office in Kosovo. Either would require the agreement of the FRY Government. The mission will look into potential modalities of expanding a UN role in Kosovo, if so requested by Member States. In consultation with international agencies present on the ground, it will assess the general situation in Kosovo in order to provide the Secretary-General with the most upto-date information possible. Composition: The mission will be headed by Mr. S. de Mistura, Director, UNIC Rome. DPA, DPKO, OCHA, OHCHR and UNHCR will take part in the mission. DPA, OCHA and DPKO officers will be sent from Headquarters. UNHCR and OHCHR, who have been present on the ground, will provide officers from the field with significant knowledge of the local situation. Timing: The mission will leave for the region as soon as possible, subject to the consent of the FRY authorities and budget approval. Method of work: It is expected that the mission will spend 7+ days in the area. The mission will hold consultations in Belgrade and will travel to

14 October 1998 • 535 Kosovo and Montenegro. Contacts of the mission may include but not be limited to, FRY officials, Kosovo Albanians and representatives of the international community. The mission will report to the SecretaryGeneral through USG Prendergast on its assessment, which could subsequently be included in the Secretary-General’s next report on Kosovo. Logistic support will be provided by UNLOBelgrade and UNHCR offices in the FRY. Financing of the mission: The mission will be funded by the Trust Fund for Preventive Action.

14 October 1998 Remarks by the Secretary-General Entering UN Headquarters

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Kosovo ASSOCIATED PRESS TELEVISION: On behalf of over 300,000 people who face refugee status this winter in Kosovo, do you have any optimistic words for them and can the world trust Slobodan Milosevic at this point? SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think the refugee agencies are beginning to go back. The High Commissioner for Refugees has gone back with convoys this morning and others are going to be following. I hope the situation will continue to calm down to allow them to do their work. Obviously, the agreement is a step in the right direction. It has to be tested. We have to be vigilant to ensure that the Yugoslav government does indeed implement the Security Council resolution.

14 October 1998 Letter (EOSG); Yugoslavia Letter to the president of the Security Council, Jeremy Greenstock. Dear Mr. President, As you will recall, in your statement to the press on 6 October 1998 on behalf of the Council, you asked me to consider how to ensure that the Secretariat has a first-hand capability to assess developments on the ground, and to continue reporting to the Council on compliance with resolutions 1160 (1998) and 1199 (1998). Following consultations with the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, I wish to inform the Security Council of my intention to send an interdepartmental mission, headed by Mr. Staffan de Mistura, to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to look into these matters. In view of the proposed deployment of OSCE monitors in

Kosovo to observe compliance, the mission will also assess possible modalities for coordination of activities between the OSCE and United Nations agencies on the ground. I should be grateful if you could bring this matter to the attention of the members of the Security Council.

14 October 1998 Secretary-General Speaks on Poverty Day

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6750, OBV/63); poverty Text of the Secretary-General’s message on the occasion of the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, observed 17 October. The International Day for the Eradication of Poverty offers all of us an opportunity to reflect on the most pressing task of our time. For the past three decades, we have witnessed the most rapid improvements in the lives of billions. A child born in a developing country today can expect to live 16 years longer than a child born 35 years ago. Infant mortality has been more than halved since 1960, and the share of rural families with access to safe water has risen from 10 per cent of the total to 60 per cent. This is encouraging progress. It has come about with as much thanks to the herculean efforts of developing countries and poor people, as to advances in medicine and in food production technologies. It has also come about thanks to more than 50 years of development cooperation. I am proud that the United Nations has been at the forefront of this global movement. But, as recent events demonstrate, such gains can be reversed. The financial crisis has led to falling primary export prices, reduced spending on social sectors and rising levels of unemployment. Everywhere, it is the poor who are paying the highest price for the financial crisis. In many countries, the crisis is rapidly reversing the gains in poverty elimination so painfully made in these three decades, and the persistence of poverty threatens the whole edifice of globalization. This situation is neither morally acceptable nor economically sensible. It is also a recipe for continuing political instability. A commitment to end absolute poverty must be at the top of the international agenda. Developing countries are doing their share. The United Nations Development Programme’s new report, “Overcoming Human Poverty”, issued today, reminds us that close to two thirds of all

536 • 14 October 1998

countries have formulated plans and programmes to end poverty. Yet, only one third of the countries have set concrete, time-bound targets. The international community must do more. The struggle for the eradication of poverty has reached a critical phase. We can choose to win it— to end mass poverty in the early years of the twenty-first century—or we can let this opportunity pass. Let our message to the world’s poor be a message of hope, not the silence of despair. Let it not be said by future generations that we, who had the power to do so much, retreated on the verge of victory over want.

15 October 1998 Letter (EOSG); Burundi Letter to the president of the Security Council, Jeremy Greenstock. Dear Mr. President, As you know, we have for some time been providing support to the Arusha peace talks which are intended to help bring about a peaceful settlement in Burundi. In this context, I have the honour to inform you of my decision to appoint Ambassador Ayité Jean-Claude Kpakpo (Benin) as Senior United Nations Adviser to the Facilitator of the Burundi peace process, His Excellency Mwalimu Julius Nyerere. Ambassador Kpakpo was deployed to Tanzania in July 1998, in succession to Mr. Felix Mosha (Tanzania), in time to participate in the second round of the Arusha peace talks. In writing to you, I wish to draw the attention of the international community to the renewed importance of the Burundi peace process at this time of crisis in the Great Lakes region of Africa, and to reiterate the United Nations’ longstanding support of the Facilitator’s efforts. A positive momentum was created in the Burundi peace process during two rounds of inclusive talks held at Arusha in June and July 1998, under the Facilitator’s able guidance. That momentum has been reinforced by successful efforts, within Burundi, to build a partnership between the Government and the democratic opposition. A great deal of hope has been placed in the third round of talks, which started on 13 October 1998 in Arusha, and for which the United Nations is providing secretariat and conference services. I should be grateful, Mr. President, if you would bring Ambassador Kpakpo’s appointment to the attention of the members of the Council, and alert them to the importance of contributing in

every possible way to the Facilitator’s efforts towards Burundi. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

15 October 1998 Secretary-General Says High-level Panel Will Inspire Peace and Development in Africa

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6751, DEV/2187); development Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the opening meeting of the Panel of High-level Personalities on African Development. Let me start by thanking all of you for joining this Panel of High-level Personalities on African Development. I know most of you agreed to come at relatively short notice. I am grateful for this clear indication of support for the efforts of African countries to work for peace, stability and sustainable development. This Panel serves as the Secretary-General’s “think tank” on critical issues of African development and provides advice on actions to be taken towards an environment conducive to sustainable development. Members also have the specific responsibility of advising and assisting me on the effective implementation of the United Nations New Agenda for the Development on Africa in the 1990s and mobilizing political support for the United Nations System-Wide Special Initiative on Africa. And so, this forum provides a timely and important opportunity for high-level experts of diverse background and experience—from Africa and from other regions—to exchange views on development challenges and opportunities on the continent. Your voices will provide a valuable source of proposals and ideas. Six months ago, I submitted a report to the Security Council on “the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa”. Since then, the Security Council has been working actively on the implementation of my recommendations on ways of addressing conflict situations. Last week, I submitted the same report to the General Assembly, but this time with special emphasis on the economic aspects. I was greatly encouraged by the positive response. Many countries have not only expressed their solidarity with Africa; they have also indicated how they intend to translate it into action. I have not only continued to encourage African countries to assume greater responsibility for

15 October 1998 • 537 building durable peace and promoting sustainable development; I have also urged their development partners to provide the necessary support. African countries bear the burden of the negative consequences of the Asian financial crisis. The cost of the collapse in commodity prices is equivalent to 15 per cent of the value of Africa’s 1997 exports. We do not yet know for sure how this will translate into the real economy. We do know that prospects for commodity-dependent economies have deteriorated significantly, placing in jeopardy fragile recoveries. These developments further underscore the urgency to make more decisive efforts. Last month, I convened an informal meeting with the foreign ministers of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). I drew their attention to the urgent need to take actions in five areas: increasing the volume and improving the quality of official development assistance (ODA); converting remaining bilateral official debt into grants for the poorest African countries; providing more flexibility in the implementation of the Heavily-Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative so as to increase the number of beneficiary countries; maintaining open markets for African products; and encouraging private investment in Africa. These five action areas were unanimously endorsed. Many countries of the Development Assistance Community have informed me of the concrete steps they have taken. The general reactions of this Panel to the report will help inspire and assist the implementation process at the intergovernmental level in the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as within the United Nations system. Your views will be particularly helpful to the meeting of heads of organizations and specialized agencies scheduled for the end of this month. I am also hopeful that your deliberations will focus on the recommendations I have made with respect to external debt, the opening of international markets and harmonization of international and bilateral initiatives. If dealt with appropriately, these could greatly enhance the efforts of African countries to achieve sustained economic growth and sustainable development. As my report tells you, I strongly believe that long-term solutions to conflict situations in Africa require a comprehensive approach linking peace, security, good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law, and sustainable development.

In that context, I have presented to the Security Council and to the General Assembly an analysis covering a variety of causes of conflict, including political, ethnic, social and economic circumstances of situations in individual countries. In the same spirit, I have also made specific recommendations, both for responding to conflict situations, and for building durable peace and promoting economic growth. Africa’s external debt, estimated at $323.5 billion in 1996, is clearly unsustainable. It represented over 200 per cent of exports, and its servicing absorbed more than 16 per cent of export earnings. For many individual African countries, these indicators reveal an even grimmer picture. The massive external debt burden has been a major obstacle to economic growth and sustainable development in Africa. In many countries, it is threatening the sustainability of reform efforts and disrupting the smooth functioning of the State. Available evidence suggests that the burden of external debt deters private investment—domestic as well as foreign—as it calls into question the credibility of, and confidence in, the economy. My report recommends that creditor countries should convert remaining bilateral debt into grants for the poorest African countries. Bilateral debt represented about 40 per cent of total external debt in 1996. I have also recommended that financial institutions significantly increase access to the HIPC Debt Initiative for a larger number of African countries, so that sufficient resources could be released to enable them to attain substantial growth and sustainable development. I would urge you to look into these proposals and to recommend any actions that would facilitate their implementation. Today’s environment of liberalization, globalization and the regional trade agreements offers increased export opportunities in developed countries. However, globalization and the liberalization of factors of production, including the flow of capital across borders, have so far failed to benefit many African countries—despite the enabling environment they provide. African countries’ products must gain greater access to the markets of developed countries. Specifically, more progress is needed to reduce further the average level of tariffs on Africa’s major exports. I would encourage the major industrialized countries to place on the agenda of their next meeting the question of eliminating trade barriers to African goods—with a view to adopting a common policy for implementation on a bilateral

538 • 15 October 1998

basis, as well as through the World Trade Organization. I hope you will explore the best avenue to achieve this. With respect to initiatives on African development, a number of these have been launched in recent years—both by African countries, and their bilateral and multilateral development partners. This is a most welcome development. It demonstrates that Africa is high on the agenda. It is particularly important that these initiatives be fully harmonized with African countries’ own priorities. In addition to ODA and external debt relief, new and innovative mechanisms must also be explored to facilitate the access of African countries to adequate financial resources for development. This is particularly urgent at a time when world attention is mainly focused on the financial needs of emerging market countries. Your deliberations on all these issues deserve, and will get, our fullest attention. They will be a source of inspiration and encouragement as we explore ways for the United Nations to work with African countries and their development partners towards a stronger Africa. On behalf of the United Nations, I wish you every success in your meeting.

16 October 1998 Letter (UN archives); Sudan Letter from the Secretary-General to the president of Sudan, Omer Hassan Ahmed Al-Bashir. Excellency, I refer to your letter dated 13 June 1998, received here on 31 July, by which you so kindly extend to me an invitation to attend the meeting of African Ministers of Foreign Affairs on the issue of refugees which your Government will be hosting from 14–18 December 1998 in Khartoum. I regret that prior commitments preclude my participation. Given the importance of the subject to be considered, I have asked the Khartoum office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to represent me at this meeting. Regarding developments in the Sudan more generally, I wish to take this opportunity to express to you my sincerest appreciation for the recent decision taken by your Government to extend the current humanitarian cease-fire in the Bahr Al Ghazal region. This decision will undoubtedly allow ongoing humanitarian relief efforts in the region to continue under acceptable operational conditions and could, I sincerely hope, open the way to considering a possible broadening of the cease-fire to include other areas

where civilian populations remain severely in need of assistance. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

16 October 1998 Secretary-General Confident That US and UN Can Find Way to Mutually Supportive Relationship

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6754); US-UN relations Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the fall conference of the nongovernmental organization Empower America titled “Why Conservatives Should Support the United Nations,” in Washington, D.C. It is a distinct pleasure to join you today. This is my fifth trip to Washington since taking office. On previous visits, I met with the Clinton Administration, with members of the Senate and House from both sides of the aisle, and with the diplomatic corps. This visit is devoted to you, the leaders of Empower America, and to freedom of expression, which I will speak about later today before the World Press Freedom Committee. I would like to start by saying how much I like the title of William Bennett’s new book, The Death of Outrage. I must admit that I have not read it yet, but the title says a great deal. After all, the United Nations spends much of its time trying to rouse the world’s conscience. In any case, it is another book of Dr. Bennett’s—the renowned Book of Virtues—from which I would like to take my cue here today. Parables, legends and morality tales are indeed among our most effective teachers. My visit today, for example, recalls the old saying that if the mountain would not come to Mohammed, then Mohammed must go to the mountain. Such stories have a clear lesson for us in this room, above all, that of coexistence and cooperation. The United Nations and the United States must face this world together. If myths are powerful, it is equally true that myths can be powerfully damaging. In this, I speak from lengthy experience, for there are more myths about the United Nations than possibly any other organization on the world scene today. Myth number one is that the United Nations intrudes upon national sovereignty. In the United States, this takes several forms, from those who fear constraints on United States military might to those who oppose limits on free enterprise, to those who think the United Nations has designs on

16 October 1998 • 539 United States territory and resources. But, working together with other countries at the United Nations is an exercise of sovereignty, not a limitation on it. Despite globalization and the emergence of more and more problems that transcend borders—which I call “problems without passports”—nothing, I repeat nothing, has yet challenged the status of the State as the cornerstone of international relations. The United Nations is where sovereign States can come together, of their own accord and free will, for pragmatic problem-solving and burdensharing. The United Nations Charter itself is one of the strongest safeguards of sovereignty, enshrining it is a central principle and giving the United States special power as a permanent member of the Security Council. Myth number two is that the United Nations is concerned above all else with peacekeeping. Peacekeeping operations claim the headlines, of course. But, by far the lion’s share of our budget and personnel are devoted to the lower-profile work of preventing conflict; helping countries to create jobs and raise standards of living; delivering relief aid to victims of famine, war and natural disasters; protecting refugees; promoting literacy; and fighting disease. To most people around the world, this is the face of the United Nations. Myth number three is that the United States still stands alone at the United Nations, voting regularly in a minority against a motley majority of autocrats and unsavoury regimes. Jeane Kirkpatrick delivered a famous speech to this effect in 1981. Since then, of course, the world has seen a wave of democratization, a wave that is not complete, but which has, increasingly, isolated tyrants and others who fail to submit to the will of the people. Moreover, according to the State Department’s analysis of voting patterns, the United States and a majority of the General Assembly are on the same side of the issues as never before. In the Security Council, the United States has used its veto just three times since 1991, all on questions relating to the Middle East. The convergence of views has been nothing short of startling. There are more such myths. I would prefer to leave them behind, once and for all, since they are a terrible burden on our work. Instead, let us focus on reality: on what the United Nations really does; on realism in international relations, and on the reasons why conservatives should give us their support. I do not want to over dramatize how much is at stake. But what we make of the United States –United Nations relationship matters greatly to

millions upon millions of people, here in the United States and around the world. That relationship needs new oxygen, a new lease on life. Conservative Americans are among the key players, and it is to you, I now turn with an appeal for common sense and common cause. I could cite polls that show rising public support for the United Nations in the United States. Instead, I would like to play to our strongest suits: values and interests: Values such as human dignity; democracy; human rights and the peaceful settlement of disputes and interests such as free trade, open markets and economic development. In short, American values are United Nations values, American interests are United Nations interests, and vice versa. Consider what the United Nations does on a range of high-profile issues of concern to the United States. To ensure that democracy prevails over despots, the United Nations has provided electoral assistance to scores of countries, helping them to hold elections and referendums, draft constitutions, strengthen judicial systems and uphold the rule of law. The United Nations is second to none in its concern for human rights. It has led the way in creating an impressive body of human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose fiftieth anniversary we commemorate this year. This is a great success, on paper. A new United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the former President of Ireland, Ms. Mary Robinson, is working hard to bring those rights to life, where they count, in people’s daily lives. To promote free trade and open markets, the United Nations works to advance market-oriented reforms, reduce paperwork and regulation, protect copyrights and property rights, promote entrepreneurship and the spread of technology. It helps governments develop business-friendly legislation, and defines the technical and legal standards that are the soft infrastructure of the global economy. Indeed, the United Nations has developed a stronger appreciation for the private sector’s expertise, entrepreneurial spirit, and unparalleled ability to create jobs and wealth. I have done everything I can to promote close ties since taking office. I have met regularly with business groups such as the International Chamber of Commerce, and I am heartened by their enthusiasm about getting more deeply involved in our work. Put simply, the goals of business and the goals of the United

540 • 16 October 1998

Nations can, and should be mutually supportive; we need each other. To combat the scourge of illegal narcotics, the United Nations strives to make sure that drugs are available only for medical and scientific purposes, and supports programmes which encourage alternative crops or livelihoods for farmers of illicit drug crops. The well-known Italian crime-fighter Pino Arlacchi is now in charge, and I encourage you to watch his efforts. And to resolve conflicts, the United Nations employs both quiet diplomacy and peacekeepers. Have we been satisfied with all of the results? Of course not. We have had some sobering experiences. But, let us look also at El Salvador, Namibia and Mozambique, where peacekeepers have helped war-torn societies regain stability and set out on the path of economic growth. Or Guatemala, where the United Nations helped end a 36-year civil war and is now responsible for verifying implementation of a complex set of peace accords. The common thread running through all these endeavours is that of the United States working within the United Nations—and with the United Nations—in concert, around the globe, on a broad agenda of issues where American interests coincide with those of global security and prosperity. Despite setbacks and unmet goals, we see a solid record of achievement. American leadership under Presidents of both parties has been an indispensable ingredient. This should be no surprise to you. But, it is true that conservative and Republican contributions have sometimes been overlooked. Many people remember President Roosevelt’s original vision but lose sight of the fact that Presidents Eisenhower and Bush presided over some of the United Nations’ most important successes. Conservatives have been caricatured as isolationists, but we should never forget that Arthur Vandenberg became a leading advocate of international engagement and international organization. Earlier this month, 11 prominent Republicans—including former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, who came to know the United Nations from the inside as UnderSecretary-General for Administration and Management—said that the United Nations can advance important United States interests and deserves support. “The United States must be fully engaged”, they declared on behalf of a coalition of government officials, business, labour, religious and humanitarian organizations.

So why has our relationship become so problematic? Why have we reached such an impasse? I have already mentioned some of the myths and misconceptions that have gotten in the way of United States-United Nations ties. Ideological and political differences have played a role, as have problems with a few peacekeeping missions, most notably Somalia. Another fault-line over the years has been your keenly felt sense that the United Nations was not delivering value for money. Some of you in this room have been among our most severe critics in this regard, calling for sweeping, top-to-bottom reforms. Today I can say to you unreservedly, that we have demonstrated our seriousness about reform for everyone with goodwill to see. Most fair-minded people will agree that there has been more reform and more significant change throughout the United Nations in the past year and a half than ever before. We have today a leaner, more efficient, more effective United Nations. This is not to say that we have finished; reform is a process, not an event. But, it is time to stop using reform as a justification for withholding your support, including financial support. I understand that budget negotiations between the Administration and Congress are at a critical juncture. I am pleased that International Monetary Fund funding is about to be approved. While we can have a fair-minded debate over International Monetary Fund policies, there is no doubting that replenishing its lending capacity is an essential step towards halting the contagion effect of the global financial crisis. But the news for United Nations funding is grim indeed. It appears that the United States will squeak by, paying just enough to avoid losing its vote in the General Assembly, which happens to nations who fall two years behind in their contributions. I wish to stress that this is something that happens automatically, under Article 19 of the United Nations Charter; it is not something that other Member States do to others. So while the United States will avoid this fate for this year, on the larger question—its legal commitment and moral obligation to the United Nations and the 184 other Member States—the United States will have failed. Conservatives believe in the sanctity of treaties and contracts; they take a strong stand on responsibility and morality as well. I would like to think that you are as disturbed as I am by this outcome. Great nations keep their word. They do not

16 October 1998 • 541 inflict wounds on their own prestige or undermine their claim to leadership at crucial moments in world affairs. I can only hope that when Congress reconvenes, we can get this issue behind us. The United States needs an effective United Nations; the United Nations needs an engaged United States. Abba Eban, the former Foreign Minister of Israel and now an elder statesman once said, “History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives”. In today’s world, there is less and less time to consider those alternatives. We confront a mass of urgent problems and challenges. Globalization has brought great gains and created wondrous opportunities. But it has also brought enormous costs, which could produce a backlash of social unrest and political instability. We have a responsibility to act wisely, sooner rather than later. To do so, both conservatives and the United Nations will have to keep changing. We are both— conservatives and the United Nations—lampooned as resistant to change. It is said that bureaucracies such as the United Nations have a unique ability to be simultaneously inert and selfsustaining. As for conservatives, as Bob Dole writes in his new collection of political wit, they “refuse to look at a new moon out of respect for the old one”. Such caricatures are wrong. Such myths are untrue. The reality is a United Nations and United States of shared values and shared interests. There is no doubting the capacity and the commitment of the United States as a world leader. But there is also no doubt that the United Nations offers crucial comparative advantages for its Member States, including the United States. So let us not let outdated practices and perceptions obscure our shared vision. And let us not let fear or pessimism deter us from our path: the path of partnership. Despite the current political and economic turmoil, global conditions today offer unprecedented prospects for peace and prosperity. The major Powers are at peace with one another. There is widespread acceptance of the basic tenets of democratic governance. Technological advances are making possible, a free and unfettered global flow of information and ideas. If we have not yet fully harnessed this potential, it remains only for us to continue trying. I am confident that we, the United States and the United Nations, and in particular conservatives and the United Nations, can find our way to a new

and mutually supportive relationship. Global interdependencies are knitting us together; they pervade our lives and bind for us a common fate. The United Nations is here to serve. An urgent agenda awaits. Let us get on with it.

16 October 1998 Secretary-General Speaks of Free Speech at the Howard W. Anderson Lecture

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6756, HR/4385); free speech Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the Howard W. Anderson Lecture titled “Regardless of Frontiers: Article 19 in a World of Sovereign States,” hosted by the World Press Freedom Committee, Washington, D.C. I am very pleased to join this distinguished audience for a discussion of a subject that holds particular interest for me: how to assert and advance the universality of the right to freedom of expression regardless of frontiers in a world of sovereign States and diverse civilizations. How to ensure the most fruitful and mutually beneficial exchange of ideas between nations and peoples; how to put the right to free speech at the service of peace. You may be surprised to know that that is a right I sometimes find easier to defend for others than for myself. And yet it is. As SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations—an organization of Member States represented by governments—I am bound by the Charter, by precedent and by enlightened self-interest to weigh my words carefully; to speak up and speak out when no other voice will be heard; but also to respect the privilege and duty of governments to defend their people’s interests as they deem fit. But what if some governments are not defending their people’s true interests, or have a view of those interests which the people don’t share and do not endorse; what if governments are an impediment to the people’s wishes, instead of being the vehicle for their fulfillment; what if some of those “peoples” in whose name the Charter is issued, see the United Nations not as an instrument of their aspirations, but as a haven for oppressive governments? Then, we must and we will speak out, for democracy, for human rights, for the rule of law, for the proposition that governments are the servants of the people and not the other way around. Some may say that speaking out is not enough, that words will never effect change. But, I say it is a beginning.

542 • 16 October 1998

It is a way for the United Nations to pay the peoples of the world the tribute of truth—the tribute without which we can never hope to retain their support, or to improve their lives. That is why I have sought, as Secretary-General, to speak clearly and candidly on every issue: from Kosovo to Rwanda to Iraq; from the universality of human rights to the need for Africa’s leaders to take hold of their own destiny; and, most recently, to the need for the global powers to understand the human and political implications of globalization in a time of crisis and contagion. Only by speaking these truths can we ensure that ordinary men and women in every part of the world hear their United Nations speak in a voice that recognizes the realities they face, day in and day out. Now, as you in this audience know well, there are those who still question the value of freedom of speech to their societies; those who argue that it threatens stability and endangers progress; those who still consider freedom of speech an imposition from abroad and not the indigenous expression of every people’s demand for freedom. What has always struck me about this argument is that it is never made by the people, but by governments; never by the powerless, but by the powerful; never by the voiceless, but by those whose voices are all that can be heard. Let us put this argument once and for all to the only test that matters: the choice of every people to know more or know less, to be heard or be silenced, to stand up or kneel down. Freedom of speech is a right to be fought for and not a blessing to be wished for. But it is more than that: it is a bridge of understanding and knowledge. It is the essential vehicle for that exchange of ideas between nations and cultures which is a condition for true understanding and lasting cooperation. That is why I believe we must look at this question of civilizations anew. Civilizations have always been enriched, and not weakened, by the exchange of knowledge and arts, the freer and more peaceable the better. In the relations between nations, it is rather the lack of education, and the dearth of knowledge which is a chief source of dispute and conflict. Never the opposite. Ignorance and prejudice are the handmaidens of propaganda, and in most modern conflicts, the men of war prey on the ignorance of the populace to instill fears and arouse hatreds. That was the case in Bosnia and in Rwanda, where murderous,

even genocidal ideologies took root in the absence of truthful information and honest education. If only half the effort had gone into teaching those peoples what unites them, and not what divides them, unspeakable crimes could have been prevented. This is not to say that ideas and interests do not clash. They do, and always will. But one must never confuse the clash of ideas with a clash of civilizations. Clashes of ideas can and must be conducted peacefully and politically to the benefit of all. Perhaps there is no greater need for such appreciation today than between the Islamic peoples and those of the West. Too often, this question is discussed only through crude, invidious generalizations about the beliefs of one group or the behaviour of the other. Too often, the rhetoric of resistance from one group or other is deemed representative of the views of millions. What is ignored is the historic and ever-growing interaction between peoples; the ways in which individuals and States—regardless of religious affiliation—define, defend and pursue their interests; and the propensity of States, as well as individuals, to form alliances and allegiances on other grounds than ethnic belonging or religious affiliation. In his address to the United Nations General Assembly last month, President Khatami of Iran proposed that the United Nations designate the year 2001 as the “Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations” and expressed eloquently the promise of a genuine dialogue among cultures and nations. And I quote: “Establishment and enhancement of civility, whether at the national or international level, is contingent upon dialogue among societies and civilizations representing various views, inclinations and approaches.” As you no doubt will recognize, these are brave words from a visionary leader whose own respect for truth and for tolerance—against powerful domestic opposition—led him to declare unequivocally at the United Nations that the Government of Iran will do nothing to threaten the author of the “Satanic Verses”. I refer to these words of President Khatami not only to highlight what I believe to be an important development in one country, but also to illustrate the growing global understanding of the meaning and promise of dialogue and communication. Indeed, I believe that history should teach us that, alongside a global diversity of cultures, there exists one, worldwide civilization of knowledge

18 October 1998 • 543 within which ideas and philosophies meet and develop peacefully and productively. This is the civilization for which the United Nations labours every day in every part of the world; it is the civilization which recognizes that true progress is based on lasting peace and prosperity; the civilization within which clashes of ideas take place peacefully and productively. Socrates taught us that: “There is only one good, knowledge, and only one evil, ignorance”. By speaking up and speaking out, by promoting that vital exchange of ideas and information regardless of frontiers, we will have done our part to enhance our “one good, knowledge” and defeat our “only one evil, ignorance”. We will have done our part to make possible a global civilization that is defined by its tolerance of dissent, its celebration of cultural diversity, and its insistence on fundamental, universal human rights—a civilization that is proud to protect Article 19.

18 October 1998 Remarks by the Secretary-General at Epcot Center, Orlando, Florida

Off-the-cuff (unofficial transcript, OSSG) QUESTION: What do you think is the biggest problem facing the United Nations now? SECRETARY-GENERAL: We are concerned about political conflicts and crises around the world, where people are getting killed every day. But we are also extremely concerned about poverty. We would want to do whatever we can to alleviate poverty. There are millions in the world who live on under one dollar a day. That is a situation that we would want to do something about. We are working with Governments and other organizations to ensure that they have good health, they have education, and that their basic needs are fulfilled, and that they can also fend for themselves. One of our most active areas is what we call sustainable development. . . . The peacekeeping [unclear] catch the headlines but the both of our efforts is in poverty alleviation. QUESTION (ABC TV affiliate): Many of our viewers are concerned about what is happening in Yugoslavia right now. Can you tell me the latest of how the peace negotiations are going over there? S-G: Thanks to my good friend and outstanding negotiator Richard Holbrooke, we now have some sort of agreement with President Milosevic. He has agreed to accept two thousand verifiers, who would ensure that he’s complying with the

UN [resolutions]. I think that their presence would also give confidence to the refugees and the displaced to go back to their homes. The next phase is to get everybody around the table and seek a political solution to the problem. This means bringing the Kosovars and the Yugoslav Government together around the same table. And that is the next phase, and we hope that happens soon and that it is successful. QUESTION: You maintained that millions of people live on less than a dollar a year, mainly because wealthier nations are not helping. What if anything is the UN going to do to alleviate that? S-G: We are trying to encourage the nations with the capacity to give, to give and give generously in helping these countries overcome their difficulties. But we’re also asking those Governments to take responsibility for their own nations and their people. We’re encouraging them to come up with the right rules, strengthen their institutions, come up with investment codes, and encourage them to create what I would describe as the enabling environment, an environment that would release creativity and the entrepreneurial spirits of their people. But also encourage investment, domestically and internationally. But they need the assistance to get off in the right direction. We have also suggested that, to the extent possible, the heavy debt burden that they carry must be [inaudible], because for some of them, they spend so much money paying their debts that they don’t have enough to move on to the path of economic and social development. QUESTION: What is your vision for the United Nations participation for our millennium celebration? S-G: I think by coming together and working with Disney, we can share some of the values we have at the UN, and to some extent the vision that one has, to encourage people to accept the diversity of the world, the fact that we live in one world, the global village, if you wish, and that in today’s world we all have to pull together and work together to make the world a better place. And I think we will come here and join hands with you to celebrate diversity and help uplift the human spirit. QUESTION: And your personal reaction to the visit? S-G: I think it’s been very good, it’s been very positive. I’m sorry I don’t have time to go on all the rides and go on the Safari. . . QUESTION: next time [laughs] . . . S-G: My colleagues who came told me they’ve

544 • 18 October 1998

been to Australia, they’ve been to Africa, and they’ve done all that in the morning. That’s great. QUESTION (Orlando Sentinel): You talked during your speech of the US debt to the UN. Can I get your reaction to the fact that it still hasn’t been paid and that some in Congress would link it to abortion legislation? S-G: It’s very disappointing, and encouraging in that I was in Washington myself a year ago, or nearly two years ago, and I met with everybody. And I told them we were going to reform the UN in a very aggressive and determined way. And at that point everybody said, Great, you reform it and we’ll give you the money. We’ve done the reforms. We’ve convinced anyone of good will that the UN has reformed. We are serious about reform. I have made it clear that reform is not an event; it is a process, and the process will go on. And yet we find ourselves in a situation where the payment to the UN is linked to an unrelated domestic issue of abortion. And not a cent of the money in dispute would go towards abortion. So it is extremely difficult to explain to the 184 other Member States that Washington is not paying for that reason. We have 185 Member States and in theory we can have 370 Parliaments. If each Parliament imposed a condition before it paid the UN. [sic] With the UN, we would not have an organization. So I hope that whatever the differences in Washington, some way will be found to release the money to the United Nations. And I can tell you the non-payment is hurting US interests. There is lots of good will in the Organization for the US, but the nonpayment is provoking friends and foes alike. I often tell the story of Michael Refkind, the previous British Foreign Secretary, who said from the podium of the General Assembly—mind you, the British are your best friends—said [sic] there can be no representation without taxation. QUESTION: To pick up on one of the themes of your speech, with the peace talks under way in Maryland, why has the kind of citizen to citizen negotiation not played a larger role in Middle East Peace? S-G: It is a very interesting question. You have peace movements within Israel. You have ArabIsraeli groups that come together to promote peace. But the movement has not taken on the sort of momentum or the magnitude that the others did. And I think that the Israeli peace movement had been active. It is not as active now as it was. But I hope it will come to life again. If we are not able to make a breakthrough and the impasse continues, I cannot be excluding that we would see the kind of

popular movement urging the politicians to get on with it and make peace. Because nobody wants to live in perpetual tension. I have lots of Israeli friends and Palestinian friends; they all want to live in peace and look forward to a prosperous and normal life and to bring up their children in normal condition. QUESTION: I understand from the wires that there has been an oil pipeline explosion in Nigeria and that about 200 people were burned alive. Do you have an [sic] comment on that? S-G: Oh gosh. I have been on the plane so I have not picked that up. First of all, thanks for bringing the news to me. And if it is a major human tragedy and environmental disaster, I hope they will be able to do something about it as quickly as one can. I realize that there had been some problems in one of the regions with demonstrations but I am not sure if this . . . is in the same region. My reaction is one of shock at the human tragedy and the possible environmental damage in a country that has enough problems already.

19 October 1998 Excerpt from Remarks by the Secretary-General in Orlando, Florida

Off-the-cuff (OSSG) QUESTION: Do you have any comments on Britain’s detention of Pinochet? S-G: That is a very interesting development. I must say when I heard the news it was so unexpected. I know that they arrested him at the request of two Spanish judges. The British have rejected the Chilean claim that he did have diplomatic immunity. I have not seen all the legal arguments on the basis for his arrest and so I cannot comment in detail. But what this seems to indicate is that international human rights law is coming into its own and that attempts are going to be made to enforce this law against those who are deemed to have committed crimes, who are alleged to have committed crimes, and can no longer stay beyond the reach of the law or they are likely to be compelled to stay at home and not travel because of the risk that they may be arrested.

19 October 1998 Letter (EOSG); Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Cambodia Letter to Kashore Mahbubani, permanent representative of Singapore to the United Nations. Excellency, I have the honour to refer to the letter of 22

20 October 1998 • 545 October 1997 in which the “ASEAN Troika” requested the United Nations’ assistance and cooperation in monitoring and observing the safe return to Cambodia of all political leaders to resume their political activities in connection with the 26 July elections. I am pleased to report that the United Nations successfully completed its monitoring operation on 30 September 1998. I take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to the ASEAN countries for their close cooperation with the United Nations throughout the electoral process. I should be grateful if Your Excellency would kindly make this letter available to the former “ASEAN Troika” as well as the other members of ASEAN. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

20 October 1998 Secretary-General Speaks of Good Governance on UN Day

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6760, OBV/71); globalization Text of a statement made by the Secretary-General on the occasion of United Nations Day, held on 24 October. Every year, United Nations Day gives us an occasion to look back and take stock of our achievements and shortcomings, to reflect upon where we stand as a community of nations and to think about the challenges that lie ahead. When I issued my message on this Day a year ago, our focus was on reform of our Organization. Today, I can say with satisfaction that the “quiet revolution” is real. The United Nations family now acts with far greater unity of purpose and coherence of effort than we did a year ago. Now, we need to define the new challenges we face, and devise suitable means for meeting them. An accident of the calendar gives us a precise and dramatic deadline to focus our minds—the opening of the third millennium. A mere two years remain before the opening of the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly, designated as the Millennium Assembly. We should use those two years to reflect carefully on what we need to do. We are not going to tear up the Charter and write a new one; nor will we produce a blueprint for utopia. But what we must do is identify a select few of the world’s most pressing problems and set ourselves a precise, achievable programme for dealing with them. Much, if not all of that programme, I suspect, will be subsumed under a sin-

gle rubric which has become the catchword of our time: globalization. At this year’s General Assembly, globalization was by far the most discussed topic—especially among countries who have suffered severely as a result of the Asian crisis and its consequences. I believe that over the long term, globalization will be positive. It draws peoples closer together and offers many of us choices that our grandparents could not even dream of. It enables us to produce more efficiently and allows some of us, at least, to improve our quality of life. But these benefits are far from being felt equally by all. The long-term positive change is, for millions of our fellow human beings, simply too far off to be meaningful. Millions still live on the margins of the world economy. Millions more are experiencing globalization not as an opportunity, but as a force of disruption or destruction, as an assault on their material standards of living or on their traditional way of life. And those who feel marginalized in this way are growing more and more numerous. The Asian crisis has triggered severe worldwide effects with devastating social consequences. Some of the most successful economies have been plunged into recession at a speed which has taken the whole international community by surprise. As usual, it is the most vulnerable groups which are hardest hit. And the countries whose economies had taken only the first faltering steps on the road of recovery are the ones that now find themselves in greatest jeopardy. The crisis has now spread to Russia. Even the markets of North America and Europe are not immune. Arguing against the fact of globalization would be as fruitless, frustrating—and ultimately as destructive—as waging a war against the weather. Rather, I would say that our duty is to build on what is positive. We cannot reverse the track of a storm—but we can provide shelter for the millions who suffer most from its effects. We cannot hide from a hurricane—but we can seek to build solid foundations for the houses that risk being rattled by the hurricanes of the future. And so we accept change: but we do not accept ourselves as helpless. The issues this crisis raises are not just financial or economic—nor, for that matter, purely social or political. They are all of those things at once. They must be addressed on all those fronts. They must be dealt with both locally and globally. More than ever, we need to come together to manage this change; more than ever, the greatest

546 • 20 October 1998

challenge posed by globalization is that of good governance in the broadest sense. More than ever, we need to display leadership at the global level. More than ever, we need to forge new partnerships. We draw hope from the fruitful cooperation between the United Nations and the non-State actors which, taken together, form the embryo of a global civil society. The past year has given us two shining examples of such cooperation in the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and the coalition of non-governmental organizations which lobbied for an international criminal court. These partnerships for global community are growing in number every day. They are not short of work. But if we truly resolve to pool our resources, to set aside our differences, and to work together, there is almost nothing we cannot achieve. On this United Nations Day, let us rededicate ourselves to that belief, and let us get to work.

21 October 1998 Letter (UN archives); UN reform Letter from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, inviting the president of the Security Council, Jeremy Greenstock, to a meeting at the Secretary-General’s office. Similar letters were sent to the other heads of the principal organs of the UN. Dear Mr. President, Further to Mr. Lamin Sise’s recent telephone conversation with you, the Secretary-General is pleased to invite you and the other heads of the principal organs of the United Nations to a meeting in his office on Wednesday, 28 October 1998, to be followed by a luncheon on the 38th floor. The meeting will convene at 12:30 p.m. and the luncheon will begin at 1:00 p.m. There will be a photo opportunity. As the occasion will be the first time the six heads of the principal organs of the United Nations will meet together, the Secretary-General proposes that the occasion be utilized for an informal exchange of views on international developments and trends from the respective perspectives of the participants. The Secretary-General looks forward to seeing you. Accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

21 October 1998 Secretary-General Brings Message of Hope in Address to Tokyo Conference

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6761, AFR/107); Africa

Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the 2nd Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD II), in Tokyo. It is an honour and a pleasure to join you for this event. I would like to thank the Government of Japan for convening this Second Tokyo International Conference on African Development. At this critical moment in world affairs—a moment of both promise and peril—Africa’s needs are in jeopardy of being overshadowed. But, we have here in Tokyo a unique opportunity to mobilize energy and resources behind the cause of African development. It is perhaps the greatest development challenge facing the world today. Since taking office, I have placed peace and development in Africa high among my priorities. I have tried, without minimizing the many challenges faced by Africa, to draw the world’s attention to the good news: the bold efforts by many African countries to break with destructive patterns of the past; the significant economic reforms that are creating a more hopeful climate for growth and investment; the political transitions that are enabling more and more Africans to participate in the decisions that affect their lives. I have sought to enlist the resources and expertise of the private sector to support these positive changes, which have entailed considerable hardship and sacrifice on the part of the average African man and woman. And I have tried to deepen the already close relationship between Africa and the United Nations. Indeed, the “quiet revolution” of reform and transformation at the United Nations should be judged in no small part on how well it enables the Organization to respond to the needs of the poorest in Africa and elsewhere. Six months ago, I submitted a report to the Security Council on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa. The report stresses the need for an approach linking peace, security, development, democratic governance, environmental protection and respect for human rights and the rule of law— an approach representing, in short, a broad view of human security. It was my hope that it would contribute to progress in Africa by candidly analysing the causes of conflict and by putting forward a set of realistic and achievable recommendations for the future. Since then, the Security Council has been working actively on the implementation of my recommendations. Earlier this month, I submitted the same report to the General Assembly and there, too, I have been greatly encouraged by the positive

21 October 1998 • 547 response. Many countries have not only expressed their solidarity with Africa, they have also indicated how they intend to translate it into action. Now we have reached TICAD II, another major step along the road to African recovery and well-being. TICAD I, held five years ago, was instrumental in reaffirming a commitment to African development at a time when attention to sub-Saharan Africa was declining. TICAD II will build on that commitment. World leaders and organizations from around the world have come to Tokyo to exchange experiences, enhance partnerships and renew their resolve to meet the remaining challenges of African development. So where do we go from here? The peace and security situation on the continent remains ambivalent. Despite the gains that have been made in some regions, in other regions progress continues to be blocked or impeded. I have been particularly troubled to see conflicts and violence based on regional or ethnic identities and a lack of respect for humanitarian and human rights norms, particularly regarding the rights of women. We see the proliferation of small arms and persistently high military spending, at the expense of basic needs. States are interfering in political, military and security problems beyond their borders. There is also the spillover effect, with conflict in one country jeopardizing or undermining progress achieved in neighbouring, peaceful States. On the positive side, there is a growing determination by Africans, working through the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and subregional organizations, to take responsibility for finding solutions to Africa’s problems. They recognize that only an Africa free of conflict can hope to find stability and peace and, I repeat, that chronically insecure neighbourhoods are not the ones that attract investment. Africa’s development performance is similarly mixed. A number of countries have achieved high growth rates that would be remarkable for any region. But, such gains are often fragile. Key factors such as commodity prices are subject to considerable fluctuations and outside influence, as we have seen in recent months of economic and financial turmoil and contagion. And perennial social problems such as malnutrition, hunger, disease and lack of shelter are still widespread. The overarching challenge remains: poverty reduction and the integration of Africa into the global economy. Indeed, that is the main theme of this Conference. This is an enormous task, encompassing a full slate of urgent issues, for which we

must summon all our capacities and all our will. But, we should not be daunted and we must start somewhere. On the economic front, I have recommended immediate action in five main areas. First, is official development assistance. ODA has declined significantly, because of budget constraints in donor countries, but also in the mistaken belief that private capital flows have rendered ODA obsolete. In fact, ODA remains a crucial factor in support of Africa’s own efforts to build the social and institutional tools it requires to see to its peoples’ needs and to compete in the global economy. The quality of ODA is just as important as the amount. We must restructure aid so that it targets high-impact areas, such as water, education and health. Second is Africa’s massive and unsustainable external debt. At some $323 billion in 1996, it represented more than 200 per cent of exports and its servicing absorbed more than 16 per cent of export earnings. This is a major obstacle to growth, enough to deter investment, threaten the sustainability of reforms, disrupt the smooth functioning of the State and call into question the very credibility of African economies. I have urged that all remaining official bilateral debt owned by the poorest African countries be converted to grants. Third, I have also recommended that financial institutions significantly increase access to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative for a larger number of African countries. So far, only a handful of African countries have benefited. Fourth, conditions of access for African exports to developed-country markets should be eased. While multilateral trade negotiations have resulted in more open markets, African exports still face high tariffs in many sectors. The fifth priority is greater investment. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has just reported that some African countries are attracting impressive levels of foreign direct investment (FDI) and that the sources of FDI are becoming more diversified. Even more encouraging, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has also reported that FDI in Africa is very profitable. In 1991, the average rate of return for United States investments in Africa was 31 per cent, compared with 12 per cent in Latin America, 13 per cent in the Asia-Pacific region and 17 per cent in the Middle East. This Conference is designed to build on these trends and these possibilities. The Agenda for Action to be adopted addresses all the main issues,

548 • 21 October 1998

including those raised in my report. African countries recognize their primary and fundamental responsibility to create the necessary environment in which their people can lead peaceful, stable lives free from fear or want. The international community, for its part, recognizes its obligations and is paying increased attention to Africa’s prospects. In the past year alone, we have seen two ministerial meetings of the Security Council devoted solely to Africa and intensified efforts by the United Nations system to implement the New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s through the System-wide Special Initiative on Africa. So this is an opportune time for Africa and its main development partners, including the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Asian countries, as well as international and regional financial institutions, the United Nations system and non-governmental organizations, to exchange views on how to move forward. It is being said that talk of an African renaissance is unrealistic or premature. Some point to new and resurgent conflicts as evidence. I say there is nothing inevitable about conflict, wherever it erupts. Rather, conflicts are made—and can be unmade—by the force of human will. Others suggest that poverty in Africa has shown itself to be impervious to lengthy, costly aid programmes. I say we can certainly improve on past performance. But, let us not forget the dramatic gains that have already been achieved, in lifeexpectancy, literacy, the fight against disease and other indicators of well-being. Negative or cautious views are not without merit, but they are far from the full story. Today, I bring to you a message of hope; hope that we can put to rest inaccurate portrayals and perceptions of Africa, hope that we can consolidate the gains achieved so far, hope that Africa will at long last realize its great potential. Here, in Tokyo, among the people in this room, we have the makings of a new and powerful alliance for Africa. Let us make it work.

21 October 1998 Secretary-General Says US Arrears Situation Looks Grim

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6763); US dues to the UN Text of a statement made by the Secretary-General following the failure of the United States to include funding for UN arrears in its budget agreement.

Let me say first how pleased I am that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) funding has been agreed to. Replenishing the IMF’s lending capacity is an essential first step if the contagion effect of the global financial crisis is to be arrested, as it must be for all our sakes. It also appears that the budget bill will provide funds for the current fiscal year sufficient for the United States to avoid losing its General Assembly vote under Article 19. Unfortunately, on the matter of arrears the situation looks grim. Despite the extensive reforms we have undertaken—the most thoroughgoing in our 53-year history—and despite the many promises that have been made to us, the Congress and the Administration once again failed to honour America’s legal commitment and moral obligation to the United Nations and its 184 other Member States by paying even a portion of its long-standing debt. I find this outcome truly disturbing: disturbing for the United Nations; and disturbing for the standing of the United States in the United Nations. We are at a moment in history when leadership is vital. This failure by the United States to honour its contract with the rest of the world does not make that challenge any easier. The United States needs an effective United Nations, and the United Nations needs an engaged United States. Therefore, we hope that when the Congress reconvenes, the appropriate compromises will be struck so as to put this mutually divisive and damaging issue behind us once and for all, enabling us to get on with the pressing business of serving the world’s people.

21 October 1998 Secretary-General Welcomes Establishment of ACUNS

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6764); Academic Council on the United Nations System Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the founding ceremony for the Academic Council on the United Nations System, in Tokyo, Japan. It is a pleasure indeed to join you for this ceremony. The Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS) is one of many littleknown parts of the United Nations community which, quietly but effectively, make significant contributions to our thinking about the major challenges of our times and the role of the United Nations in addressing those challenges. As a long-time member of ACUNS, I am proud to see

23 October 1998 • 549 the growth and expansion into Asia evident here today. One of my most important responsibilities is to promote better understanding about the United Nations, not only in the halls of government— even there you would be surprised how much this is needed—but also among the varied communities that make up civil society. More and more in today’s world we face the same problems: problems that are growing more complex and are beyond the power of any nation to address on its own. We need new ideas, new forms of cooperation and new partners. Scholars, teachers and others in the academic community already play an important role. Academic groups consult regularly with United Nations bodies and participate in technical assistance programmes. The United Nations itself has several research centres and institutes, including, of course, the United Nations University here in Tokyo. But we must go further. The United Nations must not limit itself to its own expertise, formidable as this might be. We need to reach out and tap the knowledge of the world at large. Since 1987, the Academic Council has done just that: providing vital scholarship and analysis about multilateral approaches to world problems. It has also served as a valuable two-way channel of communication between the United Nations and the academic world. But the membership of the Academic Council has so far been largely centred in Europe and North America. Today we broaden that horizon with the establishment of ACUNS in Japan, with its headquarters at the University of Tokyo. This is good news for several reasons: First, it brings ACUNS to a United Nations Member State that plays a major role across the breadth of the international agenda, from disarmament to development. Second, it deepens the involvement of civil society institutions in the work of the United Nations. And third, it sets the stage for a further broadening of ACUNS into other parts of Asia. I would like to congratulate all who have made this possible, including: • The international membership of ACUNS; • My good friend Yasushi Akashi, who has been chairman of the Preparatory Committee for ACUNS/Japan; • Another good friend and trusted colleague, Sadako Ogata, who will be a senior adviser to ACUNS/Japan and who, as you know, will be staying on as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for another two years;

• And Professor Yozo Yokota, a former United Nations human rights special rapporteur and law professor and a driving force behind the inauguration we celebrate today. All of you have again demonstrated your commitment to the United Nations at a crucial moment in world affairs. Please let me know what I can do to assist your work. You are our partner; I am yours.

22 October 1998 Secretary-General Regrets Executions of 24 Military Officers in Sierra Leone

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6765, AFR/109); Sierra Leone The Secretary-General regrets the executions of 24 military officers in Sierra Leone on 19 October, despite his appeal to the Government to consider, at a minimum, a stay of execution pending review of the proceedings before relevant international monitoring bodies. He hopes that the Government of Sierra Leone ensures the due process in further trials. The SecretaryGeneral endorses President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah’s call on the rebels to surrender and urges the parties to proceed towards eventual national reconciliation.

23 October 1998 Letter (EOSG); terrorism Letter to the secretary-general of the League of Arab States, Ahmed Esmat Abdel Meguid. Excellency, I wish to thank you for your letter dated 23 September attaching a copy of the resolution adopted by the Council of the League of Arab States on 16 and 17 September 1998 on the dispute between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United Kingdom and the United States. I should like to assure you that I will continue to do my utmost to assist the two sides to reach a final settlement of this matter in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

23 October 1998 Letter (EOSG); terrorism Letter sent to the ministers for foreign affairs of the

550 • 23 October 1998

states members of the Committee of Six of the NonAligned Movement.

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6777, PKO/79); peacekeepers

Excellencies, I wish to thank the Committee of Six for its letter dated 22 September referring to the decision adopted by the Foreign Ministers of the NonAligned Movement, at their meeting in Cartagena, Colombia on 18–20 May 1998, and to the declaration by the Twelfth Summit of the States Members of the Movement held in Durban, South Africa from 29 August to 2 September 1998 on the dispute between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United Kingdom and the United States. I should like to express my appreciation to the Committee for the kind words on my efforts on behalf of the Organization and to assure you that I shall continue to do my utmost to assist the two sides, to reach a final settlement of this matter in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions. I take this opportunity to express to the Committee of Six the assurances of my highest consideration.

The Secretary-General has decided to set minimum age requirements for United Nations peacekeepers who are made available to the Organization by Member States. As announced in the Fourth Committee this morning by Bernard Miyet, UnderSecretary-General for Peacekeeping, contributing governments are asked not to send civilian police and military observers younger than 25 years to serve in peacekeeping operations; troops in national contingents should preferably be 21 years, but not less than 18. This decision has been taken as an additional measure in the Organization’s efforts to promote the rights of the child. While we have no indication that Member Govern-ments have provided the United Nations with soldiers under the age of 18, this policy has been adopted as a proactive measure, and to ensure that the Organization’s use of uniformed personnel is an example for police and military forces worldwide.

26 October 1998 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter to the deputy prime minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz. Excellency, I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 16 October 1998, the contents of which have been duly noted. As requested, your letter has been circulated as a document of the Security Council. With regard to the request contained in the penultimate paragraph of your letter, I wish to clarify that any enquiry into UNSCOM’s activities, including those of its personnel, would be a matter for the Security Council of which UNSCOM is a subsidiary organ rather than a matter for the Secretary-General. As for the IAEA and its personnel engaged in the implementation of resolution 687 (1991), you may wish to address a communication to the Director-General of that Agency conveying your concerns. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

29 October 1998 Secretary-General Sets Minimum Age Requirments for UN Peacekeepers

29 October 1998 Secretary-General Stresses Need for Competent Staff

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6778, ORG/1273); reform Opening remarks by the Secretary-General at the open meeting for staff on human resources management reforms, in New York. Our Organization is about people—men and women—not structures, not buildings. Without competent staff, an organization cannot excel. We need to be able to identify, recruit, develop and retain the best possible staff in order to operate efficiently and effectively. We are here today to talk about one of the most difficult questions on the United Nations agenda, and I do not mean Cyprus or the Middle East. We are here to talk about a pervasive presence in our lives, one that is often erratic and unpredictable, and I do not mean El Niño. We are here to talk about human resources management, a central concern of yours and mine and a subject at the heart of our efforts to make the United Nations as good as it can be. It is no exaggeration to say that this is a “make-or-break” issue for our Organization. What are our difficulties? We are too complicated and too slow. We are over-administrated, with too many rules and too many regulations. We have mandates, goals and functions that overlap or

30 October 1998 • 551 sometimes work at cross purposes. There are not enough opportunities to move ahead or even move around. We do not invest enough in our people. We do not adequately reward high performers, but we appear to tolerate underperformance. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. There is much that is good about our human resources management, which I wish to build on. But we need to overhaul the many areas that are not working well. As you know, my long-awaited report to the General Assembly on human resources management reform has now been issued. The document symbol is A/53/414. My right-hand woman, Louise Fréchette, and I would both like to say a few words about the report. Then we will be glad to open the floor and answer your questions. The report is a policy paper, not a catalogue of specific measures. It sets out a strategic direction—a policy umbrella, a long-term vision—and identifies a number of concrete suggestions. It draws on consultations with staff and management, and on the recommendations of the task force, which has now finished its work. The reform of our human resources management is an integral part of United Nations reform in general. It cannot be carried out in isolation. And like reform, it is a process. It cannot be achieved overnight. We have identified the most urgent priorities, and are tackling those first. We have already implemented some quick-impact measures in all key areas, including staff administration, recruitment and placement and career development. We are studying options for a range of additional measures. Our overall time-frame for implementation is the next three-to-five years. In the broadest sense, the reform of human resources management is about getting the right people with the right skills in the right job at the right time. It is about attitude and aptitude; respect for fundamental principles of fairness, diversity and due process; and upholding the requirements for gender and geographical balance. We want every person to be where they will be most useful: this is good for you and your career aspirations; and it is good for the Organization in enabling it to meet the challenges the Member States have placed upon us. You are probably wondering how you will actually feel reform in action. Through decentralization and delegation of authority, departments will run more and more of their day-to-day affairs. You will have more opportunities for training, you will see new mechanisms for accountability, and you will be able to participate in increased dia-

logue up and down the hierarchy. Conditions of service will be enhanced, and we will fight for that. I want to reassure you that reform in this area does not mean staff cuts. I know there are apprehensions about this. However, from time to time as mandates change, the Organization may need to retrain, redeploy and reassign staff. We must be flexible. All of us. I know you are also concerned about mobility. I myself have served in a number of functions and duty stations. Doing so adds to a sense of common purpose, and allows you to develop new skills and have enriching new experiences. I want to encourage mobility in this global Secretariat, but this is not only a question of geography. There is also functional mobility. Reform is in everyone’s interest, but I am aware that we need to do more in terms of communication, dialogue and consultation to get this point across. I am also aware that reform can be unsettling. But, if we have good information, there will be less tendency to resist. And if we all participate, it becomes our scheme, our plan, not one that is pushed on us. You can count on me to foster an open, transparent environment of mutual trust. I encourage all of you to come forward with your suggestions. To assist in this process, early next month a Cyber-Forum will be operational on the United Nations Intranet site as one way for the Office of Human Resources Management and the Department of Management to obtain your opinions and advice on proposed human resources initiatives. “Who will change old lamps for new?” runs the question in the Arabian Nights. I say we will; today and in the years ahead, while keeping the eternal light of United Nations ideals before us as our guide. In that spirit, let us hear first from the Deputy Secretary-General and then we will open the floor.

30 October 1998 Letter (UN archives); development Internal note to the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, from Maurice F. Strong, with the following attachment. NOTE TO MR. S. IQBAL RIZA

Attached please find the draft papers on “Creating a Dividend for Development” and on the “Revolving Credit Fund”, prepared by Mr. Connor’s office. These texts reflect the sugges-

552 • 30 October 1998

tions made by the Steering Committee on UN Reform when it last met on 24 October. I should be grateful if you could draw the draft papers to the Secretary-General’s attention for his consideration and approval. Once we receive his clearance, we shall submit the texts for immediate processing as conference room papers for the open-ended informals of the Plenary. With respect to the draft paper on “Results-based budgeting”, I am expecting a revised text from Mr. Connor which will be promptly forwarded to you. Approved. —K.A., 2/11

* * * CREATING A DIVIDEND FOR DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

1. This paper provides an elaboration of the Secretary-General’s proposal for the establishment of a Development Account, as contained in paragraphs 57–58, 234–235, actions 21–22 and related recommendation in his report A/51/950 dated 14 July 1997. Proposal

2. The Secretary-General has stated that up to 38% of regular budget resources are devoted to nonprogramme costs, defined as administrative and information costs. The aggregate amount of nonprogramme costs has been determined on an analytical basis. Such non-programme costs include full costs of direct administrative support and public information, as well as a proportion of executive direction and conference services devoted to administrative, budgetary and personnel matters. While a large proportion of these costs are in the central service departments, they are incurred across the entire organization. 3. The Secretary-General is committed to reducing these non-programme costs under the regular budget by about one third and has proposed to turn savings in administrative costs into a “dividend for development”. This goal is expected to be fully achieved in the biennium starting 1 January 2002 through enhancing effectiveness and implementing management reforms, without impacting mandated programmes. Outline

4. The general increase in delivery expectations by Member States at a time of decreasing resources is a phenomenon faced, not only by the United Nations, but also in national Governments, private

and public sector enterprises worldwide. The Secretary-General intends to respond to the situation as related to United Nations activities, by increasing the outputs to Member States from the resources made available to him.

30 October 1998 Secretary-General Stresses Need to Beat Malaria

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6779, SAG/16); health Text of the Secretary-General’s message welcoming the launch of the “Roll Back Malaria” initiative, in New York. Malaria kills 3,000 children every day. It afflicts between 300 and 500 million people every year. And year after year, malaria has defied our efforts to control it, to eradicate, to beat it. Yet beat it we must for its sway is a devastating factor in the development of many of the poorest parts of the world. Nowhere is this truer than in Africa, where more than three-quarters of all malaria cases occur—the vast majority of them in children. I therefore warmly welcome the Roll Back Malaria initiative—because it enables us to focus our efforts on an issue which has caused so much suffering in Africa and other developing regions for all too long; and because it brings together four key entities of the United Nations system in a closer and more permanent form of partnership than we have seen before to alleviate suffering and remove a crucial obstacle to development. While the World Health Organization (WHO), with its mandate and expertise, is the natural lead agency in the effort to Roll Back Malaria, each of the other three organizations that has joined the initiative has a unique and important role to play. As an integral part of this process, the World Bank has committed itself, among other activities, to increasing Bank investments in malaria control and research; facilitating resource mobilization in support of the initiative; and working for a more effective involvement by national finance, economics and other Departments to become full partners in reducing malaria as a factor that stunts economic development. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) will work to strengthen capacities for integrating malaria-related action into national poverty eradication policies, strategies and programmes; it will strive to enhance collaboration among Governments, the private sector, civil society and local communities to ensure that people

30 October 1998 • 553 have access to basic social services and productive assets. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) will work with governments and nongovernmental organization (NGO) partners to give special attention to reducing the terrible toll of malaria on young children and pregnant women, and to improve health and nutrition. It will focus on making insecticide-treated mosquito nets available to all families that need them, and on ensuring that every child with malaria has access to early and effective treatment. And it will seek to mobilize community, district and national leaders to make effective malaria control a priority. The initiative has been conceived in such a way that cooperation among United Nations organizations is only the hub of a wider collaborative effort, involving private sector companies, NGOs, other multilateral organizations and, above all, the countries affected. For it is, above all, the countries and communities themselves that will need to mobilize in order to Roll Back Malaria. The presence at the briefing of the heads of all of the four organizations involved—Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Mr. Jim Wolfensohn, Ms. Carol Bellamy and Mr. James Gustave Speth—testifies to their personal commitment. The fact that it takes place just prior to the session of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC)—where I will have the pleasure of welcoming Dr. Brundtland to her first meeting of the Committee—augurs well for the success of the session. It is, indeed, a highly relevant prelude to a meeting where I will be discussing with the heads of all United Nations agencies and organizations ways in which the system can join hands to address the economic, but also the human impact of globalization, and to promote a sustained follow-up to my report on “The Causes of Conflict and the promotion of Durable Peace and Sustainable Development in Africa”. Roll Back Malaria will be a source of inspiration to us all. For it is with inter-agency initiatives such as this one that we can best hope to meet the goal of reforming and strengthening the United Nations system, and of ensuring that the capacities of the system are mobilized to advance human progress and development.

30 October 1998 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter from the president of the Security Council, Jeremy Greenstock.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General, The members of the Security Council have asked me to write to you with their initial views on how the comprehensive review of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under the relevant resolutions, referred to in resolution 1194 (1998), would proceed. The members of the Council welcome your views submitted to them in accordance with resolution 1194 (1998), and for the efforts you have undertaken to secure Iraqi cooperation. They reiterate their readiness to consider, in the comprehensive review, Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under all relevant resolutions once Iraq has rescinded its decision of 5 August 1998 and demonstrated that it is prepared to fulfil all its obligations, including in particular on disarmament issues, by resuming full cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA, consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding as endorsed by the Security Council in resolution 1154 (1998). The members of the Council have agreed that they are ready to begin the comprehensive review as soon as you confirm, on the basis of reports from the the [sic] Special Commission and the IAEA, that the Special Commission and the IAEA are receiving full cooperation from Iraq. The members of the Council, like you, see no reason, from their viewpoint, why this should not occur within a very short time. At that stage the Council will begin the review by requesting, through your office, succinct reports from UNSCOM, the IAEA and other relevant bodies as appropriate, setting out Iraqi compliance with the resolutions hitherto and identifying any tasks which still need to be undertaken to satisfy the remaining requirements of the relevant resolutions. These reports should give clear explanations of their reasoning. The Council’s review would be in two distinct phases. The first would assess Iraqi compliance with its disarmament obligations under the relevant resolutions, including section C of resolution 687 (1991), and would also include the arrangements for ongoing monitoring and verification. The second phase of the review, which would follow immediately after the first on the basis likewise of succinct reports prepared by the relevant bodies, would deal with Iraq’s compliance with all its other obligations under the relevant Security Council resolutions, including those relating to Kuwaiti Prisoners of War and missing Kuwaiti property. Iraq should be invited to contribute its own account of its compliance with its obligations, in

554 • 30 October 1998

the form of written reports and oral presentations, with a clear explanation of its reasoning. Clearly Council members cannot prejudge the outcome of the review in advance of their consideration of these reports. But it is envisaged that the Council would outline clearly in each phase remaining steps to be taken by Iraq to fulfil its obligations under all the relevant resolutions, and would establish a likely time-frame for this purpose, assuming full Iraqi cooperation. The completion of such steps would then enable the Council, in full implementation of resolution 1194 (1998) and all previous relevant resolutions, to fulfil its intention to act in accordance with the relevant provisions of resolution 687 (1991) on the duration of the prohibitions referred to in that resolution. I hope that this explanation is useful. Members of the Council look forward to continuing our work with your assistance to ensure Iraq resumes full cooperation. Please accept, Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration. Jeremy Greenstock President of the Security Council

2 November 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq/Africa Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s noon briefing by welcoming the Palestinian journalists who were in the room, participating in a Department of Public Information (DPI) training programme. He then said today’s guest at the noon briefing would be Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs Nitin Desai. Mr. Desai would be briefing correspondents on the outcome of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) meeting that had finished on Saturday, Mr. Eckhard said. The ACC was the body that pulled together the heads of all the agencies, funds and programmes of the United Nations system. The group met twice a year, once in New York and once in Geneva, and Mr. Desai would be giving a read-out of the New York meeting that had just ended. (Mr. Desai’s briefing has been issued separately.) With regard to Iraq, Mr. Eckhard said, the President of the Security Council for the month of October, Jeremy Greenstock (United Kingdom), had called Council members to closed consulta-

tions on Saturday at 4 p.m. to deal with the question of Iraq on that last day of his Presidency. The Office of the Executive Director of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), Richard Butler, had informed the Council in writing that on Saturday evening, Baghdad time, UNSCOM had been informed by the Iraqi authorities that the Revolutionary Command Council had decided to suspend all activities of the Special Commission, including monitoring. Following its meeting on Saturday, Mr. Eckhard said, the Council had issued a statement to the press unanimously condemning the Iraqi decision, which the Council considered a flagrant violation of Council resolutions. The Council was expected to continue consideration of the issue this week under the presidency of United States representative Peter Burleigh, who had now assumed the Council presidency for November. The Secretary-General had met with Mr. Butler this morning and would meet with Mr. Burleigh this afternoon, the Spokesman continued. He also said that when asked by the press on Saturday about his role, the Secretary-General had told the CNN television audience, “It’s the Council’s responsibility, and I will see what the Council wants to do”. Many would be watching the Council this week on that matter, Mr. Eckhard noted, adding that UNSCOM had reported that today its inspectors had been allowed to visit the sites equipped with surveillance cameras in order to change video cassettes and maintain the equipment. However, that was not the bulk of the monitoring programme, which involved visits by inspectors, the activity blocked by Iraq. The Council today was involved in bilateral discussions between the new President and the individual members, as they discussed informally the programme of this month, he said. No consultations had been scheduled for today. Some action had occurred with regard to getting oil spare parts for Iraq during the past week, he said. The Security Council’s Iraq Sanctions Committee, also known as the 661 Committee, had approved 23 contracts and had lifted the “holds” on 13 more, bringing to 36, the total of contracts approved—worth more than $15 million. That brought to 111, the overall total of approved contracts—worth close to $88 million out of the $300 million authorized by the Council for spare parts. As the Iraqi Government had noted, none of those spare parts or equipment had arrived in Iraq. The Office of the Iraq Programme had said that was not

554 • 30 October 1998

the form of written reports and oral presentations, with a clear explanation of its reasoning. Clearly Council members cannot prejudge the outcome of the review in advance of their consideration of these reports. But it is envisaged that the Council would outline clearly in each phase remaining steps to be taken by Iraq to fulfil its obligations under all the relevant resolutions, and would establish a likely time-frame for this purpose, assuming full Iraqi cooperation. The completion of such steps would then enable the Council, in full implementation of resolution 1194 (1998) and all previous relevant resolutions, to fulfil its intention to act in accordance with the relevant provisions of resolution 687 (1991) on the duration of the prohibitions referred to in that resolution. I hope that this explanation is useful. Members of the Council look forward to continuing our work with your assistance to ensure Iraq resumes full cooperation. Please accept, Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration. Jeremy Greenstock President of the Security Council

2 November 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq/Africa Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s noon briefing by welcoming the Palestinian journalists who were in the room, participating in a Department of Public Information (DPI) training programme. He then said today’s guest at the noon briefing would be Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs Nitin Desai. Mr. Desai would be briefing correspondents on the outcome of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) meeting that had finished on Saturday, Mr. Eckhard said. The ACC was the body that pulled together the heads of all the agencies, funds and programmes of the United Nations system. The group met twice a year, once in New York and once in Geneva, and Mr. Desai would be giving a read-out of the New York meeting that had just ended. (Mr. Desai’s briefing has been issued separately.) With regard to Iraq, Mr. Eckhard said, the President of the Security Council for the month of October, Jeremy Greenstock (United Kingdom), had called Council members to closed consulta-

tions on Saturday at 4 p.m. to deal with the question of Iraq on that last day of his Presidency. The Office of the Executive Director of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), Richard Butler, had informed the Council in writing that on Saturday evening, Baghdad time, UNSCOM had been informed by the Iraqi authorities that the Revolutionary Command Council had decided to suspend all activities of the Special Commission, including monitoring. Following its meeting on Saturday, Mr. Eckhard said, the Council had issued a statement to the press unanimously condemning the Iraqi decision, which the Council considered a flagrant violation of Council resolutions. The Council was expected to continue consideration of the issue this week under the presidency of United States representative Peter Burleigh, who had now assumed the Council presidency for November. The Secretary-General had met with Mr. Butler this morning and would meet with Mr. Burleigh this afternoon, the Spokesman continued. He also said that when asked by the press on Saturday about his role, the Secretary-General had told the CNN television audience, “It’s the Council’s responsibility, and I will see what the Council wants to do”. Many would be watching the Council this week on that matter, Mr. Eckhard noted, adding that UNSCOM had reported that today its inspectors had been allowed to visit the sites equipped with surveillance cameras in order to change video cassettes and maintain the equipment. However, that was not the bulk of the monitoring programme, which involved visits by inspectors, the activity blocked by Iraq. The Council today was involved in bilateral discussions between the new President and the individual members, as they discussed informally the programme of this month, he said. No consultations had been scheduled for today. Some action had occurred with regard to getting oil spare parts for Iraq during the past week, he said. The Security Council’s Iraq Sanctions Committee, also known as the 661 Committee, had approved 23 contracts and had lifted the “holds” on 13 more, bringing to 36, the total of contracts approved—worth more than $15 million. That brought to 111, the overall total of approved contracts—worth close to $88 million out of the $300 million authorized by the Council for spare parts. As the Iraqi Government had noted, none of those spare parts or equipment had arrived in Iraq. The Office of the Iraq Programme had said that was not

2 November 1998 • 555 surprising. “Most of the equipment is specialized and much has to be made to order. We’re not talking off-the-shelf items; delays are normal and many of the contracts specify delivery periods of up to 160 days.” Also available from the Office of the Iraq Programme was the weekly update on oil spare parts, Mr. Eckhard said. The update could be obtained in room S-378, and the Office had reported no disruption in oil-for-food activities as a result of Iraq’s decision of Saturday. A press release available in room S-378 was on the climate change talks that had just opened in Buenos Aires on Saturday, Mr. Eckhard said. On Guinea-Bissau, the Spokesman said, the Secretary-General had welcomed the announcement of an agreement signed yesterday, in Abuja, to end the conflict there. The Secretary-General had also congratulated the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), as well as the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries, General Abdulsalam Abubakar of Nigeria and President Yahya Jammeh of the Gambia, for their efforts in helping to conclude the negotiations. . . . Out today, as a Security Council document, was the Secretary-General’s progress report on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia (document S/1998/1012), Mr. Eckhard said. In that report, the Secretary-General had said that efforts to reinvigorate the peace process in Georgia had continued with increasing bilateral contacts taking place between the Georgian and the Abkhaz sides, facilitated by the United Nations. The recent meeting between the two sides in Athens on confidencebuilding measures had been “an achievement”. The Secretary-General had appealed to both sides to implement in good faith the measures agreed upon at that meeting and to expand their relations further in order to unblock the political stalemate regarding the two core problems, the political status of Abkhazia and the return of refugees and displaced persons. . . . And finally, with regard to reports, Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General’s report on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel (document A/53/501) had provided grim details on the escalating attacks against United Nations personnel in the field. “It is time for Member States to recognize that humanitarian, human rights and development activities do not substitute for political action”, the Secretary-General had written. “It is no longer acceptable that staff members carrying out United Nations mandates be expected to serve at high risk duty stations”. Without the unstinting

help of the international community, the SecretaryGeneral had warned, United Nations personnel would continue to be at risk. In March of this year, Mr. Eckhard said, the Secretary-General had asked the Italian author, journalist and human rights activist, Anna Cataldi, to assist the United Nations in promoting human rights. Today at 4:30 p.m., the Secretary-General would officially recognize Ms. Cataldi as the seventh United Nations Messenger of Peace in a ceremony that would take place in his offices. Copies of the citation that would be given to Ms. Cataldi were available in room S-378, along with a background note on all Messengers of Peace. . . . In response to a question on Iraq, Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General would not “fire” the UNSCOM Executive Director, Richard Butler, in whom he had full confidence. “The United States Secretary of Defense William Cohen has said it’s Kofi Annan’s reputation on the line in this crisis. How do you respond to that”? the same correspondent asked. “The Secretary-General considers this to be a situation where it is the Security Council resolutions that are being defied”, Mr. Eckhard answered. “The Memorandum of Understanding that the Secretary-General had worked out with Iraq last February had been merely to get Iraq to once again comply with those resolutions. So the underlying basis for the conflict was the resolutions and Iraq’s refusal to comply.” “So he’ll take a back seat on this?” the Spokesman was then asked. “He will follow the instructions of the Council on this”, Mr. Eckhard responded. “It is primarily the Council’s responsibility. He is waiting to see what they will do and what, if anything, the Council will ask him to do.” When asked if it could be said that the SecretaryGeneral did not consider his credibility to be on the line, Mr. Eckhard said, “the Secretary-General does not see this as a matter of his credibility”. Upon being asked for a read-out of the meeting this morning between the Secretary-General and Richard Butler, the Spokesman said a detailed read-out would be requested. “Overall, I think the Secretary-General wanted to know how UNSCOM’s work would be affected by Iraq’s decision, and he had been informed, as I already mentioned, that UNSCOM had been allowed to maintain its surveillance equipment. However, that in no way constitutes an adequate monitoring function, so the monitoring activities are effectively blocked”. . . .

556 • 3 November 1998

3 November 1998 Secretary-General Says Gap Between What We Are Asked to Do and Are Able to Do Is Widening

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6783, SAG/18); development Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the joint opening of the 1998 UN Pledging Conference for Development Activities and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Pledging Conference for the World Food Programme (WFP), at UN headquarters in Geneva. I am pleased to open both the 1998 United Nations Pledging Conference for Development Activities and the United Nations/Food and Agriculture Organization Pledging Conference for the World Food Programme. This year’s Pledging Conferences are taking place at a critical juncture for United Nations development cooperation. Core funding for United Nations development cooperation continues to decline while the demands placed upon it by developing countries are increasing in scope and complexity. Though a number of countries have met the official development assistance (ODA) target of 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), overall contributions from a majority of donors have remained well below that target. A particularly disturbing trend is the decline of resources devoted to the operational activities of the United Nations system. The combined total of resources channelled through United Nations funds and programmes— comprising both core and non-core resources—has dropped from $4.5 billion in 1996 to $4.0 billion in 1997. It is clear that this trend must be reversed if the United Nations is to play its role in the current development context. The gap between what we are asked to do and what we are able to do is widening due to a lack of adequate resources. This is particularly difficult to understand at a time when far-reaching reforms are leading to improved efficiency and effectiveness of the operational activities for development. With more effective collaboration at Headquarters and in the field—supported by a strengthened resident coordinator system—the United Nations system is now better placed than ever before to meet the challenges of development in the next century. I am confident that donors will recognize these improvements as well as the growing needs, and decide to equip the United Nations with the means to succeed in our common mission of develop-

ment. Let me in this regard note that the WFP, to whom this segment is devoted, has set the pledging target for development activities for the 1999–2000 biennium at 2.1 million tons of food, or $1 billion in food, cash and services.

9 November 1998 Letter (EOSG); safety of UN personnel Letter sent to all member states of the UN. Excellency, You may recall that the General Assembly, in 1994, adopted unanimously the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Person-nel. It was opened for signature on 15 December 1994. This was a clear response to the deep concerns expressed at various times by the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Secretary-General and the international community at large, over the growing number of deaths and injuries resulting from deliberate attacks on United Nations personnel serving on missions on behalf of the Organization. The Convention also reflected the firm conviction on the part of the international community of the need to provide United Nations personnel on missions with the necessary legal protection, to deter attacks on them and to ensure effective prosecution and punishment of those responsible for launching such attacks. The General Assembly also called upon States to take all appropriate measures to ensure the safety and security of United Nations personnel within their territories and further recommended, in its resolution 49/59, that the question of safety of United Nations personnel be kept under continuing review by all relevant bodies of the Organization. Today, four years later, the situation for United Nations personnel on missions has not improved substantially. There has been an unprecedented increase both in the number of attacks and casualties of United Nations and associated personnel. Measures taken by States to ensure the safety and security of United Nations personnel have not been commensurate with the urgency and importance of the matter. The United Nations contribution to preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and humanitarian relief has been substantial. To continue this work, adequate protection must be provided to those personnel who are sent on missions on behalf of the Organization. Member states which contribute personnel are greatly concerned over the safety of their nationals participating in United Nations mis-

9 November 1998 • 557 sions; safety and security of this personnel is an essential precondition for their support and participation in such missions. In these circumstances, I would appeal to your Government to become a Party to the 1994 Convention, and to take appropriate measures to ensure the safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel within your territory, consistent with General Assembly resolution 49/59. I am confident that your Government will attach to this matter the importance and priority it deserves. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

9 November 1998 Secretary-General Calls For Redoubling Efforts in Western Sahara Dispute

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6788); Western Sahara Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the staff of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), in Laayoune, Morocco. I am very pleased to be with you today on my first visit to MINURSO. As Under-SecretaryGeneral for Peacekeeping Operations and as Secretary-General, I have followed MINURSO’s progress closely. As you know well, this is not an easy operation. If it had been easy, the referendum in Western Sahara would have taken place in 1992, within a year after the establishment of MINURSO. That this has not happened derives from the complexity of the issue we face, the strength of beliefs on both sides, and the difficulty of completing a compromise that may genuinely satisfy both sides. It does not derive from any lack of initiative or commitment on your part. Indeed, there is much that MINURSO can be proud of. You have maintained a seven-year ceasefire after 15 years of fighting. You have, under the leadership of the Force Commander, succeeded in allowing the engineers and the deminers to proceed with their work. You have completed the identification of applicants from 85 Saharan tribes. And, under the leadership of my Personal Envoy, James Baker III, my Special Representative and the Chairman of the Identification Commission, you have worked out acceptable procedures for the identification of three more groups. In this regard, let me say that I expect to receive confirmation from the Moroccan authorities as

well as from the Frente Polisario of their agreement to these procedures. If we continue to make progress on the implementation of the Settlement Plan, including the repatriation of refugees, it is my hope that the transitional period could begin in June or July 1999 and that the referendum could be held in December 1999. This is a crucial time for our efforts in Western Sahara, a time when we must redouble our efforts to bring to conclusion the challenge of settling this long-lasting dispute. I am confident that with the full cooperation of the parties, success is possible. I know that you will do your part to bring us there. You have come to Western Sahara from over 30 countries to serve the cause of the United Nations in bringing peace to this part of the world. You recognize that peace must be won, step by step, brick by brick, community by community. That is why your efforts here are so crucial to our overall mission. We must succeed here if we are to succeed elsewhere. Whether you are serving as military observers, civilian police officers or civilian personnel, you are—each and every one of you—helping to create that crucial space for peace and political negotiation. By keeping the peace and preventing instability, you are also serving a larger cause. You are giving the world reason to believe in the United Nations. That is an invaluable accomplishment and I salute you for it. Finally, there is the question of the political will of the parties themselves to make peace. We cannot impose from abroad the necessary will, nor the courage to make the hard choices, nor the critical recognition among the parties that a common fate obliges them to make a real peace. You who serve in MINURSO know this as well as anyone. With your continued service and excellence in the maintenance of peace, Western Sahara is kept safe for a future of true reconciliation and partnership. That is all that you—and we—can do. The parties must do the rest themselves. The United Nations will keep trying to help them find a solution because the two parties have asked us to do so. However, both sides already know that we cannot stay here indefinitely, no matter how willing we may be to help them resolve their differences. I look forward to the day when this issue is resolved and no peacekeeper or peacemaker is needed. That is the day when we can declare victory, not for one side or the other, but for peace itself.

558 • 9 November 1998

9 November 1998 Secretary-General Brings Message of Hope and Restoration to Situation in Western Sahara

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6789); Western Sahara Speech, translated from French, by the SecretaryGeneral to the Saharan chiefs, in Laayoune, Morocco. Allow me, first of all, to thank you for your warm welcome and tell you how happy I am to be with you today. Your words have had a profound effect on me, and I have understood that you are firmly resolved to advance the peace process. As you know, the purpose of my visit is to help advance the implementation of the United Nations Settlement Plan, so that a definitive end can be put to a conflict that has lasted too long. Just recently, you had an opportunity of noting the determination of the United Nations, with the proposals which I submitted to you and which have just been approved by the Security Council. It is now important for the parties to sign as soon as possible the protocols on identification and on the recourse procedure so that the process can be initiated, as envisaged on 1 December. It is also important for the Moroccan Government to strengthen the foundations of its cooperation with the United Nations by finalizing the documents relating to the presence of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I thank the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco for the considerable material support it has already provided to MINURSO and will, I am sure, continue to provide in the future. If the parties continue to demonstrate good will, we shall, together, be able to achieve the objectives we have set ourselves in the Settlement Plan. As leaders of the Saharan community, you yourselves bear a particular responsibility and have an extremely important role to play. I wish, in this respect, to commend the spirit of cooperation you have shown to date. Allow me, in conclusion, to tell you that my message is a message of hope and resolution. We shall do everything to ensure that a new page can be turned in the history of the region and that the Saharan families who have so long been separated can at last be reunited.

11 November 1998 Letter (UN archives); trust funds Internal note to the Secretary-General’s chief of

staff, S. Iqbal Riza, from Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, UN controller. 1. The following trust funds are under the direct responsibility of the Secretary-General. (a) Trust Fund for Special Projects of the Secretary-General This fund was originally established as the Trust Fund for the 50th Anniversary Activities of the Secretary-General and, at the end of the 50th Anniversary, was converted into a Trust Fund for Special Projects of the Secretary-General. There is no restriction to what this trust fund can finance. Unfortunately it has a low balance around $70,000. (b) Trust Fund for Peacemaking Activities of the Secretary-General This trust fund was established in 1990 to assist the Secretary-General in the exercise of his good offices and peacemaking activities in all regions of the world. The current balance of this fund is around $200,000. (c) Trust Fund for Preventive Action This fund was established in May 1997 to enable the Secretary-General to take early action to diffuse conflicts and to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts. This fund has a balance of some $2.7 million. (d) Trust Fund for Personal and Real Property willed to the United Nations This fund was established to receive personal and real property willed to the United Nations to be used for the furtherance of peace. Known as the Beulah Edge Fund (the fund derives its income from oil royalties bequeathed to the United Nations by Ms. Beulah Edge), this fund has a balance of some $4.0 million. It is to be used only for peace and security, and requires the personal approval of the Secretary-General. We were criticized some time ago by the External Auditors for having interpreted “peace and security” too literally. 2. Funding is required for (a) the Assistant Secretary-General in the Secretary-General’s office, (b) the Special representative of the Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict and (c) the former head of UNFIP. The first two could be funded from the Trust Fund for Special Projects. Unfortunately, the balance available in this trust fund could at best finance an Assistant Secretary-General for 4 to 5 months. There are no pledges or forthcoming contributions to this fund. It could have benefited from the recent prize which the Secretary-General got when he was in Korea. I

11 November 1998 • 559 understand however that the Secretary-General has indicated that this prize should go to the Trust Fund for Preventive Action. It will be difficult to raise funds for this trust fund as donors have become very reluctant to make contributions without specifying the purpose. 3. A case could be made that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict assists the SecretaryGeneral in the exercise of his good offices and peacemaking activities, even though this might be stretching it a bit. 4. With regard to the former head of UNFIP to whom I understand it is planned to assign responsibilities for the Millennium Assembly, funds should logically come from the regular budget. This could not be done without the concurrence of the General Assembly and I do not see the General Assembly agreeing to the creation of another high level post to be funded from the regular budget. 5. The situation at this stage does not look promising. I am exploring other options and will get back to you on Monday when I arrive in New York.

11 November 1998 Secretary-General Urges Iraqi Government to Resume Cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6790, IK/255); UN Special Commission I am saddened and burdened by the Iraqi decision of 5 August and 31 October not to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). I strongly urge President Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government to rescind its decision and resume immediate cooperation with UNSCOM and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. Iraq has maintained for a long time that it wants to see light at the end of the tunnel. I also want to see the lifting of sanctions, so that Iraq can regain its place among the community of nations. As I have said repeatedly, the only way to achieve this is for Iraq to fully cooperate with the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council had agreed on a way forward for a comprehensive review. I firmly believe that this offers Iraq a genuine opportunity. The comprehensive review will map out the remaining steps, provided Iraq cooperates, thus allowing them to see light at the end of the tunnel.

The Iraqi leadership’s decision not to cooperate with UNSCOM at a time when the Council was undertaking these efforts came as a surprise to me and, I suspect, to all Council members. I therefore appeal once again to President Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi leadership to take this opportunity to resume cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA. This would be good for the Iraqi people, for the region and for the world.

11 November 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, began today’s noon briefing by announcing that the Executive Director of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), Richard Butler, had been invited to the noon briefing to explain his decision to withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors from Iraq. (Mr. Butler’s comments are prepared separately.) During a press conference in Marrakesh, Morocco today, the Secretary-General had said he was saddened and burdened by Iraq’s decisions not to cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors, Mr. Eckhard said. The Secretary-General had strongly urged President Saddam Hussein to rescind those decisions and to immediately resume cooperation with the Security Council. He had said “that would be good for the Iraqi people, for the region and for the world”. The full text of the statement was available in room S-378. Further, Mr. Eckhard said the SecretaryGeneral had now decided to suspend his official visit to the Maghreb region of North Africa. He would fly back to New York tomorrow. At about 7:15 a.m., New York time, today, Mr. Eckhard continued, all UNSCOM and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) international staff members based in Iraq had arrived in Bahrain aboard a United Nations aircraft, following a decision by UNSCOM Director Richard Butler to withdraw them. The total of 103 passengers on the airplane had included 92 from UNSCOM and 11 from the IAEA. Later today, at about 5:30 p.m., New York time, 130 non-essential international staff from the oil-for-food programme, as well as from various United Nations agencies, such as the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization

560 • 11 November 1998

(WHO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Food Programme (WFP) and so on, would arrive in Amman, Jordan. They were now travelling across the desert in a convoy of eight vehicles and would be joined tomorrow by another 41 international staff and their dependents. Those staff members were being temporarily relocated until further notice. Remaining in Baghdad would be about 40 essential staff, the Spokesman went on to say, including Special Envoy of the Secretary-General in Baghdad, Prakash Shah; United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Hans von Sponeck; the heads of United Nations agencies working in Iraq; and five personnel from the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM), the operation on the Iran-Kuwait border that maintained an office in Baghdad. In the three northern governorates, 231 international staff would remain at work, including 69 United Nations guards. Mr. Eckhard then read the following statement issued by the Executive Director of the Office of the Iraq Programme, Benon Sevan: “The temporary relocation of non-essential international staff to Amman should not be interpreted as a suspension of the implementation of the oil-for-food programme. The departure of those staff should not affect either the export of oil or the arrival of supplies under the terms of the programme. In the 15 governorates in the centre and south of Iraq, the Government is responsible for the distribution of food, medicine and the other essential supplies provided under the humanitarian programme. The United Nations role involved monitoring this distribution. We will continue carrying out our responsibilities, albeit, at a significantly reduced level.” It should be noted, Mr. Eckhard added as part of the statement by Mr. Sevan, that the United Nations had a national staff of 524 in Baghdad. The United Nations staff in the three northern governorates of Dahuk, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah, where the United Nations was implementing the oil-for-food programme on behalf of the Government of Iraq, was comprised of 231 international staff and 809 national staff members. Those staff members would continue working. “The Security Council which had originally not scheduled a meeting for today has now scheduled consultations on Iraq at 3:30 p.m. at the request of the Russian Federation”, Mr. Eckhard then announced. . . .

A press release had been issued today in Nairobi by the WFP, Mr. Eckhard said, stating the Programme would double the amount of food assistance to north-west Rwanda in an effort to meet some rapidly growing needs of the increasing internally displaced population. The WFP had said that scores of Rwandan families had fled homes in the prefectures of Ruhengeri and Gisenyi to escape sporadic and violent rebel attacks that had claimed lives over the past months. . . . A correspondent asked what time the Secretary-General would return to New York and whether Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz would come to New York. Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General would arrive tomorrow at about noon and would perhaps work at home for the balance of the afternoon. There was no information about the Deputy Prime Minister coming to New York at this time. Would the Secretary-General consider meeting Tariq Aziz somewhere other than Baghdad? another correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said that, to his knowledge, there were no plans at the present for the two men to meet. What was the Secretary-General’s role regarding Iraq? another correspondent asked. Would he be undertaking any special initiatives? The Secretary-General would be here to monitor the Security Council’s deliberations, to confer with members of the Council and, basically, to stay on top of what was developing as a crisis situation, Mr. Eckhard replied. Had the Secretary-General been in contact with Saddam Hussein, or had he tried to be? a number of correspondents asked. Mr. Eckhard said that to his knowledge, the answer was no. “The Secretary-General deals with the Government of Iraq primarily through his Special Envoy, Prakash Shah, who in turn deals primarily with the Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz”, the Spokesman added. When asked if the Secretary-General had been in contact with the Clinton administration regarding the American military build-up, Mr. Eckhard said although he could not give details, the answer was yes and there had been telephone contact in the last 24 hours. Asked further whether that had been with United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Mr. Eckhard said he could not give details. Asked whether the Secretary-General would consider going to Baghdad at the request of the Security Council, Mr. Eckhard said he could not speculate on what the Secretary-General would do,

13 November 1998 • 561 but that refusing such a request from the Council would be difficult. When asked if the SecretaryGeneral was returning home on his own, or in response to a request, Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General had made the decision on his own. How long would the essential staff stay in Iraq and who would make the decision to withdraw them? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said Ambassador Butler would answer the question with regard to UNSCOM. However, as far as the oil-for-food programme was concerned, the move was a temporary withdrawal from the theatre, with the personnel involved remaining in the region. “The hope is that the crisis can be resolved and the people can get back to work. The idea is to be poised to resume work as soon as possible—if it’s possible”, the Spokesman added. . . .

13 November 1998 Letter (EOSG); Africa Letter sent to the heads of state of all member states of the UN. Excellency, It is now just a little more than six months since I submitted to the Security Council my report on “The Causes of Conflict and the Promotion of Durable Peace and Sustainable Development in Africa.” I thought this might be a good moment to update you on the many follow-up activities that are already under way. My report aimed to contribute to Africa’s progress in two distinct but related ways: first, by paying the peoples of Africa the tribute of truth— by candidly assessing their challenges and aspirations; and second, by proposing realistic and achievable recommendations for how those challenges can be met. I am very pleased—for Africa, and for the world—by the enthusiastic response and genuine commitments that the report has engendered. To begin, it is worth noting how widely the report has been discussed and its recommendations embraced within the United Nations. The Security Council convened at the Ministerial level in September and endorsed several practical measures for conflict prevention, the maintenance of peace and security, and dispute settlement in Africa. The General Assembly has had an extensive debate and is expected soon to adopt a supportive resolution. ECOSOC will address the report in depth during its next substantive session. During the Assembly’s General Debate, I con-

vened a meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and other High Officials of the OECD Development Assistance Committee. Elaborating on a letter I had sent earlier to the Birmingham Summit of the G-7 countries, I drew attention to several priority areas. I stressed in particular the need to increase the volume and improve the quality of official development assistance, and to provide significant debt relief for the poorest African countries by writing off all remaining official bilateral debt as well as making more flexible the terms and conditions of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC). I also urged that expanded access to the markets of the industrialized countries is ensured and investment flows to Africa increased. Participants warmly welcomed the initiatives; I am extremely gratified that several have since taken significant steps in these directions. In late-October, I was happy to see many of you in Tokyo at the excellent and timely conference on African development challenges hosted by the Government of Japan, where many of the same issues were productively addressed. As the coorganizer of the conference, we at the United Nations will do everything we can to see that the Tokyo Agenda for Action succeeds. The relationship between the global financial crisis and Africa’s prospects was a major topic of discussion during a visit to the United Nations by United States Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Once again I took the opportunity to stress the urgency of debt relief for Africa, and I stressed the necessity to take into account the impact of the crisis on the commodity exporting countries which have been particularly hard hit by the reduced demand for their products. A Panel of High-Level Personalities on African Development that I reconstituted in April and convened in October offered several fruitful ideas for further implementing the recommendations contained in my Africa report, especially in the area of debt and market access of African products. Within the United Nations Secretariat, literally dozens of events have been organized and projects undertaken as a follow-up to my report. They range across the entire array of subjects addressed by the report, from political and security matters to development and humanitarian issues. Indeed, the entire United Nations system has rededicated itself to the cause of Africa and its peoples—as witnessed most recently at the fall meeting of the Administrative Committee on Coordination,

562 • 13 November 1998

where the heads of all UN agencies supported the report and viewed it as an impetus for joint action. In sum, we have made a good beginning. The international community has come to understand better its obligations to Africa. At the same time, wherever my report has been discussed—in Africa as well as around the world—the need for reciprocal action on the part of Africa has also been stressed. African states must create the enabling environments for investment and economic growth; no one can be expected to invest in unstable or insecure neighbourhoods—a truth that holds for international and domestic investors alike. Moreover, the rule of the gun must be banished throughout Africa, replaced by the rule of law and the peaceful resolution of disputes—domestic as well as external. Without good governance, there will be no durable peace and no sustainable development. The United Nations, of course, already participates with African countries in each of these areas, and we are eager to form additional partnerships with you. Africa has every resource required to succeed politically and prosper economically. Africa’s sons and daughters deserve no less. Therefore, let us forge a new partnership between the international community and Africa’s leaders to do what is right; let us show ourselves worthy of Africa’s virtually unlimited potential. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

14 November 1998 Letter (EOSG, S/1998/1077); Iraq Letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Hans Dahlgren. Following is a letter sent to Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq from the Secretary-General on 13 November 1998, and a letter to the Secretary-General from Tariq Aziz, deputy prime minister of Iraq. As I informed the members of the Security Council at the conclusion of yesterday’s meeting, I had decided to address a letter to President Saddam Hussein. A copy of that letter is attached. When transmitting my letter through the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations, I stressed the urgency of my appeal, while reiterating my strong hope that Iraq would immediately rescind its decisions of 5 August and 31 October and resume full cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA. I am glad to inform the Council that this morn-

ing I received a positive response to my appeal from Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. I attach an unofficial translation of this response which I hope the members of the Council will have an opportunity to study before this afternoon’s meeting. I should appreciate it if you would share this letter and its attachments with the members of the Security Council. * * *

As you may know already, I interrupted an official visit to North Africa yesterday and returned to New York in view of the worsening crisis with regard to Iraq. This afternoon and evening, I met with the members of the Security Council for four hours in order to review the situation. I can report to you that without exception, all the members of the Security Council expressed preference for a diplomatic solution of the crisis. As you are aware, I have made continuous efforts myself over the past three months to bring about such a solution. The Security Council also unanimously endorsed the press statement I issued in Marrakech on 11 November in which I addressed a personal appeal to you, Mr. President, to take the necessary steps for a diplomatic solution to become possible. For ease of reference, I am reproducing below the text of this press statement. “I am saddened and burdened by the Iraqi decision of 5 August and 31 October not to cooperate with UNSCOM. I strongly urge President Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government to rescind its decision and resume immediate cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors. Iraq has maintained for a long time that it wants to see light at the end of the tunnel. I also want to see the lifting of sanctions, so that Iraq can regain its place among the community of nations. As I have said repeatedly, the only way to achieve this is for Iraq to fully cooperate with UN Security Council. The Security Council had agreed a way forward on a comprehensive review. I firmly believe that this offers Iraq genuine opportunity. The comprehensive review will map out the remaining steps, provided Iraq cooperates, thus allowing them to see light at the end of the tunnel. The Iraqi leadership’s decision not to cooperate with UNSCOM at a time when the Council was undertaking these efforts came as a surprise to me and, I suspect, to all Council members. I, therefore, appeal once again to President

14 November 1998 • 563 Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi leadership to take this opportunity to resume cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA. This would be good for the Iraqi people, for the region and for the world.” The Security Council remains actively seized of this matter. I should, therefore, be grateful for an early response to my appeal. * * *

Excellency, Your letter dated 13/11/98 addressed to President Saddam Hussein was presented to a joint meeting of the Revolutionary Command Council and the National Command of the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party presided over by His Excellency the President. I was entrusted with the task of conveying to you the following: The goal sought by Iraq from its decisions of 5 August and 31 October was not to sever the relationship with UNSCOM and the IAEA and to cease the implementation of its obligations under section C of SCR 687. The objective of Iraq is to end the suffering of its embargoed people and to see the implementation of paragraph 22 of SCR 687 as a first step for lifting the other sanctions. Due to its trust in you and your good faith, the Government of Iraq has dealt with your initiative regarding the comprehensive review. But unfortunately, the deliberations of the Council on the procedures for carrying out the review did not result in a clear picture which ensures fairness and objectivity in reaching the implementation of paragraph (22) of resolution 687, which represents the declared objective of the comprehensive review according to your proposal. It is well known that the main reason for that was the American position, which does not represent the prevailing opinion of the Council. That position, contrary to your initiative, objected continuously to the presentation of any clarity in regard to the objective of the comprehensive review. Despite the assurances that we have received from you and from many members of the Council that supported the main objective of the comprehensive review, and despite the confidence we have in you and in the majority of the Council members and our belief in your good faith and sincerity, these assurances were not satisfactory because they did not meet the basics from our point of view. On the basis of what was stated in your letter, and in appreciation of the content of the letter of President Boris Yeltsin the President of the Russian Federation and Mr. Yevgeny Primakov,

the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, and the positive positions expressed and conveyed to us by China, France, Brazil and other States, and in order to give a further chance to achieve justice by lifting sanctions commencing with the implementation of paragraph (22) of resolution 687 (1991), the Leadership of Iraq decided to resume working with the Special Commission and the IAEA and to allow them to perform their normal duties in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and on the basis of the principles which were agreed upon in the Memorandum of Understanding signed with you on 23 February 1998. We offer this chance not out of fear of the aggressive American campaign and the threat to commit a new aggression against Iraq, but as an expression of our feeling of responsibility, and in response to your appeal and those of our friends. We affirm that the people of Iraq would not relinquish their legitimate right in having the iniquitous embargo lifted and to live normally like other nations of the world. We will be looking forward to seeing the outcome of your efforts and the review. Excellency, We rightly believe that if the comprehensive review were not to be a mere formality and to be free from the influences of the tendentious purposes, the adoption of the points we conveyed yesterday, 13/11/1998, to the Ambassadors of Russia, France and China, a copy of which I enclose herewith, will render the review serious, fair and fruitful. We expect that you will continue with your efforts to lay down the bases and the correct procedures for the review and so as to commence with as soon as possible. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Tariq Aziz Baghdad, 14 November 1998 Addendum to Letter of 13 November 1998

First, the goal sought by Iraq from its decisions of 5 August and 31 October was not to sever the relationship with UNSCOM and the IAEA and to cease the implementations of its obligations under section C of SCR’s 687 and 715. Second, the objective of Iraq is to end the suffering of its embargoed people and to see the implementation of paragraph (22) of SCR 687 as a first step for lifting the other sanctions. Third, Iraq expressed its readiness to engage in the comprehensive review which had been proposed by the Secretary General. But, as a result of

564 • 14 November 1998

American pressure, the results brought about by the consultations of the Council do not ensure an honest and objective review with the aim of implementing paragraph (22). Fourth, the position of Iraq on the comprehensive review is:

We hope that this will be done as soon as possible. Ninth, it is necessary that these assurances be communicated directly to the leadership in Baghdad either by the Secretary General or by a delegation from the Council.

1. The comprehensive review be carried out within a very short time, (seven days for example), after the resumption of UNSCOM and the IAEA of their normal duties. This is to be without conditions, (like those mentioned formerly in regard to what is called the confirmation of Iraq’s cooperation). 2. The comprehensive review fundamentally concentrates on paragraph (3) of the concept paper of the Secretary General of 5 October (the three Iraqi questions of 3 August) and emphasizes the question of evidence. 3. The Council be ready to implement paragraph (22) if the fulfillment of the requirements of section C of SCR 687 is established. 4. If the Council sees, through an objective study, that there are matters which need to be done, a short period be determined for their completion. Until that completion is reached, the Council implements measures for lifting or reducing sanctions in proportion to what has been fulfilled of the requirements of paragraph (22). Thereafter, the commencement with the implementation of paragraph (22) immediately upon the completion of the required work. 5. The Council assures the legal interpretation of section C of SCR 687 and that none of its members should impose additional conditions or restrictions on the implementation of paragraph (22).

15 November 1998

Fifth, the second phase of the review commence after completing the conclusions of the first phase. Sixth, the second phase of the review only encompasses the obligations determined by clear provisions of the resolutions and no matters be raised contrary to the legal interpretation of the resolutions. Seventh, the members of the Council and specially the permanent members abide by international law and the relevant resolutions of the Council in respect of all matters pertaining to Iraq. Eighth, the question of Butler and the structure of UNSCOM and its practices are important matters. The Council is to consider them seriously in order to ensure a good relationship in the future.

Secretary-General Says Diplomatic Solution to the Iraq Crisis Appears to Have Been Achieved

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6796, IK/257); Iraq Text of a statement given to the press by the Secretary-General, following consultations with the Security Council on the situation in Iraq. The international community had unanimously expressed its hope for a satisfactory diplomatic solution to the present crisis. It appears that this outcome has now been achieved. In common with many members of the Security Council, I am grateful to President Clinton for the courageous and difficult decision which he announced earlier today. This is a victory for all those who expressed their firm determination that United Nations Security Council resolutions must be respected. It is a victory for diplomacy and resolve. For the crisis to be put permanently behind us, Iraq must move swiftly to ensure complete and unconditional compliance. That is the best way towards the lifting of sanctions and a better life for the people of Iraq.

15 November 1998 Interview (OSSG); Iraq Interview with the Secretary-General by CNN Sunday. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, first of all, thank you very much for joining us. What’s your initial reaction to President Clinton’s comments regarding this crisis? SECRETARY-GENERAL: First of all, I think he was very statesman like, the statement was good, very strong, very balanced. I think that the entire International Community can subscribe to what he said. He did indicate what he expects of Iraq now that Iraq has decided to comply and listed a series of points, including unfettered access for the inspectors. I understand there have been some questions in Iraq as to whether this is acceptable or not, but I don’t see why they should have any

16 November 1998 • 565 problem because everything the President listed forms part of the resolutions and the M.O.U. They wrote Saturday accepting, so I don’t think there should be any problem. QUESTION: Do you expect Iraq to accept with what President Clinton said or at least to go along with the Security Council resolutions and your appeals to them? S-G: Yes, and it’s not just President Clinton. I have been in the Council for almost nine hours in the past few days and I am going back this afternoon. All the Council Members want compliance on the ground. There have been quite a lot of words, Iraq has indicated it accepts. Now it’s the time to test on the ground and all the Member States are keen to seek compliance and to seek action on the ground. And therefore I think they are all with President Clinton on this. QUESTION: Do you believe that inspectors should have the right to go wherever they want as soon as they are back in Iraq? S-G: I think that the resolution and the M.O.U makes it quite clear that they should be given access and the Iraqi Government in this letter accepts the resolution and the M.O.U. I think that the inspectors should be allowed to do their work and if Iraq were to cooperate with them and work with them to get the inspections over, then they are going to see light at the end of the day, sooner rather than later. QUESTION: Your role was essential in easing the last crisis in February. But yet do you believe that we are right back to where we were when you signed the Memorandum of Understanding with President Saddam Hussein? S-G: It is, it seems like a repetition of what happened in February. This one seems to be more complicated than February. And in February, after the agreement there was compliance there for a while and then we were back at the scene in October, in August sorry. I hope this time around we will have sustained cooperation and sustained effort and we will not be back to this because all the Member States do not appreciate these periodic crises and would want to see sustained cooperation with UNSCOM. QUESTION: Is the United States justified in saying that next time it will act alone and not go [to] the Security Council? S-G: Well, I am going back to the Council this afternoon and this issue will probably come up, but what I can say is that there is a lot of frustration and lot of displeasure with the inspections, with how the inspections are going on, that they

have not had sustained cooperation and some governments have made it clear that next time around there may not even be time for diplomatic appeals. Thank you. QUESTION: Just a final question, your role in all of this, as the final hours play out, with President Clinton speaking to you and your dealing also with the Iraqis, were you the key person in the middle? Were you a bargainer for both sides? How do you see your role? How does it play out in the final hours? S-G: Well, my role wasn’t major. I think you may say that I facilitated things but the decisions and the major roles were played by President Clinton, the Council Members, Prime Minister Major and all the capitals, I mean Prime Minister Blair sorry, Prime Minister Blair, President Clinton, all the capitals, Russians, the French, everyone was active in trying to get Baghdad back on board. So I see my role more as a facilitator than a major player.

16 November 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq/Kosovo Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for Secretary-General Kofi Annan, began today’s noon briefing by announcing that the Emergency Relief Coordinator and head of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Sergio Vieira de Mello, would be a guest at the noon briefing to talk about his recent trip to Central America and the efforts being made to coordinate relief assistance to the victims of Hurricane Mitch. (Mr. Vieiro de Mello’s briefing has been issued separately.) On Friday evening, Mr. Eckhard said, in consultation with the Security Council, the SecretaryGeneral had sent a letter to President Saddam Hussein of Iraq repeating the public appeal he had made in Marrakesh, Morocco, on November 11, for Iraq to return to compliance with Security Council resolutions, an appeal that had been endorsed by the Council. On Saturday morning, Iraq’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Nizar Hamdoon, had delivered to the Secretary-General a response signed by Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, the Spokesman continued. In that letter, Mr. Aziz had announced Iraq’s decision to resume working with the United Nations weapons inspectors on the basis of relevant Security Council resolutions and

566 • 16 November 1998

the Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretary-General and Iraq, signed last February. The Secretary-General had described the letter as a positive development. The threatened military strike against Iraq by the United States, reportedly in the process of being launched, had been called off by United States President William Clinton, Mr. Eckhard stated. The Security Council had met Saturday evening and a number of members had sought clarification on the wording of the letter by Mr. Aziz. Those clarifications had been provided in writing by Ambassador Hamdoon. The Council had taken no action when it had adjourned late Saturday night. The Secretary-General had kept in telephone contact with senior United States, Iraqi and other authorities throughout the night, Mr. Eckhard continued. On Sunday morning, President Clinton had announced that the United States would delay military action following Iraq’s recommitment to complete compliance. The Secretary-General had described the President’s announcement as “statesmanlike” and had said that “the entire international community would welcome his decision”. The Council had scheduled a meeting at 3:30 p.m. Sunday, Mr. Eckhard said. However, a CNN interview with Mr. Aziz had raised new questions among some Council members, as to whether during the interview Mr. Aziz had stated certain reservations with regard to the letter he had sent to the Secretary-General on Saturday morning. The President of the Council had therefore asked the Secretary-General to seek clarifications, which the Secretary-General had done through a telephone call to Mr. Aziz. The Secretary-General had then submitted the clarifications to Council members in the form of a note to the file summarizing that telephone conversation. The Council, in a press statement by its President, had then noted Iraq’s decision, and had thanked the Secretary-General for his efforts. The Executive Director of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq, Richard Butler, had said he would send his weapons inspectors back to Iraq on Tuesday, Mr. Eckhard continued. The head of the United Nations Iraq Programme, Benon Sevan, had similarly announced the return to Iraq of United Nations humanitarian workers as of today, Monday. The Secretary-General had described the outcome as a “victory for diplomacy and resolve”. Asked if the agreement would work, the Secretary-General had said he could give no guar-

antees, the Spokesman said. “I’m not sure, if there is a next time”, the Secretary-General had said, “that we would even have enough time for further diplomatic initiatives and appeals”. The SecretaryGeneral had concluded his remarks to the press last night by saying, “I have a mandate, I have a conscience and above all, I believe fervently in the Charter and in the ideals of the United Nations. That is what guides me”. Mr. Eckhard then said 86 UNSCOM and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) weapons inspectors would return to Baghdad on Tuesday via a United Nations flight from Bahrain, where they had been on stand-by since leaving Iraq last week. On Wednesday, another six UNSCOM staff would make the same journey. UNSCOM inspectors were expected to resume their duties on Wednesday. In addition, Mr. Eckhard said, word had just come in that the first group of 30 humanitarian workers returning to Baghdad had arrived on a United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM) flight from Amman, Jordan. In addition, four buses and six vehicles carrying a second group of 100 humanitarian staff had left Amman at 11:15 a.m. local time. They were expected to arrive in Baghdad before midnight local time. The remaining staff in Amman were expected to head back to their duty stations tomorrow. As had been reported, the more than 200 staff in northern Iraq had remained throughout the crisis. The Lloyds Register staff—the independent inspectors who had withdrawn on Friday—had returned to three of the four entry points to Iraq. There had been no interruption in the availability of essential humanitarian supplies to the people of Iraq, according to the Office of the Iraq Programme. On other matters, Mr. Eckhard said that following receipt of letters from the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the Security Council this morning had started to examine a draft resolution on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s refusal to cooperate with the Tribunal, particularly in relation to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in Kosovo. The Secretary-General’s report on Kosovo was on the racks today, the Spokesman said. It contained a report on the United Nations mission dispatched by the Secretary-General in response to a Security Council request for consideration of how the Secretariat might be ensured a first-hand capability in assessing developments on the ground, and in reporting to the Council on compliance with resolutions. Subsequent to that request, the Secretary-

16 November 1998 • 567 General noted in his report that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had established the Kosovo Verification Mission, charged with reporting to the Council. In his report, Mr. Eckhard continued, the Secretary-General had stated that “It is quite obvious that any need that might have existed for such a presence has been superseded by the decision to establish the Kosovo Verification Mission. Taking this into account and having considered options presented by the head of the Mission, Steffan de Mistura, I have decided against recommending a United Nations political presence in Kosovo, thus avoiding parallel reporting channels that might lead to confusion and overlapping in the field, as well as unnecessary financial expenditure”. Further, the Secretary-General had said, the effective and well-established coordinating role of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as the lead agency for humanitarian activities in Kosovo should be maintained and reflected in a formal agreement with the OSCE. Another report of the Secretary-General on the racks today concerned the United Nations Civilian Police Mission in Haiti (MIPONUH), Mr. Eckhard said. That mission had a mandate to contribute to the professionalization of the Haitian police, training an average of some 400 police officers per week. In his report, the SecretaryGeneral had noted that a fully effective Haitian police force did not yet exist, and he recommended that the Council extend MIPONUH’s mandate for another year until 30 November 1999. Haiti’s President, Rene Preval, had requested the continuance of such cooperation in a letter dated 22 October, and that position had been supported by senior management of the Haitian National Police. The Secretary-General had also reiterated his appeal for Haitian political leaders to negotiate an end to the political crisis, which had left Haiti without a functioning Government since June of last year. . . . “Today is the International Day for Tolerance”, Mr. Eckhard said, adding that in his message marking the occasion, the SecretaryGeneral had noted that the battle for tolerance and against intolerance still needed to be waged. “Without question”, the Secretary-General had said, “the conflicts of the post-cold-war world— from Bosnia to Rwanda—were all rooted in the absence of tolerance and the demonization of groups and ethnicities”. Those innocent and defenceless men, women and children who lost their lives were the ultimate victims of intolerance,

he had added, calling for education and knowledge to be used as the tools for winning the battle for tolerance. Teaching tolerance would be a priority for the United Nations in the next century. The full text of the Secretary-General’s message had been issued as Press Release SG/SM/6795. Mr. Eckhard then said the team appointed last August by the Secretary-General to evaluate existing evidence on crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge leaders in the years between 1975 and 1979 had arrived in Phnom Penh today and had begun its work. The team would also look into the feasibility of bringing Khmer Rouge leaders to justice, he added. . . . A correspondent asked for clarification on whether the letter sent by the Secretary-General on Friday night had been at the request of the Council, since the Security Council President had said there had been disagreement among Council members regarding the sending of the letter. Mr. Eckhard said the Council had debated sending a letter versus making a phone call and other options, and in the end the Secretary-General had said that under his own authority he would send a letter, after which there had been no further debate. Did the Secretary-General believe he could do business with Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said that was a question from last February. That’s why he was asking again, the correspondent said, in retrospect of all that had since happened. “The situation this time has been between the Security Council and Iraq”, Mr. Eckhard answered, explaining that the Secretary-General had described his role as “facilitator”, and that it was not an issue of whether the Secretary-General could or could not do business with Saddam Hussein himself. In response to a question about the time-frame for a comprehensive review for Iraq, Mr. Eckhard said that was now up to the Council. With the agreement that the UNSCOM inspectors could go back to work, the Council would presumably now make a decision regarding going forward with the comprehensive review. Did the Council need a message from the Secretary-General that inspections had resumed? “Yes, the Council had said that”, Mr. Eckhard answered, “so first let’s get the inspectors back to work and then we’ll see how long it takes”. Asked for more detail on what the Council would request as a message from the SecretaryGeneral, Mr. Eckhard said that on something of

568 • 16 November 1998

such importance, the message would probably be in writing. Asked whether the Secretary-General had a specific view on how long after resumption of inspections the comprehensive review would take place, Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General did not have a specific view on that. “Is it fair to say, in effect, that the United States Government was not willing to wait for the Iraqi Government’s reply to the Secretary-General’s Friday night letter, since President Clinton said he had given the order to launch the Tomahawk cruise missiles”? a correspondent asked. “It is possible that the quickness of the Iraqi response may have taken some people by surprise”, Mr. Eckhard answered. People in Washington? the correspondent asked. “And in New York as well”, the Spokesman said. Did that mean the Secretary-General’s letter writing skills were vastly underestimated in their ability to convince people? the correspondent continued. Mr. Eckhard said the correspondent could be the judge of that. “So now he doesn’t even have to travel to Baghdad, he can just send a note,” the correspondent pursued. Mr. Eckhard said that would be some relief for the budget. . . .

17 November 1998 Secretary-General Receives World Methodist Peace Award

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6797); peacekeeping Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at a ceremony where he received the 1998 World Methodist Peace Award, in New York. It is a very special honour for me to receive the 1998 World Methodist Peace Award. To follow in the footsteps of such peacemakers as Anwar Sadat and Mikhail Gorbachev is to be both humbled and inspired. Humbled, because their lives remain shining examples of courage, initiative and independence. Inspired, because they showed that one man’s conscience can change the world. I am also very grateful for your kind and generous words of introduction, and for the choice of readings today—readings which continue to guide me in my work and life. As you have heard, I received my primary schooling at a Methodist institution, the Mfantsipim School in Ghana. There, I was privileged to have teachers who understood the value of knowledge infused with a moral purpose. They knew that learning and education are the strongest bulwarks against evil and ignorance. And they taught me, in the spirit of faith, that suffering any-

where concerns people everywhere, and that the light of one candle can truly illuminate the world. Looking back today—from the United Nations—I value especially the lessons my teachers taught me about how we view the world around us, and how it views us. Once, I remember, Reverend Branful took out a large white sheet with a black dot in the middle, draped it over the blackboard and asked us “What do you see?” We all answered, “The black dot.” “Why only the black dot?” he responded. “Why only the negative? What about the vast white space around the black dot?” He was reminding us to always look beyond the obvious and beneath the surface, to bear in mind the larger picture, not to focus just on the blemishes. He was teaching us also to remember that there is more than one side to a story, and more than one answer to a question. To make peace between warring parties, to convince fighters to lay down their arms, and tyrants to give up their tyranny, it is critical to see conflicts in all their complexity. To make peace, we may sometimes have to shake the hands of aggressors and lend our ears to voices of enmity. For in the words of the late Yitzak Rabin, “We make peace not with our friends, but with our enemies.” Peace is never a perfect achievement. Why? Because it follows war. It follows suffering; it follows hatred; it follows the worst that man can do. To restore humanity from such hell requires the patience of ages, the will to see light when all is dark, and hope when all is bleak. Truly, it is the work of those who shall run, and not be weary, and those who shall walk and not faint. It is, alas, the work of the United Nations. It is why we were founded from the ashes of the most destructive war in human history. It is what we have sought to achieve for more than 50 years— from Africa to Asia, from the Balkans to Latin America—by keeping the peace, promoting development and protecting human rights. This year, as many of you know, we mark the fiftieth anniversary of United Nations peacekeeping. It is the fiftieth anniversary of the year when soldiers were sent on to the battlefield under a new flag and with a mission without precedent in human history: a mission of peace. It was an attempt to confront and defeat the worst in man with the best in man; to counter violence with tolerance, might with moderation, and war with peace. That mission has earned its place in history as the first example of what has come to be known as “peacekeeping”. Ever since then, day after day,

20 November 1998 • 569 year after year, United Nations peacekeepers have been meeting the threat and reality of conflict, without losing faith, without giving in, without giving up. Fifty years later, we cannot declare victory, but we will not concede defeat. We cannot claim that peacekeeping has been the answer to every conflict, but nor will we agree that it cannot contain any conflict. We cannot say that peacekeeping will prevent all future wars, but we maintain that it can help humanity make its future less scarred by war than its past. Too much remains to be done, too many innocents are dying even as we meet, too many conflicts can be prevented for us to leave the field and abandon all hope. At the beginning of peacekeeping’s second half century, we have recognized that peace itself is made up of many parts—personal security, freedom from fear and from want, the absence of war and the opportunity to exercise a free conscience without the threat of retribution. These essential conditions of human peace and human existence are what we call human rights. They are the rights of those “who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”—in the words of the same chapter from Matthew that Bishop Lindsey just read. This year, therefore, we also celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of another pillar of peace: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We do so at a time when human rights have made great strides within and outside the work of the United Nations. We are making human rights central to our peace-building efforts by ensuring that peacekeeping missions incorporate human rights into their core activities. We have learned that promoting human rights within a country not only assures justice within nations, but helps to assure peaceful relations between them. We have learned that human rights not only promote peace, but also prosperity, for they protect the free, unfettered flow of human ideas and initiative. The words of Isaiah so memorably quoted by Bishop Alvarez—that “they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall they learn war anymore”— may never be more than an ideal for humanity. If, however, in our service to the cause of the United Nations, we can help make that ideal more true than false, more promising than distant, more able to protect the innocent than embolden the

guilty, we will have done our part. If, in our efforts to protect and promote human rights, we will have made one more voice free to speak, and one more mind free to think and one more child free to thrive, we will also have done our part. We will have given peace a chance.

18 November 1998 Letter (EOSG); Great Lakes region Letter to the president of the Security Council, Peter Burleigh, transmitting the final report of the International Commission of Inquiry regarding the illegal flow of arms in the Great Lakes region. The report (S/1998/1096) is not included here. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to resolution 1161 (1998) of 9 April 1998, by which the Security Council requested me to reactivate the International Commission of Inquiry (Rwanda) and to submit an interim report to the Council on the initial conclusions of the Commission within three months of its reactivation, to be followed by a final report containing its recommendations three months later. By a letter dated 27 May 1998 (S/1998/438), I informed the President of the Security Council that I had reactivated the International Commission of Inquiry and reported on its composition. The Commission’s interim report was submitted on 19 August 1998 in document S/1998/777 and annex. The purpose of the present letter is to transmit to the Council the final report of the International Commission of Inquiry. As requested by the Council, the report contains the Commission’s conclusions, as well as its recommendations regarding possible measures to curb the illegal flow of arms in the Great Lakes region. In accordance with resolution 1161 (1998), the International Commission was financed by a Trust Fund. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Governments which have contributed to the Fund. I should be grateful if you would bring this matter to the attention of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

20 November 1998 Letter (EOSG); Bougainville Letter to the president of the Security Council, Peter Burleigh.

570 • 20 November 1998

Dear Mr. President, I write to inform you that, following my exchange of letters with the President of the Security Council last June (S119981506 and 507), the United Nations has established a political office in Bougainville to assist in the Bougainville peace process. Since August 1998, a senior political adviser has been in Bougainville as acting Chief of Mission, playing an active role in the promotion of a peaceful solution to the conflict. I am pleased to inform you that I have decided to appoint Mr. Noel Sinclair, former Permanent Representative of Guyana to the United Nations who twice served as President of the Security Council, to head this Office, formally known as the United Nations Political Office in Bougainville (UNPOB). In accordance with its mandate, UNPOB’s activities focus on working in conjunction with the Peace Monitoring Group (PMG), composed of military and civilian personnel from Australia, Fiji, New Zealand and Vanuatu, while maintaining the right to make independent observations and assessments; monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the peace agreements entered into by the parties to the conflict, including the activities of the PMG in relation to its mandate; and chairing the Peace Process Consultative Committee which is composed of representatives of the Government of Papua New Guinea, the Bougainvillean parties and observers from the PMG contributing States. Since the Bougainville peace process is in its early stages, I anticipate that UNPOB will remain operational until December 1999 to enable it to fulfil the mandate entrusted to it. I should be grateful, Mr. President, if you would kindly bring this letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

23 November 1998 Letter (UN archives); Iraq/oil-for-food program Formal affidavit, signed by the Secretary-General, authorizing Hans Corell to sign on behalf of the UN the letter concerning the extension of Resolution 986, which created the oil-for-food program. Full Powers

I, Kofi A. Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, HEREBY AUTHORIZE Mr. Hans Corell, Under-Secretary-General, the Legal Counsel, to sign on behalf of the United Nations the letter addressed to the Permanent Representative of Iraq

to the United Nations concerning the extension of the Memorandum of Understanding of 20 May 1996 between the Secretariat of the United Nations and the Government of Iraq concerning the implementation of Security Council Resolution 986 (1995) for an additional period of 180 days, effective November 1998.

23 November 1998 Letter (EOSG); Afghanistan Letter to the president of the Security Council, Peter Burleigh. Dear Mr. President, I should like to refer to the briefing by my Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, for the members of the Security Council on 4 November 1998, in which he reported that, in the course of his meeting with the Taliban leadership in Kandahar, he had raised the possibility of establishing a mechanism to prevent gross violations of human rights in Afghanistan. Since then, the Department of Political Affairs has been in contact with all the Afghan parties concerned with a view to moving this concept forward. I am now in a position to inform the Council that the Afghan parties have conveyed to me their agreement in principle to the deployment of civilian monitors in Afghanistan. Accordingly, with the Council’s agreement, I would intend to establish a Civil Affairs Unit with the United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan (UNSMA), which would initially be staffed by twelve civilian monitors, whose primary objective would be to monitor the situation and, through their presence, seek to promote respect for minimum humanitarian standards and deter massive and systematic violations of human rights and humanitarian law in the future. The deployment of civilian monitors would supplement the core role of UNSMA, which is to assist my Special Envoy in his peacemaking activities in Afghanistan, monitor the overall political and military situation, and maintain contacts with all Afghan factions as well as with governments and organizations concerned with the future of Afghanistan. The information gathered by the Unit would be included in the periodic reports on the situation in Afghanistan that I regularly transmit to the Security Council as well as to the General Assembly. Before seeking the formal consent of the parties to the establishment of the Civil Affairs Unit, I propose to send an assessment mission to Afghanistan, as soon as security conditions permit,

27 November 1998 • 571 in order to determine the exact mandate, composition and location of the civilian monitors. I should be grateful, Mr. President, if you would kindly make this letter available to the Members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

25 November 1998 Remarks by the Secretary-General upon His Arrival at UN Headquarters

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Pinochet AGENCE FRANCE PRESS: Mr. Secretary-General, is there a possibility that you might go to Libya during your forthcoming trip? SECRETARY-GENERAL: Well, as you know we have been working with the Libyan authorities to clarify certain aspects of the Security Council resolution, and the Council gave me specific tasks, including working with the Libyans to ensure delivery of the two [suspects] to the Netherlands. We have had very constructive discussions with Libyan lawyers, and mine. Mr. Corell has done a very good job working with them. I think we have offered most of the clarifications and I had hoped that we would be able to bring the issue to closure by the end of November. We are still pressing for that. If that doesn’t happen I will be in the region next week and the question has been raised if it would be helpful for me to go there and bring the issue finally to closure. I haven’t made up my mind yet but it has not been excluded. QUESTION: Do you have any comment on [inaudible] Pinochet? S-G: Obviously this is a very serious issue, and it is a very complex issue. It is an issue that is still before the courts; and you should understand why I should not comment. But I merely want to say that it is interesting how law is developing in this area; in this area of international humanitarian law. QUESTION: Sir, have you had any more personal contact with Mr. Tariq Aziz? S-G: Not recently.

25 November 1998 Secretary-General Welcomes Investigation of Reported Violence in East Timor

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6805); East Timor In the last few days, the Secretary-General and his Personal Representative for East Timor, Jamsheed

Marker, have been in touch with all parties concerned with regard to the situation in East Timor and the recent reports of violence and the allegations of a large number of civilian deaths. The effort to ascertain the veracity of these reports is continuing. The Secretary-General welcomes the announcement that the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights will conduct an investigation. Meanwhile, the SecretaryGeneral is eager to maintain the continuation of the talks between Indonesia and Portugal under his auspices. As part of the ongoing process of consultations, United Nations officials will visit East Timor shortly. Mr. Marker will also travel to Indonesia and East Timor in mid-December.

27 November 1998 Secretary-General Speaks of Peace Process on Palestinian Solidarity Day

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6808, PAL/1863); Palestine Text of the message delivered by the SecretaryGeneral on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, which is observed annually on 29 November. On this day 51 years ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution which, if implemented, would have created an Arab and a Jewish State in Palestine, living side by side in peaceful coexistence. Year after year, this anniversary provides the international community with an opportunity—and an obligation—to refocus its attention on the distressing fact that, after more than half a century, the issue of Palestine remains unresolved. Since taking office, I have made every effort to support the peace process in the Middle East—and to mobilize the resources of the United Nations family to help create an economic and social environment favourable to peace. When I visited the region earlier this year, I witnessed the hardship and deprivation caused by decades of conflict, as well as the yearning on all sides for a peaceful future. I took the opportunity to appeal to the leaders of all parties to continue building on the achievements of the peace process, to make every effort to resume the negotiations in earnest, and to take the difficult decisions needed to move towards reconciliation and cooperation. The recent signing of the Wye River Memorandum by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, coming as it did after many months of uncertainty and concern over the

572 • 27 November 1998

future of the peace process, is an encouraging development. In approving the agreement, the Government of Israel has shown its readiness to continue on the road, so courageously embarked upon by its predecessor, of accommodation with the Palestinian people and their chosen representatives. We earnestly hope that this agreement will be implemented in all its aspects and will pave the way for the resumption of negotiations on all tracks. Regrettably, incidents of violence by elements opposed to the peace process have continued to cost lives and to mar progress. They must be condemned. I appeal again to the parties not to be swayed by such incidents, but instead, to redouble their efforts in pursuit of a lasting solution to the conflict. It is necessary for the parties to address not only the manifestations, but also the causes of violence; to restore hope, mutual confidence and a spirit of partnership; and to work together for a future of peace, cooperation and good-neighbourliness. More than 50 years after the adoption of the resolution whose anniversary we mark today, and as we near the end of the process originally envisaged under the 1993 Declaration of Principles, positive advances along this road are needed urgently. It is also essential to create the political and economic conditions that will enable this hope to be realized in practice. A rapid improvement in living conditions in the Palestinian territories is an essential accompaniment to the peace negotiations. Real progress in the fields of employment, health, education, human rights and industrial and commercial development is urgently needed to strengthen support for the peace process. Despite the ongoing efforts of the United Nations entities present on the ground, much still needs to be done to alleviate existing conditions and to lay a solid foundation for future development. I firmly believe that the international community can and should go further. In particular, the serious financial situation faced by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) requires intensified efforts by all concerned to ensure that the quality and level of services for Palestine refugees can be maintained as an essential contribution to stability in the area. The United Nations family will continue to provide all possible expertise and assistance in humanitarian relief and economic and social development in order to contribute towards creating the necessary conditions for peace. And so, let

us seize this day to renew once again the firm commitment of the United Nations in support of the peace process. Let us rededicate ourselves to the objective of achieving a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East, in the interest of Israelis and Palestinians but also as part of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, so essential to peace and security throughout the world.

27 November 1998 Secretary-General Says Conflict in Africa Neither Inevitable Nor Intractable

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6807, AFR/116); Africa Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Africa-France Summit, in Paris. C’est pour moi un plaisir et un honneur de m’adresser à cette assemblée des dirigeants des pays d’Afrique. Permettez-moi tout d’abord d’exprimer toute ma gratitude au Président Chirac et au Gouvernement français qui accueillent cette réunion. Ils démontrent ainsi que la communauté internationale veut véritablement s’associer à l’Afrique dans sa recherche de la paix et de la prospérité. L’Afrique traverse une époque de profondes mutations et de crises graves. Nous sommes tous ici conscients de l’importance notre mission et résolus à mettre fin aux guerres qui déchirent le continent. Que nul n’en doute: seule l’instauration de la paix peut permettre au développement de prendre véritablement racine en Afrique. C’est pourquoi le thème retenu pour le sommet de cette année—“La sécurité en Afrique”—revêt une importance et une actualité toutes particulières. Nous savons tous que la sécurité a des dimensions très diverses—politique, sociale et économique—et que ces dimensions sont interdépendantes et indivisibles. Nul ne peut se sentir véritablement en sécurité s’il n’a pas accès à l’enseignement, à l’emploi, à la santé. Or, trop de fils et de filles de l’Afrique en sont encore privés aujourd’hui. Les coupables sont la pauvreté, la maladie, et la guerre. Nous savons tous aussi que sans la paix, sans la sécurité, sans la bonne gouvernance et la démocratie, aucune aide, aussi volumineuse soitelle, ne permettra aux Africains de sortir définitivement du chaos pour créer une véritable communauté africaine. Plus que jamais, nous devons garder cette réalité à l’esprit. De la Guinée-Bissau à la Sierra Leone, du

27 November 1998 • 573 Soudan à l’Éthiopie et à l’Érythrée et de la République Démocratique du Congo à l’Angola, la violence et la guerre ensanglantent notre continent. Trop nombreux sont les Africains tués par les conflits. Trop nombreux sont les innocents qui ne peuvent exercer les plus fondamentaux des droits de l’homme. Trop nombreux sont les enfants qui n’ont pas la moindre possibilité de mener une vie simplement normale. Et trop nombreux sont les dirigeants qui, ne connaissant toujours que la raison du plus fort, veulent régler les différends non par le pouvoir de la raison mais par la force des armes. Comment faire pour que la raison l’emporte sur la rage, la modération sur la force, la tolérance sur la violence, la paix sur la guerre? Où trouver les solutions qui permettront à l’Afrique de régler ses conflits? Et à qui s’adresser pour trouver ces solutions? La réponse est très simple: nous devons compter sur nous-mêmes. Nous portons une lourde responsabilité. Les Africains de la prochaine génération observeront nos actes—ils les observent déjà, d’ailleurs—et se demanderont si nous avons tout fait pour préparer l’Afrique au XXIe siècle. Si nous leur avons donné la paix et la prospérité qu’ils méritent. Si les valeurs que nous leurs avons léguées sont celles du respect des droits de l’homme, de la tolérance et de la coexistence pacifique. The answers, my friends, will be in deeds and not words. They will be found in our determination to ensure pluralism within States, so that there can be peace between States. They will be found in our willingness to end conflict, so that development can be given a real chance. Yes, we must have African solutions to African problems. But the test of those solutions must be in their results, not in their origins. What matters is not who provides the solutions, but whether they provide lasting peace and equitable prosperity. That we can provide those answers, now and in the future, I have no doubt. Africa’s extraordinary human and material resources, the resilience and humanity of its peoples, the growing appreciation for the rule of law, the education of our youth—all these offer a potential without equal in our Continent’s history. We must now do our part. In my 20 months as United Nations SecretaryGeneral, I have done my best to make Africa’s security and development a priority. I have tried to focus the energies and ideas of the United Nations clearly and resolutely on Africa’s challenges. I said when I delivered my report on conflict in Africa to the Security Council last April, and I say to you again today: For too long, conflict in Africa

has been seen as inevitable or intractable, or both. It is neither. Conflict in Africa, as everywhere, is caused by human action, and can be ended by human action. But, that action requires imagination, persistence, patience and, above all, will. It requires the political will, specifically, to solve conflicts by political and not military means, to take good governance seriously, and to promote economic growth. Already, the follow-up to the report has begun within the United Nations, primarily in the economic area, but also including special conferences on Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Last week, the Security Council passed two new resolutions on Africa in response to my report, one on the safety of refugee camps, the other on illicit arms flows. These decisions illustrate the Council’s active concern for two issues which are critical to our Continent’s security. Indeed, it is worth noting that over 60 per cent of the Security Council’s work is devoted to African issues and other organs of the United Nations are not lagging behind. The General Assembly, after an extensive debate, is now ready to adopt a resolution which, among other things, will establish its own ad hoc mechanism for monitoring the implementation of my report. The Economic and Social Council, too, will address the report in depth during its next substantive session. During the Assembly’s general debate, I convened a meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and other high officials of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee, and drew their attention to several priority areas. I stressed, in particular, the need to increase the volume, and improve the quality of official development assistance, and to provide significant debt relief for the poorest African countries. I also stressed the importance of expanding access to the markets of industrialized countries and—perhaps most important of all in the long run—of increasing inward investment flows into Africa. But alas, my friends, we all know that no private investors—not the most far-sighted multinational corporation, nor yet the most patriotic African—are going to risk their hard-won capital in a chronically insecure neighbourhood. Without political stability and a predictable environment, neither investment nor development assistance will be forthcoming. Unhappily, in this respect, the seven months since the report’s publication have not been so

574 • 27 November 1998

encouraging. Long-dormant rivalries have reemerged to threaten new conflicts, while festering wars and unruly militias continue to inflict great suffering on civilian populations, making peace ever more distant. Many of these conflicts are rooted in a culture of armed intolerance, spread by self-interested leaders who use ethnic, religious or social diversities as pretexts. Yet, we know that Africa’s history is replete with examples of coexistence and cooperation across borders and creeds, defying difference and inspiring unity. What we also know, however, is that some leaders have exploited those differences and sown hatreds, where they could not provide peace or produce genuine prosperity. The consequences are apparent for all to see. In the wake of ethnic hatred, unspeakable crimes have been committed in Africa in recent years— above all the genocide in Rwanda. In too many parts of the continent, ethnic divisions continue to obstruct economic progress and good governance, making every peace fragile and every division explosive. And these conflicts affect the way the entire continent is seen by the rest of the world. I know this is very unfair. Some African countries have achieved very respectable growth rates and eminently deserve to attract investment. But, we are all affected by the negative image of a continent in crisis. It is a handicap we cannot afford, least of all at a time when events in other parts of the world pose a threat of financial contagion, causing many investors to become risk-averse. My friends, we must bring our collective focus to bear on the settlement of these crises in order to free up resources and energies for the essential task of economic and social development. We must remember that our economic position is weak in comparison to other regions—and would be so even if Africa were united. Divided and conflictridden, we simply do not stand a chance. My greatest anxiety at present concerns the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo—a war in which half a dozen or more other African States are now implicated. In this war, we may well face our greatest challenge. But, it is a challenge that holds lessons for all of Africa, in achieving both internal progress and external stability. In the Congo, as everywhere, what is needed is for all parties irrevocably to choose peace and compromise, turning their backs on violence and conflict. Above all, we must recognize that what happens within States will greatly affect what happens on the borders between them. States that promote

tolerance, respect human rights, invest in education, prize their ethnic diversity, and pursue responsive policies of governance will, as a general rule, be less vulnerable to external attack—and less prone to external adventure. In other words, by addressing the causes of internal malaise we can help ensure the absence of external conflict. And I’m glad to say that many African States are addressing their internal problems in a constructive way. Let me conclude on a hopeful note by mentioning recent events in one of them. In Nigeria, General Abubakar has seized the challenge of his country’s future. He has chosen the route of genuine democracy and the rule of law. Repression is lifting, political and financial accountability is taking hold. Nigeria’s prospects now seem brighter than they have for many years. I was privileged to assist this process, in a small way, by my visit to Nigeria last June. The United Nations will remain actively engaged, doing whatever it can to help bring the process to successful completion. We are not there yet. But, already Nigeria has shown us that sound and sober leadership, dedicated to discovering and implementing the people’s will, can transform a nation’s prospects and begin to create lasting wealth out of tragic waste. It shows us that the past need not be prologue, that we can turn a new leaf and learn from our mistakes, and that we can ask a new generation to shoulder Africa’s burdens with faith in the future. If carried through successfully and emulated by others, Nigeria’s experience will enable us to tell our children and grandchildren that, yes, we did choose peace, we did choose democracy, we did choose human rights. Let us pray we will be able to tell them that, in our time, Africa did find solutions to its own problems—and that they were the right solutions.

1 December 1998 Secretary-General Says Now is the Time to Renew Commitment to Globalizing Justice

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6815, HR/4390); human rights Message of the Secretary-General on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to be observed on 10 December. Human Rights Day 1998 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today, we celebrate the half-century of a United Nations milestone. We honour the

574 • 27 November 1998

encouraging. Long-dormant rivalries have reemerged to threaten new conflicts, while festering wars and unruly militias continue to inflict great suffering on civilian populations, making peace ever more distant. Many of these conflicts are rooted in a culture of armed intolerance, spread by self-interested leaders who use ethnic, religious or social diversities as pretexts. Yet, we know that Africa’s history is replete with examples of coexistence and cooperation across borders and creeds, defying difference and inspiring unity. What we also know, however, is that some leaders have exploited those differences and sown hatreds, where they could not provide peace or produce genuine prosperity. The consequences are apparent for all to see. In the wake of ethnic hatred, unspeakable crimes have been committed in Africa in recent years— above all the genocide in Rwanda. In too many parts of the continent, ethnic divisions continue to obstruct economic progress and good governance, making every peace fragile and every division explosive. And these conflicts affect the way the entire continent is seen by the rest of the world. I know this is very unfair. Some African countries have achieved very respectable growth rates and eminently deserve to attract investment. But, we are all affected by the negative image of a continent in crisis. It is a handicap we cannot afford, least of all at a time when events in other parts of the world pose a threat of financial contagion, causing many investors to become risk-averse. My friends, we must bring our collective focus to bear on the settlement of these crises in order to free up resources and energies for the essential task of economic and social development. We must remember that our economic position is weak in comparison to other regions—and would be so even if Africa were united. Divided and conflictridden, we simply do not stand a chance. My greatest anxiety at present concerns the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo—a war in which half a dozen or more other African States are now implicated. In this war, we may well face our greatest challenge. But, it is a challenge that holds lessons for all of Africa, in achieving both internal progress and external stability. In the Congo, as everywhere, what is needed is for all parties irrevocably to choose peace and compromise, turning their backs on violence and conflict. Above all, we must recognize that what happens within States will greatly affect what happens on the borders between them. States that promote

tolerance, respect human rights, invest in education, prize their ethnic diversity, and pursue responsive policies of governance will, as a general rule, be less vulnerable to external attack—and less prone to external adventure. In other words, by addressing the causes of internal malaise we can help ensure the absence of external conflict. And I’m glad to say that many African States are addressing their internal problems in a constructive way. Let me conclude on a hopeful note by mentioning recent events in one of them. In Nigeria, General Abubakar has seized the challenge of his country’s future. He has chosen the route of genuine democracy and the rule of law. Repression is lifting, political and financial accountability is taking hold. Nigeria’s prospects now seem brighter than they have for many years. I was privileged to assist this process, in a small way, by my visit to Nigeria last June. The United Nations will remain actively engaged, doing whatever it can to help bring the process to successful completion. We are not there yet. But, already Nigeria has shown us that sound and sober leadership, dedicated to discovering and implementing the people’s will, can transform a nation’s prospects and begin to create lasting wealth out of tragic waste. It shows us that the past need not be prologue, that we can turn a new leaf and learn from our mistakes, and that we can ask a new generation to shoulder Africa’s burdens with faith in the future. If carried through successfully and emulated by others, Nigeria’s experience will enable us to tell our children and grandchildren that, yes, we did choose peace, we did choose democracy, we did choose human rights. Let us pray we will be able to tell them that, in our time, Africa did find solutions to its own problems—and that they were the right solutions.

1 December 1998 Secretary-General Says Now is the Time to Renew Commitment to Globalizing Justice

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6815, HR/4390); human rights Message of the Secretary-General on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to be observed on 10 December. Human Rights Day 1998 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today, we celebrate the half-century of a United Nations milestone. We honour the

4 December 1998 • 575 highest of human aspirations and renew our promise to conquer the worst of human cruelty. We pay tribute to the minds of those who conceived of these human rights, and to the memory of those who died for them. And knowing the power of human wrong, we reaffirm our faith in human right—that faith which ultimately will sustain humanity through its darkest hours and help us defend our human rights where they are most imperiled. Human Rights Day 1998 is a day for all of us who enjoy human rights to imagine life without them—and to think how hard we would fight to retain them. It is a day for those who are still denied their human rights to dream again of asserting them, and to know that their dream is our dream—the dream of all human rights for all. It is a day for us to recall not only the rights attained over 50 years, but also the rights denied; to pursue the achievement of justice by all and for all; to defend against the abuse of human rights with greater vigilance than ever, and to pursue the violators of human rights with greater persistence than ever. It is the day to renew our commitment to globalizing justice in the age of globalization. I began this anniversary year by reaffirming the universality of human rights, and by arguing that human rights are foreign to no culture and native to all nations. From the streets of Asia to the towns of Africa to the courts of Europe, this past year has been a year of protest and progress. Rights have been asserted where regimes once ruled; justice has been delivered where impunity once reigned; and memory has been honoured where the powerful once enjoyed immunity. If only every year were to offer such hope, and prove to all that human rights cannot be denied where human beings live and breathe. But that is our challenge. To make it so. To make every day matter in the fight to broaden the horizons of human rights until that day when no man is tortured, no woman is abused and no child is denied his dignity—when all human beings enjoy their human rights.

3 December 1998 Letter (EOSG); Angola Letter to the president of the Security Council, Jassim Mohammed Buallay, with the following letter faxed to the Secretary-General from Jonas Malheiro Savimbi of the Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA). Dear Mr. President,

I have the honour to attach a letter dated 3 December 1998, from Mr. Jonas Malhelro [sic] Savimbi, President of UNITA. I should be grateful if you could bring the content of this letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. * * * His Excellency The Secretary General of the United Nations Organisation Koffi [sic] Annan New York Excellency, Please accept my respectful compliments. With this message, I would like to assure you, once again, of our total and unequivocal adherence to the Lusaka Protocol and its full implementation. We are ready to discuss paths ahead. It becomes imperative your Special Representative to our country, to come and see me so to find ways and means to avert the imminent war breaking again in Angola. In UNITA, we feel it to be a good decision to extend the mandate of MONUA for another period of three months. I also, do feel that the presence of MONUA in Andulo and Bailundo is important before, and during the full implementation of the remaining tasks of the Lusaka Protocol. I would appreciate it very much if this letter could be circulated among members of the Security Council as an official document. Please be assured of my total co-operation. Sincerely Yours, Jonas Malheiro Savimbi President of UNITA

4 December 1998 Letter (UN archives); Y2K Letter from US secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright. Dear Kofi, This letter is to follow up on our conversation regarding the December 11 meeting of Year 2000 (Y2K) National Coordinators that is being organized by the UN Informatics Working Group, chaired by Ambassador Ahmad Kamal of Pakistan. The low level of awareness and activity among many countries is a serious concern. I understand that your goal is to encourage broad attendance, especially from developing countries. I support that effort. Regional and global actions to resolve

576 • 4 December 1998

this problem will be essential and must expand to include more nations. I understand that you have agreed to address the conference. Your participation will serve as a clear indication of both the importance of the problem as well as the United Nations’ commitment to provide support to those who are addressing it. Thank you for your support for this effort. A response please. —K.A., 15/12

appeals to all concerned, including the Government of Angola, to exercise the utmost restraint so as not to endanger the lives of United Nations personnel, as well as civilians, and avoid further deterioration of the situation on the ground.

7 December 1998 Secretary-General Welcomes Release of UN Peacekeepers in Angola, Urges Parties to Implement Lusaka Protocol

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6820, AFR/120); Angola

4 December 1998 Secretary-General Calls on UNITA to Clear Withdrawal of UN Peacekeepers from Angola

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6818, AFR/119); Angola Almost one month ago, in view of the dangerous deterioration of the security situation in the central region of Angola, the United Nations decided to temporarily relocate the two team sites of the United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA) deployed in the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) strongholds of Andulo and Bailundo. This decision was made in consultation with the Security Council, which was fully briefed about the reasons behind the proposed relocation. So far, despite the persistent efforts of the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Angola and the Force Commander of MONUA, the UNITA leadership in Bailundo has refused, under various pretexts, to provide the necessary clearance for United Nations aircraft to land in Andulo and Bailundo in order to evacuate MONUA personnel. The Secretary-General is extremely concerned about the situation, with the 14 peacekeepers remaining in the above-mentioned locations. In its resolution 1213 (1998) adopted on 3 December, the Security Council stressed that it holds the leadership of UNITA in Bailundo responsible for the safety and security of these peacekeepers. Any restriction on the freedom of movement of United Nations personnel is intolerable and violates UNITA’s obligations under the Lusaka Protocol. The Secretary-General strongly urges the UNITA leadership and personally Jonas Savimbi to cooperate fully and immediately with MONUA in the withdrawal of United Nations peacekeepers from Andulo and Bailundo. This task has acquired additional urgency with the recent intensification of military operations around the two team sites. The Secretary-General

The Secretary-General was relieved to learn that, after a long ordeal, the 14 United Nations peacekeepers who had been deployed to the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) held areas in Andulo and Bailundo were successfully withdrawn today after the UNITA leadership in Bailundo eventually gave clearance on Saturday for the landing of United Nations aircraft to pick them up. They are currently in safety at the United Nations Observer Mission in Angola’s (MONUA) regional headquarters in Huambo (Angola). The Secretary-General is encouraged that reason has prevailed in the very difficult situation involving MONUA personnel in these two team sites, and that the principles guiding peacekeeping operations have been upheld. The Secretary-General once again commends the courage and perseverance of these peacekeepers and pays tribute to the professionalism and untiring efforts of Special Representative Issa Diallo, Force Commander Seth Kofi Obeng, and all the staff of MONUA as well as the United Nations personnel at Headquarters in New York, who have been patiently working for the earliest redeployment of these observers. Now that these United Nations peacekeepers are in safety, the Secretary-General reiterates the appeal of the international community to the parties to exercise the utmost restraint so as not to endanger the lives of MONUA and other international personnel operating in Angola, as well as innocent civilians. The Secretary-General also hopes very much that the release of United Nations personnel would encourage all concerned to proceed with full implementation of the Lusaka Protocol.

7 December 1998 Secretary-General Stresses Determination of Members of the GCC to Solve Disputes by Peaceful Means

7 December 1998 • 577 Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6821); Middle East Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the 19th Summit Meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Let me at the outset thank His Highness Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, the host and incoming president of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and the Government and people of the United Arab Emirates, for the hospitality I have been shown on this visit. On every trip to the GCC region, I have invariably been touched by the kind treatment I have received. This time, I am additionally honoured in being the first SecretaryGeneral to address the Council. And I am delighted that we are joined at this summit by a great African, Nelson Mandela. As the whole world knows, your region has shown itself capable of truly remarkable achievements. In just 30 years, a whole new world of lofty towers has sprung up along the Corniche where there were once only a few one-storey buildings. The juxtaposition of this metropolis with the blue waters of the Gulf is living proof of the literally life-giving importance of this waterway. But, alas, this summit takes place at a time of renewed tension in the Gulf—tension with which you are all too familiar. All the nations of the area lived through an exceptionally traumatic experience eight years ago—the consequences of which are unfortunately still with us today. When I went to Baghdad in February, it was in response to calls across the world—including from your governments—for a peaceful solution to the crisis in Iraq. The Memorandum of Understanding worked out then provided, I believe, a sound basis for averting confrontation and moving forward. But as I made clear at the time: the onus was on Iraq to proceed on that way forward—the way of cooperation and compliance. I was saddened and burdened, therefore, by the Iraqi decision in October not to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission. Iraq has maintained for a long time that it wants to see light at the end of the tunnel. We all know that sanctions are a very blunt instrument and, inevitably, cause suffering to innocent civilians, particularly women, children, older people and other vulnerable groups. In order to alleviate such unintended suffering, to the extent possible, while the sanctions are still in place, the Security Council adopted its resolution 986 more than two years ago in which it authorized the sale of Iraqi oil to pay for food, medicine and other essential

goods for the Iraqi population. On my recommendation, the Security Council authorized a significant expansion of this oil-for-food programme in January of this year in order to satisfy a number of unanswered needs of an essential nature. But the ultimate goal, of course, is to move towards the lifting of sanctions before long, so that Iraq can regain its place among the community of nations. The Security Council agreement to a comprehensive review offers Iraq a genuine opportunity to reach this goal. But, let me repeat what I have said all along: the way to achieve this is for Iraq to comply fully with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. I am grateful to you, the States of the GCC, for having added your voice to these calls on Iraq. The Government of Bahrain’s support for the work of the Special Commission as host to its field office is a valuable help to the United Nations. For that, the United Nations owes the Government of Bahrain a debt of gratitude. Let us also not forget that resolution 687 looks forward to the realization of “the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction” and “a balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region” using “all available means, including a dialogue among the States of the region” to achieve these objectives. The achievement of this goal would be a blessing, not only for the peoples of the Middle East, but for humanity as a whole. It is reassuring to know that the members of the GCC are strongly committed to this objective. A week ago we marked yet another anniversary for the whole of the Middle East. On 29 November, 51 years ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution which, if implemented, would have partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state, living side by side in peaceful coexistence. Year after year, this anniversary provides the international community with a reminder that, after more than half a century, the issue of Palestine remains unresolved. Since taking office, I have made every effort to support the peace process in the Middle East—and to mobilize the resources of the United Nations family to help create an economic and social environment favourable to peace. You, like me, have witnessed the hardship and deprivation caused by decades of conflict, as well as the yearning on all sides for a peaceful future. When I visited the area last spring, I took the opportunity to appeal to the leaders of all con-

578 • 7 December 1998

cerned to continue building on the achievements of the peace process, to make every effort to resume the negotiations in earnest, and to take the difficult decisions needed to move toward reconciliation and cooperation. The recent signing of the Wye River Memorandum by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, coming as it did after many months of uncertainty and concern over the future of the peace process, is an encouraging development. I know that you are concerned about the delay in the full implementation of the Wye accord, and that you have urged Israel to implement agreements with the Palestinians, as well as resume negotiations with Syria and Lebanon. We earnestly hope that this agreement will be implemented in all its aspects and will pave the way for the resumption of negotiations on all tracks. Regrettably, incidents of violence by elements opposed to the peace process have continued to cost lives and to mar progress. They must be condemned as must all acts of terrorism wherever and by whoever they are committed. I appeal again to the parties not to be swayed by such incidents but instead, to redouble their efforts in pursuit of a lasting solution to the conflict. It is also essential to create the political and economic conditions that will enable this hope to be realized in practice. A rapid improvement in living conditions in the Palestinian territories is an essential accompaniment to the peace negotiations. Real progress in the fields of employment, health, education, human rights and industrial and commercial development is urgently needed to strengthen support for the peace process. Despite the ongoing efforts of many donors and of United Nations entities present on the ground, much still needs to be done to alleviate existing conditions and to lay a solid foundation for future development. I hope all of you will support generously the work of the United Nations in that regard. Ultimately, in these conflicts as in all others, in this region as anywhere else, the key to peace lies with the parties themselves—for they know and understand better than anyone else what price they will pay in terms of continued conflict. But the fruits of peace—freedom from fear and freedom from want—can be understood by everyone. The history of this Council is an object lesson in that understanding. We can all draw inspiration from the commitment of the GCC to peaceful res-

olution of territorial disputes. The issue of Abu Mussa, the Greater Tunb and the Lesser Tunb, is a case in point. I encourage all of you to persist in your determination to resolve territorial issues by peaceful means. Let me therefore commend the wisdom of the United Arab Emirates—home to so many Iranian expatriates and with so many commercial links with the Islamic Republic—in opting for dialogue with Tehran with a view to achieving a mutually satisfactory resolution of the dispute. I am also encouraged to see that, following the Islamic Summit Conference in Tehran, a year ago, Saudi Arabia and Iran have engaged in a fruitful dialogue which will be beneficial to the whole region. I have since had the chance to meet again with President Khatami, when he became the first Iranian leader for many years to attend the General Assembly last September. I have been encouraged by the course adopted by the President and his Government, which I am confident will be helpful in achieving greater stability in the region. Regional organizations such as the GCC are the United Nations most important partners and allies; they serve to both complement and support the United Nations work. The indispensable role of regional organizations is foreseen in the United Nations Charter. Many such groupings have assumed observer status with the United Nations General Assembly. Should the Gulf Cooperation Council decide to join them, I am sure you would be more than welcome. Your main objective, under the GCC Charter, is to coordinate, cooperate and integrate your endeavours in all fields. Your successes in doing so—from security strategy to industry, from education to environment—are the very building blocks the region needs to achieve stability. At this time of continuing uncertainty in the region, the partnership between the United Nations and the GCC is of great significance—especially in the field of peacemaking and preventive diplomacy. The challenge of conflict prevention and conflict resolution goes to the very heart of the mission we share. The global challenges we face in today’s world require the international community to build bridges across regions and subregions. These bridges are two-way avenues for cooperation in which every country can and must play its part, within its means and its areas of strength. In three days’ time the international communi-

8 December 1998 • 579 ty will be marking a milestone: the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One year ago, on Human Rights Day, I opened a year of worldwide celebrations of Human Rights Day with a speech I made to students at the University of Tehran. Human rights, I said in Tehran, are the expression of those traditions of tolerance in all cultures that are the basis of peace and progress. Human rights, properly understood and justly interpreted, are foreign to no culture and native to all nations. It is the universality of human rights that gives them their strength and endows them with the power to cross any border, climb any wall, defy any force. The Universal Declaration itself was the product of debates between a uniquely representative group of scholars, many of whom came from the non-Western world. They brought to this historic assignment, the recent memories of world war and the ancient teachings of universal peace. The principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration are deeply rooted in the history of humankind. They can be found in the teachings of all the world’s great cultural and religious traditions—not least in the Arab and Islamic world. Let us never forget that it was the Prophet Mohammed, Peace Be Upon Him, who said, “All men are equal, like the teeth of a comb.” Let us listen when the Holy Quran tells us that “All believers, male and female, are responsible for each other.” This past year has been a year of hope. I wish every year would offer such hope, and prove to all that human rights cannot be denied where human beings live and breathe. But that is our challenge: To make this hope come true. So let us make every day matter in the fight to broaden the horizons of human rights until that day when no man is tortured, no woman is abused and no child is denied his dignity—when all human beings enjoy their human rights. Let us continue to build and reinforce the bridges between us. Let us act on the understanding that in this world, we are all responsible for each other. Let us work together for peace. Choukran, Wassalamu Alaikum.

7 December 1998 Letter (EOSG); Sudan Letter to the president of the Security Council, Jassim Mohammed Buallay.

Dear Mr. President, The Organization of African Unity (OAU) has invited the United Nations to participate in the OAU Ministerial Meeting on Refugees, Returnees and Displaced Persons in Africa which they are holding in Khartoum, Sudan, from 13–15 December 1998. The United Nations has also been invited to participate in a Meeting of Experts from 10–12 December 1998, which will also be held in Khartoum. The purpose of this important meeting is to discuss and find durable solutions to the urgent problems of refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa. As you are aware, Africa hosts millions of refugees, returnees and displaced persons and the United Nations, through its organizations and agencies, is deeply involved in assisting African governments and host communities in coping with the humanitarian and protection needs of these populations. In addition to this, I would like to underscore that the United Nations attaches great importance to the enhancement of the effectiveness of regional organizations and has been actively promoting its relationship with such organizations. In this connection, the United Nations has developed a constructive dialogue with the OAU on a number of issues including, most prominently, humanitarian related activities. Keeping this in mind, I firmly believe that the United Nations should participate in these important meetings. We are, however mindful of resolution 1054 (1996) of the Council in which paragraph 4 “Calls upon all international and regional organizations not to convene any conference in Sudan.” We are thus seeking the concurrence of the Council for the relevant United Nations Agencies to be represented at these two meetings in the Sudan on the grounds that their subject is of a humanitarian nature and represents a most important area of humanitarian involvement in Africa by the United Nations, its organizations and agencies. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

8 December 1998 Secretary-General Speaks at the 50th Anniversary of the Genocide Convention

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6822, OBV/82); genocide Message from the Secretary-General on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, observed on 9 December.

580 • 8 December 1998

Genocide shaped the founding of the United Nations. The men and women who drafted our Charter did not yet know the terror of possible nuclear holocaust. They did know of the actual Holocaust of Jews and others perpetrated by the Nazi regime. Indeed, the full revelation of that horror, in the spring of 1945, formed the backdrop to the work of the San Francisco Conference. It gave added urgency to the task of building an institution intended not only to preserve world peace, but above all to protect human dignity. Ensuring that genocide could never be repeated became, in many people’s eyes, the new world organization’s most important mission. Not surprisingly, therefore, genocide became [one] of the United Nation’s first orders of business. On 11 December 1946, the General Assembly declared it “a crime under international law”, which “shocks the conscience of mankind”. Two years later—50 years ago today—the Assembly adopted the legally-binding Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Convention entered into force in 1951 and 127 States are now parties to it. Alas, genocide is a word of our time, too. In this decade, in Africa and the Balkans, we have witnessed mass killings, ethnic cleansing, the systematic use of rape as a weapon of warfare and other horrendous atrocities, visited upon men, women and children solely because of the ethnic, religious or national group to which they belonged. By adopting the Genocide Convention, we had sworn to take action against the perpetrators of such inhumanity wherever it might occur. To our eternal shame, we did not do enough. Painfully and belatedly, the international community is now moving to fulfil its commitment. Tribunals are at work, trying and convicting some, at least, of those whose crimes will forever disfigure the histories of Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. On 2 September 1998, the International Tribunal for Rwanda handed down the first-ever verdict of an international court on a charge of genocide. But the question remains: Will we do better next time? There is sure to be such a test. Like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted the following day, the Genocide Convention points the way towards a world of justice and mutual respect. It establishes individual criminal responsibility—rulers, public officials and private individuals alike can be held accountable. It applies in peace and war. It even foresaw the creation of an International Criminal Court. In

Rome this July, the Statute of such a Court was at last adopted, defining genocide in the very words of the Convention. Preventing and punishing genocide is never a matter for one nation only. It is the duty of all humankind. Today, as we mark the Convention’s fiftieth anniversary, I solemnly call on all States to implement it, and those which have not yet ratified or acceded to it to do so without further delay. Let us all undertake to end this ultimate denial of human rights, and the impunity that has allowed it to continue. We cannot restore life to the victims. But there is one fitting way to honour their memory. This time we must mean it when we say: “Never again!”

8 December 1998 Secretary-General Applauds Petition with 10 Million Signatures Supporting Human Rights

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6826); human rights Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris at a ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At the ceremony, the SecretaryGeneral received a book representing 10 million signatures in favor of human rights from the secretary-general of Amnesty International. I am overwhelmed at this response. The tidal wave of these signatures tells us that for this anniversary, the people have spoken; 10 million have indeed got up, signed up and made their mark for human rights. Amnesty International and The Body Shop deserve all our thanks and admiration for making this happen. This movement, in which people have voted with their pens, their computers and their fingerprints, reflects many times over the true universality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. First, these signatures—coming as they do from all corners of the world—spring from as many cultures and countries as did the inspiration and the people behind the drafting of the Declaration itself half a century ago. The document was the product of debates among a uniquely representative group of scholars, most of them from the non-Western world. They brought to their historic assignment the recent memories of world war and the ancient teachings, found in all the world’s great cultural and religious traditions, of tolerance, fraternity and universal peace. Second, this event reflects the fact that over the course of half a century, we have taken our

11 December 1998 • 581 work for human rights out of the conference room and into the countries, cities and villages of the world. As we meet here today, in the very building where the Declaration was signed, signatures are also being handed over to United Nations field offices worldwide. More and more of those offices are working to promote and protect human rights—joining forces with invaluable organizations such as Amnesty. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, and her team are currently providing technical assistance in no fewer than 58 countries. Third, this campaign illustrates the growing strength of the global partnership between the United Nations, civil society and the private sector. I have high hopes for what this partnership can achieve in the years to come. This is the new reality—this is the new diplomacy. Finally, the campaign has shown that electronic communications have truly become the tool of the people. In the service of movements like yours, any desktop can become a doorway to human decency. This is what happens when individuals are united by an unbending conviction and weapons as mighty as any we have seen this century: E-mail and the Internet. In 1997, those same weapons helped civil society bring about a ban on anti-personnel landmines. In this year of human rights, they enabled nongovernmental organizations to play a key role in the establishment of the International Criminal Court. I hope you will keep governments on their toes in 1999 and beyond. Here in Paris, right now, some 300 activists from 100 countries are doing just that. They are meeting to call on governments to help human rights defenders under attack. Half a century after governments had their say in the Universal Declaration, the Defenders’ Summit declaration will give voice to these exceptionally brave people—lawyers, reporters, trade unionists, ordinary men and women—who risk their freedom or even their lives to promote and uphold the rights of us all. We owe it to them, these defenders of our freedom, to do all we can to defend theirs. At long last, the pressure on governments has paid off. Tomorrow, 14 years after it was first proposed, the General Assembly will adopt a declaration setting out the rights of defenders and obliging States to protect them from violence, threats, retaliation, discrimination or any other arbitrary action. This official recognition is long overdue. This global petition for pledges has been an

appeal to the conscience of the world. We see the answer before us here today: 10 million names and fingerprints. We see the world saying yes to human rights. We hear a rousing and resounding pledge to do good, instead of a sullen and silent protest against evil. We witness 10 million people lighting candles together, rather than cursing the darkness alone. My 30 years in the United Nations have taught me that the international community is strongest when, in the first words of the United Nations Charter, it truly gives voice to “We the peoples”. That when we pull together from all corners of the world to change something, we usually can do it. When 10 million people say “I will do everything in my power to ensure that the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights become a reality throughout the world”, the chances are that they will be heard. When they pledge to do everything in their power, chances are they will do something very powerful indeed. I would urge those who have not yet understood this to listen very carefully today. For this is a day when the peoples of the world found common ground again. This is a day when the people have spoken, and they have spoken as one. This is a day when they have put our conscience on notice. We ignore them at our peril.

11 December 1998 Secretary-General Lauds Partnership Between UN and New York City

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6833, HQ/591); UN– New York City relations Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at New York University to the 4th annual conference on the New York City economy. It gives me pleasure to join you today for this conference on the New York City economy. It feels especially good for the United Nations to participate in an event hosted by New York City. I attach great importance to the New YorkUnited Nations partnership. You have a place in our work, and we have a place in yours. We are your neighbours and partners. We are good for the city’s economy. We help give the city’s streets their international flavour. And we are an important piece of the skyline. We even have Yankee fever. During a trip to Japan in October some of my staff were not at all upset when they were told that, for reasons of protocol, they could not participate in certain meet-

582 • 11 December 1998

ings. I must admit I found that a bit strange. When have you ever heard of a bureaucrat not wanting to attend a meeting? But when I emerged from the talks and stepped into the waiting room, I realized what was happening. The World Series was on TV. As for myself, as a resident for many years now, I am what E.B. White, in his classic essay, “Here Is New York”, called the third type of New Yorker: not a native, not a commuter, but a “person who was born somewhere else and came to New York in quest of something”. That something is the noble mission of worldwide peace and development set out in the United Nations Charter. In pursuing that mission, the United Nations and New York City are natural partners. We both stand for the power of diversity. New York is the home of Lady Liberty, while the United Nations is the torch bearer for human rights. Your “Big Apple”, and our “Blue Helmets”, are important symbols known throughout the world. You are the city that never sleeps; we are the Organization that never sleeps. Around the world, around the clock, New York City and the United Nations are in constant demand. Today that partnership is more important than ever. Of all the many reasons that New York is a world capital, perhaps most significant, in an age of globalization, is Wall Street. Wall Street is the heartbeat of the global economy and a powerhouse of job creation and growth. It is a leading barometer of our hopes and fears. The repercussions of even its slightest moves can be felt in nearly every city, town and village on earth. But let us not underestimate another reason that New York City is looked to for world leadership: the presence here of the United Nations, the world Organization. Security Council meetings keep the city in the spotlight. There are also our debates and decisions on issues ranging from poverty and environmental degradation to protecting children from deadly disease and aiding victims of natural disasters such as Hurricane Mitch. Our work is made up of nothing less than the leading economic and social challenges of our day. Until recently, Wall Street and the United Nations have gone about their business separately. Today, as a result of globalization and especially the global financial and economic crisis of the past 18 months, the global economy and the global polity are increasingly entwined. This is a world in which no country, and no city, can isolate itself. All of us are affected by what our fellow men and women are doing and thinking, wherever they may live.

Globalization draws us closer together. It offers many of us unprecedented opportunities, the chance to enjoy things our grandparents—and even kings of old—could not dream of. It brings some of us, at least, a better quality of life. Unfortunately, its effect so far has been anything but uniform. What started last year as an Asian financial crisis has now clearly become a global economic crisis. I believe it is not only economic, but social and political as well. Thousands upon thousands of people continue to lose their jobs every day, setting off a chain reaction of real hardship and potential instability. In a sense, this is the first major crisis of globalization. Globalization is the dominant feature of our times. We do not wish to reverse it, nor could we. But we do have to devise ways of managing it better. We have somehow to maximize the benefits while addressing its unpredictability. Wall Street, of course, has an indispensable role to play in shaping this new era. So does the United Nations. Our broad mandate, near-universal membership and worldwide reach all make the Organization uniquely well equipped to help forge a global response to a crisis which is global not only in the geographical sense, but also in the wide range of challenges it presents. The United Nations has a special responsibility to insist on the need for global solutions, based on global rules that are fair to all. We have a responsibility to ensure that nations do not react by turning away from each other, but by coming together to ensure stability, confidence and growth. And we have a responsibility to see to it that the interests of those hardest hit by the crisis are not forgotten. We must build a bridge between the Dow Jones Index and the Human Development Index of the United Nations. And so New York City and the United Nations must work together as never before. There is certainly no overestimating what New York brings to this relationship. Day in and day out, the Organization draws great strength from the intellectual, cultural and financial riches for which the city is a magnet. That’s what you do for us. But we also do a lot for you. Consider the range of work and our expertise. We promote democracy and literacy. We fight corruption and drugs. That much is well known. You might be surprised, however, to learn just how much the United Nations family does to encourage investment and trade. We protect copy-

11 December 1998 • 583 rights. We help governments open their markets, write business-friendly legislation and ensure regulatory consistency. In areas such as aviation, shipping, telecommunications and customs procedures, we set the technical standards that make international transactions possible. This is the vital “soft infrastructure” of the global economy. Globalization has been with us for a long time now, of course. But never before has it seemed to offer, at the same time, such terrific potential and such terrible risk. That dichotomy has been the backdrop for United Nations conferences held throughout the 1990s on issues such as human rights, population and women’s rights, and it forms the backdrop for this conference as well. Indeed, this gathering reminds me very much of discussions we had at one big United Nations conference two years ago, and are having in preparation for another gathering to be held here in New York in two years’ time. Two years ago, representatives of more than 170 countries got together in Istanbul for the “city summit”. New Yorkers were there in force, talking about infrastructure, about social problems such as homelessness and crime, and about finding ways to improve public administration in order to deliver the services people expect and pay taxes for. City Summit documents and agreements now form the basis for a course on urbanization in developing countries taught here at New York University by the Robert Wagner School of Public Service. City officials are also taking the lessons of the City Summit to heart. Police Commissioner Safir recently lent his expertise to United Nations Member States as part of our global “safer cities” initiative. And Comptroller Hevesi has taken a good look at the future needs of New York City and produced an exhaustive report detailing the repairs and investments necessary to keep the city’s schools, roads, hospitals and other essentials in good working order. He anticipates a funding shortfall over the next decade of nearly $40 billion. Here, too, the United Nations is pleased to do its part: every year, we contribute $2.2 billion to the city’s economy. Two years from now, the United Nations is planning to hold a Millennium Assembly—a special session of the General Assembly at which Heads of State from around the world will come together to articulate a vision for the United Nations in the new global era. New York City has always been a master at reinventing itself, adapt-

ing to new local and global realities. We, too, are heeding the winds of change. In the past year-and-a-half, we have carried out the most extensive reforms in United Nations history—a top-to-bottom overhaul of the bureaucracy, our procedures, our staff. But all the reforms in the world would be meaningless without agreement on our direction and priorities, and that is what the Millennium Assembly is all about. I can hear your minds working already, and yes, this does promise to bring the mother of all gridlock alerts. But if you recall, the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations went off without a hitch, thanks to the cooperation of New Yorkers as well as “New York’s finest”. The millennium may be an accident of the calendar. But it is also a compelling symbol of our hopes for an era of peace and prosperity, and I expect New Yorkers will want to be there at ground zero. I have great faith in the United Nations-New York partnership. You can count on me to do my utmost to see that the United Nations continues working for New York. I hope I can count on you, in turn, to help us: to support us in Washington on the chronic and debilitating problem of United States arrears; to continue the great tradition of New York philanthropy by considering United Nations agencies and causes in your plans for giving; and in the broadest sense to continue being a powerful voice for all people, which is New York City at its vibrant and multicultural best. This conference has set its eyes on the future, but this is also the time of year for retrospection. Nineteen-ninety-eight has been a year of anniversaries. Just yesterday we commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the day before that the fiftieth anniversary of the Genocide Convention. New York City, for its part, has celebrated the expansion of its borders in 1898, a move that consolidated the metropolis and catapulted it forward to a century of great achievements. Happy birthday, New York. Then, as now, there was great enthusiasm about the city’s prospects. In 1868, for example, a guide to the city contained the following passage: “New York, like the world it represents, is steadily though slowly growing better . . . The City . . . is destined, doubtless before another century has ended, to be the Metropolis of the world . . . Nothing can resist its progress . . . This City will be a country of itself, a nation in its strength, its resources, its incalculable riches”.

584 • 11 December 1998

Such exuberance is, of course, one of New York’s most endearing and inspiring traits, not least because there is so much supporting evidence around us. Fifty years ago, E.B. White was similarly hopeful as he watched the United Nations buildings rise in place of the slaughterhouses of Turtle Bay. He called it the “greatest housing project of them all”. And then, with thoughts of the Second World War and air raids still fresh in his mind, he wrote: “The struggling Parliament of Man . . . this riddle in steel and stone is at once the perfect target and the perfect demonstration of nonviolence, of racial brotherhood, this lofty target scraping the skies and meeting the destroying planes halfway, home of all people and all nations, capital of everything, housing the deliberations by which the planes are to be stayed and their errand forestalled.” Friends, the nuclear peril to which E.B. White was alluding, though somewhat diminished, is still with us. So are a range of other challenges that are of such global nature and consequence that I call them “problems without passports”. To address them we need blueprints without borders. But this is equally an age of great promise, and so we also need your imagination and vision. I know that New York City, a city of builders and dreamers, is among the most resourceful places on earth. A revitalized United Nations is likewise up to the task. Our partnership means a great deal to a great many people. May it prosper and endure.

11 December 1998 Secretary-General Calls on International Community to Spare No Effort to Meet Challenge of Y2K Issue

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6834, PI/1107); technology Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the meeting of the Working Group on Informatics devoted to the Y2K issue, in New York. Let me at the outset thank Ambassador Kamal for his invitation and for helping to draw attention to this important and pressing issue of our time. Y2K is a unique problem created by a very young industry. It is an issue which, if left unresolved, will impact everyone’s daily life in more ways than we know. Information technology can now be found almost everywhere: 1 billion telephones; 400 million personal computers; 100 million computers

connected to the Internet, to name but a few examples. There is no precedent in history for such a fast deployment of new technology. This takes the Y2K problem to every corner of the world. It has become increasingly clear that this simple problem does not have a simple solution. We are told, in fact, that tackling the Y2K bug is the largest and most complex project in the history of computing. It is a problem which, if unresolved, will be felt on two levels. On the national level, people face disruption in their daily lives. Energy supplies, supplies on supermarket shelves, public transport and health care will all be affected. This is in itself a major challenge. At the international level, the impact will be felt through the global interdependencies of trade, manufacturing, transport, energy generation and distribution, telecommunications and defence technology. International cooperation is crucial to minimize the impact on cross-border activities. And so, on behalf of the United Nations, I commend the initiative of the Informatics Working Group in organizing this event. As we stand on the threshold of the new millennium, your efforts are an example of how international cooperation is more indispensable than ever in managing the global issues of our time. Let us spare no effort in meeting that challenge head-on.

14 December 1998 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6837/Rev.1) SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am sorry to have kept you waiting a little bit. I just came from the dentist’s chair to come and face you. So you can see, I am a glutton for punishment. Nevertheless, I am sure you will be merciful this morning given what I have just told you. Incredibly enough, this year, my second as Secretary-General, has gone even faster than the first. I suppose it has been even more eventful. I thought it would be useful to meet you all before the holidays, to take stock and to look ahead. Many of the headline events in which I have been personally involved have, as usual, been issues of war and peace—in Africa, the Balkans, Afghanistan and, above all, Iraq. The world has also been shaken by the nuclear tests in South

14 December 1998 • 585 Asia. But I am glad to say that there have also been some more welcome events, which are the fruit of strenuous efforts over a long period. I would mention, in particular, the agreement on the Statute of the International Criminal Court; the entry into force of the Ottawa landmine ban; the elections and formation of a new coalition Government in Cambodia, which has just resumed its seat in the General Assembly; and, of course, last week’s celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But the drama that has affected most people, all around the world, has been the Asian financial crisis. At least, that’s what we were calling it a year ago. By now we all realize that it is neither only Asian nor only financial. It affects almost the whole world, although in different ways. And it has affected whole economies, indeed whole societies—the ordinary lives of millions and millions of people. So in the coming year we face a double challenge. There is the perennial challenge of international peace and security. And there is the challenge of economic and social crisis, which really means the challenge of globalization and global governance. On the first point, we all know that none of the crises I referred to have been resolved. The best we can say is that in Kosovo and in Iraq all-out war has been avoided for the time being. But, unless people abide by their commitments, and unless they redouble their efforts to find peaceful solutions, we have every reason to fear the worst in 1999. These crises take up an enormous amount of the Organization’s time. It might be tempting to leave the economic and social issues to others. But, I am convinced that we cannot afford to do that. The connection between the two is too clear. Unless we tackle the underlying distortions and imbalances in the global economy, unless we start to provide the kind of global governance that is needed, we must expect more conflicts and even more intractable ones. Economic and political security are, and always have been, closely interconnected. I can already see a number of landmark events in 1999 that give us good chances to make that connection. In Davos next month, I shall be proposing new initiatives to the world business community. In May, there will be the centenary celebrations of the first great peace conference in The Hague. In June, we shall be holding the follow-up

conference on world population, five years after Cairo. But, much of next year will be devoted to preparing a report on the United Nations in the twenty-first century, which I have promised to submit to the Millennium Assembly: the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly, in the year 2000. As part of the preparations, we are going to hold informal events or hearings in various regional centres involving Member States, as well as nongovernmental organizations and the private sector. I hope these events will throw up many new and useful ideas on the objectives of the United Nations in the decades ahead and in all five areas of its work: peace and security; economic and social affairs; development cooperation; humanitarian action; and, of course, human rights. I am delighted to announce today that the MacArthur Foundation has agreed to donate half a million dollars towards the expenses. We shall set up a new trust fund to administer this money. Neither the Millennium Assembly nor my report to it will focus mainly on United Nations reform. We want to concentrate on the long-term role and purposes of the Organization. But, of course, that presupposes that reform must continue. I am pleased with what has already been achieved, and I think there is no doubt that we have a much more coherent and purposeful system than we did two years ago. I think that, when you talk to my colleagues, they will confirm that. But, I am still looking for further action on issues such as results-based budgeting, personnel management and time limits for new mandates. I hope 1999 will see decisive progress on those issues and, also, need I say it, on prompt payment by those Member States which are in arrears with their contributions. Let me now take your questions. QUESTION: Welcome, Mr. Secretary-General, on behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association. In view of what you said about the reforms having to continue, I wonder if one of those reforms will be the continued downsizing of the personnel in the United Nations family. S-G: I think we need to realize that there is a limit beyond which you cannot go. In fact, I recall a recent meeting, a couple of months ago, with all my Under-Secretaries-General, when one of them made the point that it is one thing to encourage efficiency, to encourage tightening of the belt and cuts; it is quite another to be subjected to a starvation diet over a long period. And he indicated that we may soon be cutting into the bone.

586 • 14 December 1998

I think we have done enough. I think we have cut the staff considerably, if you consider that barely 10 years ago the United Nations staff was at 12,500 and that today we are at 8,800. I think we should be allowed to focus on our work and not face constant harassment of reform, reform, reform. We have done enough. It is an ongoing process. We want to focus on our essential tasks. QUESTION: In the light of your ordeal today at the dentist, I should be asking about the so-called extraction force in Kosovo. I know that you are probably going to say that you have to wait for Mr. Butler’s report, but on Iraq, in the light of two weekly reports which noted several Iraqi blockades of inspectors, why do you think Iraq would deserve a comprehensive review at this time? Do they deserve one? S-G: Let me say that you are right: there is a report due from Mr. Butler, which I am waiting for. It will come either today or tomorrow. Mr. Butler has indicated that his assessment will be based on the overall operation, and not on this or that incident. You ask if Iraq deserves a comprehensive review. I am not sure that the comprehensive review is something that Iraq deserves or does not deserve. I think the Council itself would want to know, after eight years of sanctions, where it stands, what has been achieved, what needs to be done, and within what reasonable time frame it can be done. So, obviously, the Council will have to take a decision. But there are two sides to this idea of a comprehensive review. QUESTION: On Lockerbie, did you actually get any assurances from Colonel Qadhafi? It looks now as if they are just continuing to throw out roadblocks concerning the transfer of the suspects. S-G: I had a good discussion with the Libyan leadership, and my sense is that they have realized that they have come to the end of the road and that they have been given all the explanations and assurances necessary. My sense is that we are near a decision, and I think they will move in the right direction. But they will have to manage the process internally to decide how they turn the people around. We should not forget that in 1992 they got their People’s Congress to decide that the people should not be handed over, and I am told that they would need to get that group or the population to reverse itself. There are various groups and tribes involved in this, and so, presumably, they are determining how to manage the process to be able to move forward. My sense, when I left Libya, was that we were

moving forward and that we will be getting a decision. As to the time frame, I cannot answer that. They were aware of the tenth anniversary date, but what I can say is that I was given to understand that the decision would be taken and that it would not take an inordinate amount of time. I think the Foreign Minister also stated that at the press conference in Tripoli. QUESTION: The events you have just mentioned indicate that the United Nations and you personally have updated the concept of global security to a broader base. How is the United Nations going to adjust its role to secure that broad-based, updated concept? S-G: I think that we have already begun. We have been doing this at the country level in developmental work—not only the work of agencies like the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), but also with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and others. We are working with governments to try to improve the economic and social conditions. We are working with them in creating an enabling environment that will allow investments and release the creativity and energies of their own people. We are encouraging the private sector to go into some of these areas and work with the governments in coming up with the right regulatory systems for investments and all that. We are also pressing the governments to understand that the kind of climate that will attract foreign investment is exactly what you need to attract domestic investment, and nobody wants to invest in an unhealthy and troublesome neighbourhood full of conflict and crisis. So, we are working at various levels, and here in New York, through the Economic and Social Council and our own links, with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and in the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC). We are pooling our efforts to really have a greater impact on the ground, and I think this is also something that the United Nations leadership, whether through the development group, the humanitarian group or the development assistance group, has accepted, and we are pushing on. QUESTION: Did I hear you right, Sir? Did you say that there was every reason to expect the worst in 1999? S-G: I did say that unless there is the will to make the compromises and take the courageous decisions necessary, we could have serious problems in some of the troubled spots, yes. QUESTION: Do you see any inherent conflict of

14 December 1998 • 587 interest between the multilateral interests which the United Nations represents and the interests of the only super-power? S-G: First of all, I, speaking for the United Nations, represent what the Council and the membership at large say. There are areas where Washington’s policies diverge from those of the United Nations, and I think one case in point is that of Iraq, where the Council has made it clear that we should disarm Iraq, and the moment we get the indication from the inspectors, from Mr. Butler, that Iraq has been disarmed, sanctions will be lifted. American policy goes beyond that, but I am guided only by the United Nations policy. QUESTION (translated from French): The Congolese brothers who are fighting are to meet on Thursday in Ouagadougou. However, the meeting that was to be held in Lusaka was cancelled. In these circumstances, what value do the Paris agreements have? That is my first question. On Angola, violent combat is taking place with regard to the old National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) issues. What can the United Nations do? And what is happening with regard to the inquiry about the disappearance of Mr. Beye? S-G (translated from French): With regard to the first question, it is true that it was not possible to arrange the meeting at Lusaka, but the heads of State have been in contact. President Mandela and President Mugabe met together yesterday. I have been in contact with President Mandela and President Chiluba, and with Ibrahima Fall, who is on his way to Ouagadougou. I believe that things are developing. There have been discussions between President Chiluba and his Ministers and [inaudible], and I understood that they would also be in Ouagadougou. So it is my impression that they will make concrete the discussions that they had in Paris. There is a strong chance. We can never be 100 per cent sure, but I believe that things are going in the right direction. With regard to Angola, there is, effectively, a war. The United Nations cannot do a great deal because we do not have many people on the ground. We had to regroup our peacekeeping forces for their own security. The Council will soon be obliged to decide whether or not the United Nations has a role to play. If we cannot keep in contact with all the parties, can we really play a role? The Government is demanding the recognition of the second UNITA, which is based in Luanda. Thus, for some time, there has been no direct contact with Mr. Savimbi, and we will have to have a

comprehensive review of our operation in Angola. I have nothing more to tell you with regard to the death of our friend, Mr. Beye. QUESTION: You mentioned the global financial crisis. Indeed, there has been a lot of discussion in this house and outside on the way to tackle this crisis. So many countries have become victims of it already, including my own, Russia. Would you give us your vision of the United Nations role in these efforts? S-G: First of all, let me say that, in the past year or 18 months, there has been quite a lot of discussion about the world financial system—what some people have called the “world financial architecture”—and whether a new architecture is needed or whether the system is all right as it is and could work with minor adjustments, and if that is the case, what adjustments is one referring to? There has been quite a lot of discussion in Washington—here I am referring to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund—and we have discussed it in the ACC. As you know, last year we had three meetings on it—in April, in July and then, of course, in plenary meeting during the high-level segment of the General Assembly, when we devoted two days to it. What do I think we should be able to do? The United Nations, as the only global organization with the sort of convening power we have, should be able not only to ensure that all stakeholders know what changes are being discussed and for them to [inaudible]. And one can open up the debate, encourage discussion around here, even if the technical work has to be done by a much smaller group, so that we can associate the Member States with it and encourage them not to turn their back on globalization because there are some difficulties—because it has possibilities, and there are downsides or negative sides too that one will have to manage. But the United Nations can have a convening power of bringing everybody around to discuss technical or well-thought-out suggestions as to where we move next. QUESTION: On Iraq—you have made several comments over the last few weeks about the undiplomatic comments of the Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on the disposal of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Richard Butler, at a time when things are rather sensitive. Can you expand on what you meant by this? S-G: I thought what I said was very clear. I don’t need to expand on it. QUESTION: Is he losing your confidence?

588 • 14 December 1998

S-G: No, as I had indicated, he has a rather difficult job, and in this job there is lots of tension. We are all human when we are under tension. We say or do things that we normally would not do. I have discussed this with Richard Butler. I am not the only one to be careful in these tense situations, not to say things that would create problems. He has a job to do. I think it is possible to be firm and correct. QUESTION: Just a couple of follow-up questions, if you permit me, before I ask my question. SPOKESMAN: Only a one-point question. QUESTION: No, it is a clarification on your answer to Anne. You said that the Libyans seemed to you to be on their way towards taking a decision. Does that mean—are you saying—that all the sticking points in their minds were clarified during your visit there? Have you ironed out things related to sanctions and the place of imprisonment? That is just a clarification. S-G: I said, in my judgement, yes. And it was not done just on the ground. We have had their legal team here for weeks with us. So, we have had quite a lot of time with them. QUESTION: My question is actually about this very dramatic moment this morning; President Clinton in Gaza, addressing the Palestinian National Council, and the decision they have taken. And, in fact, there is a historic, dramatic moment of a President facing the possibility of formal impeachment—the President of the United States of America, no less. Can you reflect with us what you feel about this sort of dramatic event, both as far as the impeachment is concerned and as far as Mr. Clinton being in Gaza facing the Palestinians in their own land for the first time for an American President. S-G: I would comment on the second part of your question and not be drawn into the first. Let me say that I think it is important that President Clinton has gone to the Middle East in an attempt to push the peace process forward. It has been a difficult process. We had been at an impasse for quite a long time, and I am very grateful that he took the courageous decision to go at this critical time and see if he could make a difference. I hope that he will make a difference. And I urge the leaders in the region to work with him to push the peace process forward, and once we have been able to make real progress on the PalestinianIsraeli front, to return and tackle the Syrian and Lebanese fronts, and thus bring comprehensive peace to the region.

QUESTION: What is your assessment of the talks you held with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council during the summit in Abu Dhabi? S-G: I was able to meet them individually and collectively. I thought it was good that I went there. We did discuss problems in the Middle East. We did discuss the cooperation—economic and other cooperation—among themselves and with the Arab Emirates. Also, the question of Abu Musa and the two Tunbs came up. They have agreed to meet with the Iranian authorities to discuss it bilaterally. I encourage that very much, and since then I have also been able to talk to the Foreign Minister of Iran, who has also indicated a positive response. I think really it is a bilateral discussion between the two of them. I think what is happening in that region, and the cooperation between the countries of the region, is a good example for other countries in other parts of the world. QUESTION: Can you share with us your reading of the situation in Haiti? And also, when do you think that you will have the time to turn your attention towards this crisis that you yourself label as “disturbing” in your report? S-G: In fact, I have told you that if I do go, we will go together. And I still hold to that promise. No, I must say quite frankly, I have been disappointed with the progress that has been made so far. I thought that, at this stage, we should have been much further advanced. I thought that, at this stage, all Haitian leaders and patriots would pull together to improve the situation. I do not think the kind of cooperation—the kinds of compromises that are required—among the politicians, in power and outside power, to make this happen has not happened. We are pressing ahead, and I promise you I will go there myself. And you are welcome to come along with me. QUESTION: I would like to ask the reverse of Evelyn’s question regarding Iraq and UNSCOM. How satisfied are you with the rhetoric that has been coming out of Baghdad regarding UNSCOM and the inspectors? S-G: First of all, I do not think there should be any rhetoric when we have serious and hard work to do. I do not believe in megaphone diplomacy. I think you can get a lot done and you can just get on with it. The more one talks and the more one makes charges and accusations, the much more difficult relationships get. We do not have to love or like people to work with them, but when we have a job to do, at least we have to develop an instrumental relationship. That is the least we can

14 December 1998 • 589 do to get the job done, and relationship and communication should not break down. And, therefore, those who have the responsibility on both sides have to make sure that we stay on the job and remain professional and get the job done. I do not condone what Iraq has been saying, nor should they have said it. I just want them to get on with the job, get on with disarmament, cooperate with UNSCOM and get it done. QUESTION: A question about Vincent Cochetel, who was freed on the weekend. What information do you have about the conditions he faced while in captivity and what lessons can the United Nations learn from this episode. S-G: I think this year has been a rather sad and painful year for United Nations staff members working around the world. I see now we have lost many colleagues and I was quite relieved that Cochetel was freed. We are expecting a full report, once he has been looked at, once he has come out of the hospital and has had time to put some of these things on paper. Mrs. Ogata will send me a full report on this. It does appear that he was kept in rather harsh circumstances, and I think the reports I had indicated that he saw daylight 20 minutes a day. Whether this is correct or not, I will have to wait until I see the report. But let me say here that I would want to send my special thanks to Prime Minister Primakov, because I did meet the parents of Cochetel in Paris on Tuesday when I was at the Parliament and they were really distraught and torn because four others had just been killed, and I promised them I would call Prime Minister Primakov, whom I did call, and from the call I could tell he was still alive. So I could tell the parents that their son had not been killed and efforts are being made to get him out. I did call Prime Minister Primakov on Saturday to thank him for his efforts, and it does appear that he took personal charge and followed through on the release of this colleague, and I am very grateful to him and the Russian Government for having made the effort and I think it is a great Christmas present for the parents and for all his colleagues and, of course, for his immediate family. QUESTION: Not knowing about your tooth, the first thing I was going to ask you was whether you were planning to take any more trumpet lessons from Wynton Marsalis. S-G: He has offered. He has offered, but I am not sure I will be a good student. As you could tell, I could not get a sound out of the trumpet. I have a long way to go; to have a chance to take hold of

Wynton’s trumpet and not get a sound out of it with him standing there telling me how to do it, see, I am a lost case. But he has offered to continue the lessons. QUESTION: My serious question is: I know that you are seeing senior generals from both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United States today, and that during a briefing here in the past 10 days, we were told that the United Nations would like to see a 15,000-strong peacekeeping force going to the Congo once a ceasefire is agreed. I was wondering whether you could tell us whether that is related to your talks and more generally about the problem of United Nations peacekeeping and getting countries to give soldiers. S-G: No, I do not think I will be, directly. It may come up, but I am not meeting them to discuss that. First of all, the Council will have to discuss the issue and the Council will have to decide whether it wants to send United Nations peacekeepers to the Congo or not. If there were to be an operation in the Congo, it will obviously be very complex and difficult because, in that region, we are not talking only of governmental armies. We have a whole group of militias in the region, as well—what I call armies of the losers—roaming around, and whichever army units go in will have to be well equipped with the right force structure and the right strength to be able not only to undertake their mandate, but also to be able to protect themselves. But this, of course, is a decision the Council will have to take. Regarding the second part of your question, we have had some difficulties attracting governments to join peacekeeping operations in certain parts of the world, but I do not think we have fully overcome the Somali syndrome. The Somali syndrome affected Rwanda, and it is likely to affect any operation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but we should not give up. Of course, there is also the financial aspect. There have been governments whom we have approached for peacekeeping operations who have indicated they will not sign up until they receive what is owed them for previous operations in which we participated. QUESTION: Regarding Iraq and whether or not it deserves a comprehensive review, inasmuch as they blocked inspections last week, and also the question of documents. Do you regard those as violations of the previous agreements that they made both in mid-November and the agreements made with you earlier in the year?

590 • 14 December 1998

S-G: I think on that fateful November weekend, they did indicate that they were going to cooperate and made it clear that their offer to cooperate was unconditional and clear, and I had expected them to cooperate fully. Beyond that, I will have to await the report of Mr. Butler. QUESTION: This is a personal question. After two years as Secretary-General, do you feel the Organization is moving in the direction you want and do you feel you have accomplished at least half of what you want to accomplish? S-G: I do not think we have done too badly and I think the Organization is moving ahead. I think we are focusing on our issues, and there is greater cooperation and cohesion amongst the leadership. QUESTION: On United Nations policy on UNSCOM, it has been reported that UNSCOM has relied on Israeli intelligence over the years. How would you assess that cooperation in the light of the sensitivities of the countries involved in the region, and would you favour UNSCOM continuing to work with Israeli intelligence? S-G: Let me say that the resolution did encourage governments to work with UNSCOM. Where you draw the line is something that I think the Council will have to determine. Did it mean giving them vouchers, things they exported to Iraq or going beyond that? I do not know. This is an issue of which the Council is very much aware. Since the issue was raised, the Iraqis have written a letter to me on that subject, which I have passed on to the Council, since UNSCOM is a subsidiary organ of the Council, and I will, therefore, await the Council’s deliberations on that, if any. QUESTION: Since your report on Africa, a few more conflicts have erupted on the continent. Are you disappointed that things have not improved in Africa this year, and are you hopeful that the situation will improve? S-G: It is obvious that I am disappointed each time a conflict breaks out. In my job, I want to see peace break out all over the world. We have had an unfortunate situation on the continent, where not only do we have protracted and long drawn-out conflicts, but new ones are breaking out. And I made it clear in my speech to the African leaders in Paris that we need to focus on these crises collectively. We cannot even say, “I am okay and it is the other country that is in difficulty”, because these conflicts cast a shadow over the continent. When you mention Africa, they think of a continent in crisis. They do not go deeper beyond that to say that country A or B is doing well democratically or eco-

nomically. So, we all have to work to put an end to these conflicts to be able to focus on the essential work of economic and social development. And I would hope that—if we are able to get a handle on the crisis in the Congo; if we are able to resolve the difficulties between Eritrea and Ethiopia; it looks as if we are doing reasonably well in GuineaBissau—we may begin to contain some of these crises around the continent, and it is a must. QUESTION: I wonder if there will be much value to a comprehensive review if, as you say, the United States position goes well beyond the Council, that is, it will not be satisfied until the present regime is gone. So what is the value of a comprehensive review? Would you see it as a way of putting pressure on the Americans to change? S-G: No, I do not see it as a way of putting pressure on the Americans to change, but as being in line with the Council’s own resolutions. The Council’s resolutions are clear, and the Council must implement its own resolutions. Under the resolutions, once Iraq has disarmed, the sanctions would be lifted. The fact that there may be a conflict in the Council, because one or two members may disagree, does not mean that the Council should not move ahead and do what it has promised to do in its own resolution. Thank you very much and have a happy holiday. I will see you all tomorrow.

14 December 1998 Letter (EOSG); Cyprus Letter to the president of the Security Council, Jassim Mohammed Buallay. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to inform you about developments regarding my mission of good offices in Cyprus since the adoption of Security Council resolution 1179 (1998) on 29 June 1998. On 25 September and 30 September 1998, I met in New York with H.E. Mr. Glafcos Clerides and H.E. Mr. Rauf Denktash, respectively. In these meetings, I suggested that my Deputy Special Representative for Cyprus, Ms. Ann Hercus, begin a process of on-island talks with both parties with a view to reducing tension and promoting progress towards a just and lasting settlement. Both leaders expressed their support for such a process and promised to cooperate with it in a constructive and flexible manner. On 16 October 1998, my Deputy Special Representative began a sequence of confidential meetings with both leaders. Both sides agreed that

15 December 1998 • 591 these “shuttle talks” would involve three clusters of problems: reduction of tension, core issues, and humanitarian/goodwill issues. During the past eight weeks, there have been numerous meetings, as well as consultations with representatives of Greece and Turkey. I am encouraged by the constructive manner in which both H.E. Mr. Clerides and H.E. Mr. Denktash are engaging in these talks. I also consider it positive that both leaders have respected the confidentiality of the talks. Both sides have made clear their commitment to avoiding tension, building peace in Cyprus and the region, and achieving an overall settlement of the Cyprus problem by peaceful means. While each leader faces the difficult responsibility of representing in this process the views and aspirations of his side only, they have a joint responsibility for a concrete, mutually acceptable and forward looking solution. Now, when the talks are still in progress, the flexible approach by both sides provides hope for tangible progress in achieving the abovementioned objectives. The elements which are being discussed include, amongst others, a commitment to reject the use of force or the threat of use of force; a commitment to the prevention of further expansion of military forces and armaments as well as the consequent principle of substantial reciprocal reductions; and a confirmation of agreement to the UNFICYP package of measures aimed at reducing tension along the ceasefire lines and further possible steps, including demining. It is the declared objective that, with the above commitments, both sides will also continue working with my Deputy Special Representative towards achieving agreement on the core aspects of a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. H.E. Mr. Clerides and H.E. Mr. Denktash have indicated their wish that my initiative should continue. I welcome the progress achieved so far, which I believe is a significant contribution to the maintenance of peace and security in the region. I commend the two leaders for the statesmanship and vision which they are showing. In view of the ongoing process, and in order not to jeopardize possible progress, I am urging both parties to promote a climate of reconciliation and genuine mutual confidence and, in particular, to avoid any actions which might increase tension, including by further expansion of military forces and armaments.

Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

15 December 1998 Letter (UN archives); international law Internal note to the Secretary-General sent via his chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, from the under-secretary-general for legal affairs, Hans Corell. The Secretary-General signed the attached Act of Formal Confirmation. The purpose of this communication is to submit for your approval the Act of Formal Confirmation by the United Nations of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations, adopted at Vienna on 21 March 1986 (“the 1986 Vienna Convention”) (attached). The 1986 Vienna Convention was the last codification Convention adopted on the basis of a draft prepared by the International Law Commission prior to the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998. Subsequent to the adoption of the 1986 Vienna Convention, the General Assembly, by decision 41/420 of 3 December 1986, authorized the Secretary-General to sign the 1986 Vienna Convention. This action was undertaken on 12 February 1987. Although thought was given to requesting the General Assembly to authorize also an act of formal confirmation by the SecretaryGeneral, the Secretariat judged that it was premature to do so at a time when so few States had taken this step. It was also considered prudent to avoid a potentially divisive debate in the Assembly given that certain countries, including the Eastern European countries, were reluctant to allow international organizations to become parties or even sign international Conventions. You will recall that we revisited this matter in 1997 and that, with your approval, we encouraged participation in this major codification Convention drafted and adopted under the aegis of the United Nations by States and international organizations. This initiative was consistent with two of the key objectives of the United Nations Decade of International Law, namely, the promotion of the acceptance and respect for the principles of international law, and the encouragement of the progressive development of international law and its codification. During the 53rd session of the General Assembly, agreement was reached and under oper-

592 • 15 December 1998

ative paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 53/100 adopted on 8 December 1998, the Secretary-General was authorized to deposit, on behalf of the United Nations, an Act of Formal Confirmation of the 1986 Vienna Convention in accordance with its article 83. Participation by the United Nations in the 1986 Vienna Convention represents a major achievement in the context of the United Nations Decade on International Law and would constitute a significant step in ensuring an early entry into force of the Convention as other international organizations should conceivably follow the lead of the United Nations in this respect. We recommend that you sign the attached Act of Formal Confirmation. * * * Act of Formal Confirmation

This instrument constitutes the Act of Formal Confirmation by the United Nations of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations of 21 March 1986. CONSIDERING that the representative of the United Nations signed the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations on 12 February 1987; CONSIDERING that, by its resolution 53/100 of 8 December 1998, the General Assembly authorized the Secretary-General to deposit, on behalf of the United Nations, an Act of Formal Confirmation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations; NOW THEREFORE, I, KOFI ANNAN, SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, after having reviewed and considered the said Vienna Convention, do hereby sign this instrument which constitutes the Act of Formal Confirmation by the United Nations of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations of 21 March 1986 pursuant to Article 83 thereof. Done at New York, on the _____ day of December 1998.

16 December 1998 Secretary-General Speaks of Threat to Biodiversity

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6840, OBV/83); environment

Text of a message from the Secretary-General to mark the observance of the International Day for Biological Diversity, held on 29 December. The threat to biodiversity is a threat to every species on earth. We cannot continue to destroy wetlands, forests, marine and coastal habitats with impunity; the destruction caused by humankind now will, in turn, threaten to destroy future generations. On this fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention on Biological Diversity, I would like to highlight two issues. First, the need to recognize and act on the vital interrelationships between this and other related conventions, international processes and programmes to realize sustainable development. Second, the importance of a successful conclusion to the negotiations on a biosafety protocol within the framework of the Convention. Global environmental problems, such as the loss of biological diversity, deforestation, land degradation and desertification are interlinked. They are driven by the same forces. The magnitude of the devastation caused by Hurricane Mitch was due not only to the severity of the hurricane, but also to the damaged ecological resilience of the area, which in turn depends on the biological health of the ecosystems. Now, the prospects for rebuilding in the region are equally dependent on the health of these ecosystems. The same applies to many of the issues on the agenda of the United Nations. Natural resource and land-use management issues are central elements to biodiversity, conservation and sustainable development. The ecological reality of these interrelationships must be reflected in our political, legal and economic responses. This interdependence has been recognized in the Convention on Biological Diversity and in the way the United Nations seeks to address environmental and developmental issues in general. Indeed, the fundamental premise of sustainable development is that neither environmental nor developmental issues can be addressed in isolation. The challenge facing us today lies not only in acknowledging this link, but in acting on it. That means organizing our activities in a way which builds on the work of others. It means working together, rather than separately—or even at cross purposes. We can see an example of such cooperation, synergy and harmony at work in efforts to implement the Rio conventions—particularly in the links that are being developed regarding forests,

16 December 1998 • 593 marine and coastal ecosystems, and arid and semiarid ecosystems, information management and national capacity building. I urge the rest of the international community to support these efforts in whatever way possible. Negotiations on a protocol to address transboundary movement of living modified organisms are drawing to a close. Even though biotechnology has considerable potential to contribute to our development, it may, like other new technologies, also bring negative impact. I applaud the precautionary approach demonstrated by the Parties to the Convention negotiating this protocol. It should serve as an example for how we address other topics on the sustainable development agenda. Many difficult issues remain outstanding in these negotiations. To adopt and implement a protocol on biosafety will require considerable trust and understanding on the part of all countries concerned. I therefore urge governments and all others involved to approach the meeting in Cartagena in early 1999 in a constructive and flexible manner. We will need all your creativity and positive thinking to succeed.

QUESTION: Have you been notified of anything by the US? S-G: I did get a call from [US] Ambassador [Peter] Burleigh saying that they are asking US personnel in the region to leave. And they had also advised [UNSCOM head Richard] Butler to withdraw UNSCOM [personnel] and Butler and I spoke. And I have also spoken to the President of the Council. QUESTION: Have you ordered [UN] humanitarian personnel to leave? S-G: Some have left, but we have grouped them [those remaining]. We have grouped all of them, for their own safety, in one location in Baghdad. QUESTION: Russia says Mr. Butler exceeded his authority in pulling out and is too aggressive in his report. Will you defend him still now? S-G: I think this is an issue that the Council is going to be discussing, and I hope to be in the room. And therefore it would be premature for me to comment on your question. Thank you ladies and gentlemen; have a good morning.

16 December 1998

16 December 1998

Remarks by the Secretary-General upon Entering UN Headquarters

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Iraq QUESTION: There has been a lot of tough rhetoric from the US and Britain this morning about a military assault [on Iraq]. Would that be warranted now in light of the Butler report [on compliance, issued last night)? SECRETARY-GENERAL: Well, I think it’s an issue for the [Security] Council. You saw my comments and recommendations to the Council, and I’ll be talking to them this morning. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, you’ve twice intervened this year already to prevent military action. What do you expect to be doing in the next hour . . . ? S-G: It’s difficult to say, James. I would need to, I’ve been on the phone talking to people and talking to Council Members. And I’m sure the Council would want to be discussing this. But quite frankly, this is an issue for the Council. I wish you would ask them too; there are fifteen of them. QUESTION: Have you been in touch with [Iraqi deputy prime minister] Tariq Aziz or anyone on the Iraqi side? S-G: No I haven’t. I think I need to know what is happening on this side, before I...

Secretary-General Regrets That UN Efforts to Seek Peace in Iraq Have Proven Insufficient

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6841, IK/265); Iraq Statement to the press by the Secretary-General on United Kingdom–United States military action against Iraq, in New York. This is a sad day for the United Nations, and for the world. My thoughts tonight are with the people of Iraq, with the 370 United Nations humanitarian workers who remain in the country, and with all others whose lives are in danger. It is also a very sad day for me personally. Throughout this year I have done everything in my power to ensure peaceful compliance with Security Council resolutions, and to avert the use of force. This has not been an easy or a painless process. It has required patience, determination and the will to seek peace even when all signs pointed to war. However daunting the task, the United Nations had to try as long as any hope for peace remained. I deeply regret that today these efforts have proved insufficient. What has happened cannot be reversed. Nor can any of us foresee the future. All we know is that tomorrow, as yesterday, there will be still an acute need, in Iraq and in the wider region, for humanitarian relief and healing diplomacy. In both

594 • 16 December 1998

these tasks, the United Nations will be ready, as ever, to play its part.

16 December 1998 Secretary-General’s Advisory on UN Personnel in Iraq

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6842, IK/266); Iraq Text of a statement by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, following the reports of the military action against Iraq. This afternoon and evening (Baghdad time), 73 United Nations personnel left Baghdad, seven by the scheduled United Nations flight to Larnaca and 66 by road for Amman, Jordan. Of this number, 15 were dependants and four were leaving at the conclusion of a mission to Iraq. The Iraq-based staff who left today are taking planned vacations, a number advanced their leave plans. There are 133 international and 578 national staff remaining on duty in Baghdad, and another 232 international and 880 national staff in the three northern governorates of Dahuk, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah. All the United Nations international staff in Baghdad have been instructed to move immediately to the United Nations offices at the Canal Hotel. This morning (New York time), Lloyds Register, a United Kingdom company under contract to the United Nations, advised that it was withdrawing its staff from the port of Umm Qasr, from Al-Walid at the border with Syria, and from Trebil at the border with Jordan. Lloyds Register is continuing to provide independent inspection services at Zakho, at the border with Turkey. Lloyds Register authenticates and certifies the arrival of humanitarian supplies under the “oil-for-food” programme. The Office of the Iraq Programme is examining various options with a view to restoring full inspection services with the least possible delay in order to maintain the flow of food, medicine and other essential humanitarian supplies into Iraq. The independent oil experts (Saybolts) remain on duty, and there has been no interruption to the monitoring of oil exports from Ceyhan in Turkey or the loading platform of Mina Al-Bakr in Iraq.

16 December 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq

Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, opened today’s noon briefing by reporting that late yesterday afternoon the SecretaryGeneral had received a report from the Executive Director of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), Richard Butler, concerning the disarmament work of the Commission in Iraq. On the basis of that report and another communication from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on its work in Iraq, the Secretary-General had sent a letter to the President of the Security Council yesterday evening. In that letter to the Council on Iraq, Mr. Eckhard continued, the Secretary-General had suggested that the Council consider three possible options: no comprehensive review at this time; additional time for Iraq to demonstrate its commitment to provide full cooperation; or proceeding with a comprehensive review to know precisely what had been achieved in Iraq in the disarmament area since 1992. The letter was available as a Security Council document this morning. Overnight, Mr. Eckhard went on, the Secretary-General had received a telephone call from the Acting Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, Peter Burleigh, who had said that United States personnel in Iraq were being asked to leave. Also, Ambassador Butler had been advised to withdraw UNSCOM personnel. The Secretary-General had subsequently spoken with Ambassador Butler and with the President of the Security Council. Also last night, Ambassador Butler had instructed UNSCOM personnel to leave and the DirectorGeneral of the IAEA, Mohammed El Baradei, had decided to temporarily relocate its personnel from Iraq to Bahrain. A press release from the IAEA on that subject was available on the racks. This afternoon Baghdad time, 66 United Nations personnel had left Baghdad, seven traveling by the scheduled United Nations flight to Larnaca and 59 by road headed for Amman, Jordan. Of that number, 10 had been dependants, four had been leaving at the conclusion of a mission to Iraq, and all others had been headed for a planned vacation, some having advanced leave plans previously scheduled to be taken later. In Baghdad itself, 142 international and 578 national United Nations staff were still on duty; in the three northern governorates of Dohuk, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah, another 232 international and 880 national United Nations staff remained on duty. All United Nations international staff in Baghdad had

16 December 1998 • 595 been instructed to move immediately to the United Nations offices at the Canal Hotel. Further, he added, this morning New York time, a British company under contract to the United Nations, Lloyds Register, had announced the withdrawal of its staff from Umm Qasr port and the cities of Al Walid on the Iraqi border with Syria and Trebil on the Iraqi border with Jordan. Since Lloyds Register was charged with authenticating and certifying the arrival of humanitarian supplies under the oil-for-food programme, the Office of the Iraq Programme was examining various options with a view to restoring full inspection services with the least possible delay so as to maintain the flow of food, medicine and other essential humanitarian supplies into Iraq. Independent oil experts from the Saybolt Company had remained on duty, with no interruption to the monitoring of oil exports from Ceyhan in Turkey or the loading platform of Mina Al-Bakr in Iraq. Meanwhile, Mr. Eckhard said, the Security Council had begun a day-long open meeting today, shortly after 9 a.m., to discuss “maintenance of peace and security and post-conflict peace-building” with 37 speakers on the list. At 11:44 a.m., once all the Council members had spoken, the Council had interrupted the open meeting to hold emergency consultations on Iraq with the Secretary-General in attendance. Still meeting in closed consultations, the Council was expected to resume the open meeting in an afternoon session. (That open session was subsequently postponed indefinitely.) Yesterday, the Council had discussed the Western Sahara, Cyprus and, under other matters, the general question of sanctions. On the question of sanctions, the Council had decided to discuss the issue of a set of practical measures at an expert group meeting. The Compensation Commission, paying claims for damages arising out of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991, had concluded a two-day meeting in Geneva today, Mr. Eckhard then announced. In total, the Commission had awarded over $53 million for claims filed by 129 individuals and over $181 million for ten large claims filed by corporations from six countries. A press release with further details was available in room S-378. Following yesterday’s noon briefing, Mr. Eckhard went on to say, it had been announced that a press statement issued by the United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA) had stated that the Secretary-General’s Special Represen-

tative for Angola, Issa Diallo, and the Troika countries of Portugal, the Russian Federation and the United States, had urged the Angolan Government and the leaders of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) to ensure the safety and freedom of movement of all humanitarian personnel, including of MONUA. . . . Three journalists working as stringers for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in Sierra Leone were being held in police detention after arrest on 8 December under the “emergency powers regulations” imposing restraints on press coverage of the conflict there, Mr. Eckhard stated. The Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Sierra Leone, Francis Okelo, had made representations to the Government on the grounds that the action against the journalists violated the right of freedom of expression. The Special Envoy had also offered the assistance of the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) with regard to interpreting the emergency power regulations, effective since March, in a manner consistent with the right of freedom of expression. The development would be raised in the Secretary-General’s report on Sierra Leone to the Security Council, to be issued as scheduled either today or tomorrow. . . . Mr. Eckhard was then asked what time Ambassador Burleigh had called the SecretaryGeneral and he answered the time was not known. “I do know there were contacts with the SecretaryGeneral and with the Security Coordinator’s office rather late last night”, Mr. Eckhard added. A correspondent asked for a characterization of the contact between the Secretary-General and Ambassador Butler. Who had called whom and what had been the sequence of events with regard to withdrawals and notifications? Mr. Eckhard said he did not have answers to those questions. Both he and the Secretary-General had confirmed that the Secretary-General and Ambassador Butler had spoken but the sequence of contacts had not been clarified. On further questioning, Mr. Eckhard said that if the real question was whether Ambassador Butler had consulted the Secretary-General before acting or had acted before consulting the Secretary-General, “I have no answer for that”. [Later it was announced that the answer to the correspondent’s question was contained in a letter dated 16 December from Ambassador Butler to the President of the Security Council describing the sequence of events. Mr. Butler had informed the Secretary-General, rather than consulted him.] How was the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to Iraq, Prakash Shah, reacting to the crisis?

596 • 16 December 1998

a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said there was nothing specific to report on that. Mr. Shah was in Baghdad and “the last I heard, being besieged with requests for interviews”. “Are you confirming that all UNSCOM personnel are out of Iraq”? Mr. Eckhard was asked and he answered that Ambassador Butler had told the press this morning that the plane transporting some inspectors to Bahrain had in fact landed but the balance of the group was traveling overland. Mr. Butler had been headed to his office to confirm arrival of the overland group and while nothing had been reported to the contrary, confirmation of arrival had to be gotten from Ambassador Butler. A correspondent said the Executive Director of the Office of the Iraq Programme, Benon Sevan, had announced that humanitarian personnel were not being pulled out. Why? Mr. Eckhard said Benon Sevan had met with the Secretary-General at about 9 a.m. today and they had discussed the situation of the humanitarian workers. By then it had been 5 p.m. Baghdad time. Buses had been at the ready for transport of the personnel in case of evacuation and the Secretary-General had said sometimes it was safer just to leave people in place rather than move them. “Again, the issue was a ten-hour trip and the Secretary-General was undoubtedly thinking it was best to leave them in the hotel overnight”. Also, Mr. Eckhard added, the Secretary-General had wanted to hear the Security Council’s views in the consultations that had started a short time before. “Does that imply the Secretary-General had the feeling that if something were to happen, it would happen overnight local time”? another correspondent asked. “I don’t know if the SecretaryGeneral has any information on the timing of any event that might happen. If you’re talking about a military strike, the Secretary-General has no inside information on that”, Mr. Eckhard answered. Had the Secretary-General spoken with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz or anyone on the Iraqi side since entering the building? Did he plan to do so? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said that at 9 a.m. when the Secretary-General had entered the building he had not spoken with Mr. Aziz. The Secretary-General had then gone into an internal meeting from 10 to 11:30 a.m. That short window of opportunity made it questionable whether the Secretary-General could have talked with Mr. Aziz but he would double check, Mr. Eckhard said. In response to a series of questions, Mr.

Eckhard then confirmed that of the humanitarian workers, 142 international United Nations staff remained in Baghdad, all concentrated in the United Nations headquarters in the Canal Hotel. Of the 66 personnel who had left today, seven had travelled by plane and 59 by road to Amman, Jordan. There were no specific numbers on UNSCOM personnel. The 142 humanitarian staff were a range of international workers, involved in the oil-for-food programme or agencies involved in Iraq such as the World Health Organization (WHO). “I believe even the Under-SecretaryGeneral for Internal Oversight Services, Karl Paschke, has a staff member in Baghdad looking at the United Nations programme there. It’s bits and pieces from the United Nations system”, he added. Asked whether the Secretary-General would be meeting with the permanent representative of the United Kingdom today and why, Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General would meet with the permanent representatives of Austria, Germany and the United Kingdom to discuss the financing of peace-keeping operations. Asked whether the Secretary-General had met with the permanent representative of Iraq, Mr. Eckhard said, “to my knowledge, no”, adding that the small window of opportunity made it again unlikely the SecretaryGeneral had talked with the Iraqi representative even by phone but again, he would double check. Was there a breakdown on the number of women and children leaving? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eckhard said ten had been dependants of the 66 who had left today. Perhaps later there would be a further breakdown of those 66. Did the Secretary-General favour air raids on Baghdad? a correspondent asked, with regard to the alleged imminence of bombings. Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General had consistently urged a peaceful solution to the crisis and he had twice personally intervened to try and keep the diplomatic option alive. This morning, the SecretaryGeneral had been asked by a reporter, “You’ve intervened twice. What will you do in the next few hours”? The Secretary-General had replied, “The matter is in the hands of the Council. Please ask them”. . . .

17 December 1998 Letter (UN archives); Iraq Internal note from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, to the staff of the Executive Office of the Secretary-General.

17 December 1998 • 597 NOTE TO EOSG STAFF

Iraq

The Secretary-General has instructed that all matters related to Iraq should be dealt with by a group dedicated to this purpose, which would monitor all developments, and ensure that essential information is passed to the Secretary-General for his attention or decision. The group will be convened by Rolf Knutsson and will include Prof. Ruggie, Mr. Mortimer, Mr. Mack and Mr. Sevan. The Secretary-General will meet with this group as and when required. Thank you.

17 December 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq/Angola Manoel Almeida e Silva, Deputy Spokesman for the Secretary-General, began today’s noon briefing by recalling for the record the SecretaryGeneral’s statement of yesterday evening when he had said, “it was a sad day for the United Nations and for the world”. The Secretary-General had gone on to say, among other things, that “what had happened could not be reversed”, nor could anyone foresee the future. All that could be known was that tomorrow, as yesterday, “there will still be an acute need in Iraq and in the wider region for humanitarian relief and healing diplomacy”. In both those tasks, Mr. Almeida e Silva said, the Secretary-General had affirmed that the United Nations would be ready, as ever, to play its part. Mr. Almeida e Silva then said information had come in with regard to colleagues in Baghdad. “As we speak, it is now about 8 p.m. in Baghdad”, he began, stating that the 134 international United Nations staff in Baghdad had spent last night and today in the main United Nations office, a converted hotel in a Baghdad suburb. The Executive Director of the Office of the Iraq Programme, Benon Sevan, who was also the United Nations Security Coordinator, had been in contact with the Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Hans von Sponeck. When the bombing had started last night, United Nations staff had moved to a ground-floor corridor judged to be safest. During the first few hours, the explosions had occurred in other parts of town, but at about 3 a.m. three very loud explosions had occurred apparently near the United Nations building. Following a cold and restless night, Mr.

Almeida e Silva continued, international staff had woken this morning to find that their local colleagues, including those in charge of the building’s cafeteria, had come to work despite their own problems. Relations continued to be warm between international and local staff, and Mr. von Sponeck had thanked both for their support and extraordinary resilience under the difficult circumstances. On the oil-for-food programme, Mr. Almeida e Silva said “oil exports continue normally”. A ship had berthed this morning at the Mina Al-Bakr platform in southern Iraq and was loading oil. Operations were continuing at Ceyhan on Turkey’s Mediterranean coast. The Saybolt Company’s oil monitors remained in place. With the withdrawal of the Lloyds Register inspection agents it was likely humanitarian supplies into Iraq would be held up since those agents, charged with authenticating and certifying arrival of supplies, had left Umm Qasr port and the border crossings with Syria and Jordan. Seven agents remained on duty at Zakho, on Iraq’s border with Turkey. However, Mr. Almeida e Silva emphasized, there were stocks of food, medicine and other supplies within Iraq. In the 15 governorates of central and southern Iraq where supply distribution was carried out by the Iraqi Government while the United Nations carried out a detailed observation process, the observations had been suspended. Mr. Sevan was keeping the Secretary-General informed of all developments and the situation was under continuous review. Still on Iraq, Mr. Almeida e Silva said that at 3:30 p.m. today, the Security Council would hold informal consultations on the current situation there, being briefed by the Secretariat particularly on the consequences of the military action, the fate of humanitarian workers and the impact of the military action on the humanitarian situation in the country. Mr. Sevan, along with the Deputy Chef de Cabinet, Rolf Knutsson, was expected to brief the Council. . . . A number of additions had been made to the Secretary-General’s agenda for today, Mr. Almeida e Silva announced. At 12:50 p.m. the SecretaryGeneral would see the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov. At 2:45, he would see the Acting Permanent Representative of the United States, Peter Burleigh, and the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, Sir Jeremy Greenstock. Both those meetings were at the requests of the ambassadors. At 3:50 p.m. the Secretary-General would see the new

598 • 17 December 1998

Associate Administrator-designate of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Zephirin Diabre, whose appointment had been announced at the noon briefing just days ago. Relative to today’s Council consultations on Angola, Mr. Almeida e Silva read as follows from a statement attributed to the Secretary-General’s Spokesman. “The Secretary-General is deeply concerned that, despite his several public appeals, it has not been possible to avoid major fighting in the central part of Angola. The current hostilities represent a further setback to the efforts of the international community to reactivate the peace process and have resulted in a rapidly spreading humanitarian crisis. “The Secretary-General continues to believe that a lasting solution to the protracted conflict in Angola can be achieved only through full and unconditional implementation of the Lusaka Protocol and a process of genuine dialogue. In the meantime, he strongly urges the warring parties to desist from the present military confrontation and to ensure respect for human rights and humanitarian principles, including access to those who are in need. “In this connection, the Secretary-General is dismayed at the public statements attributed to senior Angolan Government representatives blaming the United Nations for the recent aggravation of the security situation in the country and the failure by the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) to demobilize all its forces. It is appropriate to remind the parties that all major decisions concerning the implementation of the Lusaka Protocol, including those on disarmament, were made by consensus between the Government, UNITA, the United Nations and the three observer countries to the peace process. The United Nations will soon have to decide whether it can still play a useful peacekeeping role in the present rapidly diminishing security and political space”. . . . Today, Mr. Almeida e Silva continued, Ambassador Marker had held a very useful meeting at Tipinang Prison in Jakarta with the jailed leader of the East Timor resistance, Xanana Gusmão, serving a 20-year sentence. Ambassador Marker was expected to call on President B.J. Habibie and to hold meetings with Foreign Minister Ali Alatas as well as Defence Minister and Armed Forces Commander General Wiranto. During a visit to Dili, East Timor, from 19 to 20 December, Ambassador Marker would meet with

the two Bishops of East Timor, Carlos Ximens Belo and Basilio Nascimento, as well as with Indonesian military and civilian officials and a cross section of East Timorese political and community leaders. Ambassador Marker and Mr. Vendrell were expected back in Jakarta on Sunday and would conclude their visit on 22 December. . . . A correspondent asked why the SecretaryGeneral had not made the decision to withdraw the humanitarian workers from Iraq when he had done so during the last crisis, if even just for reasons of safety. Mr. Almeida e Silva recalled that during yesterday’s briefing, the Spokesman had explained that at the time withdrawal was being discussed it had been too late for the group to undertake a trip entailing night travel. Remaining in place at the hotel had been considered safer. “The situation is under constant review between the Humanitarian Coordinator, Benon Sevan, and the SecretaryGeneral”. Did that mean there was not enough time, or no awareness of possible airstrikes, or even warnings of them, such as Ambassador Butler had been aware of? the correspondent asked. Mr. Almeida e Silva said there had been no advance warning that the strikes would take place. Asked by another correspondent whether it was fair to say that the Secretary-General had been surprised by yesterday’s development of using force “all of a sudden”, Mr. Almeida e Silva said anyone who had been following developments in Iraq could have anticipated the possibility. A correspondent asked about the “new diplomacy” the Secretary-General had mentioned in his statement on Iraq. Was a new diplomacy being considered and was the Secretary-General ready to jump in as soon as the current action was over? Mr. Almeida e Silva answered that as yet the situation was unclear and it was too early to give any indication of what the “next steps” would be or should be. In response to another request for a definition of the “healing diplomacy” mentioned by the Secretary-General, the Deputy Spokesman said a clearer view of how events were evolving would be needed for the Secretary-General to determine what next steps would be necessary. What had the Secretary-General been doing this morning? Had he been working the phones? With whom had he been in contact? a correspondent asked. The Deputy Spokesman recalled the Secretary-General’s agenda as amended during the morning briefing, adding that the Secretary-

18 December 1998 • 599 General had held some phone contacts with some capitals. When asked which capitals, Mr. Almeida e Silva said that information was unavailable. Asked if the Secretary-General had been in contact with Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz or other Iraqi officials, Mr. Almeida e Silva replied, “Not to my knowledge”. A correspondent asked if there had been any political motive in leaving the humanitarian workers in Baghdad since many, including Ambassador Butler, were stating that the actions taken had been foreseeable. “The situation with regard to keeping the staff in the hotel yesterday had been that it was safer to keep them there than to have them moving during the night”, Mr. Almeida e Silva said. . . .

ready to work closely with OIP to expedite the arrival of humanitarian supplies and emphasized the Committee’s willingness to make full and effective use of the non-objection procedure. OIP is in close contact with the Jordanian and Syrian authorities to allow for the continuation of authentication at the border crossings into Iraq, but on Jordanian and Syrian territory. With respect to the entry point from Turkey (Zakho), authentication services remain operational. I trust this information will clarify the present situation for the humanitarian agencies in Geneva. Thank you.

18 December 1998 Letter (EOSG); Kosovo

18 December 1998 Letter (UN archives); Iraq Internal note from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, to Sergio Vieira de Mello in reference to the Department of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA) and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). NOTE TO MR. VIEIRA DE MELLO

Thank you for your note of 17 December 1998, which I have discussed with the Secretary-General and with Mr. Sevan. The guidance on the questions you have raised follows: The Office of the Iraq Programme (OIP), to which responsibilities for the coordination of humanitarian assistance to Iraq was transferred from DHA last year, will remain responsible for the coordination of all activities in Iraq related to humanitarian assistance. Of course, OCHA will be expected to provide assistance as may be required by OIP, and undertake any other responsibilities assigned by the Secretary-General, and it is expected that consultation and coordination between OIP and OCHA will be maintained. Decisions on the security of United Nations humanitarian staff including evacuation when decided upon, remain a responsibility of the United Nations Security Coordinator, who presents recommendations to the Secretary-General in consultation with the entity(ies) affected. The SecretaryGeneral must give prior approval for relocation or evacuation of staff or/and dependents. OIP processes and submits to the 661 Committee applications for the export of all humanitarian supplies to Iraq. The Chairman of the 661 Committee stated that yesterday’s Security Council briefing on Iraq that the Committee stands

Letter to the president of the Security Council, Jassim Mohammed Buallay. Also included here is a report regarding stolen armored personnel carriers. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to information originally brought to my attention by the Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations concerning BBC Television news reports presented earlier this year in which two armoured personnel carriers (APCs), allegedly belonging to the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, were shown destroying civilian houses in Kosovo during the first week of March 1998. I was also informed that the two APCs shown might have been stolen in July 1995 from the Dutch Battalion serving with the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR). On the basis of the information provided, the Secretariat has taken the action outlined in the attachment to this letter. Taking into account the fact that it has proved impossible to resolve this issue in a satisfactory manner, and in accordance with the wish expressed by the authorities of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, I should be grateful if you would bring this matter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. Alleged Use of Stolen Dutch Armoured Personnel Carriers in Kosovo, 18 December 1998

On 6 March 1998, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Nine O’Clock News televised video footage in which two armoured personnel carriers (APCs), allegedly being used by the forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, were shown

600 • 18 December 1998

destroying civilian houses in Kosovo. The footage was also broadcast on other international television programmes, including the BBC Television programme Special Correspondent on 31 May 1998. A copy of a tape of the video recording is available for viewing in the Secretariat. Following the airing of the video footage by the BBC, Dutch military experts identified the APCs as being part of the YPR-765-type vehicles belonging to the Dutch battalion serving with the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which were stolen by the Bosnian Serb Army in Srebrenica in July 1995. This information was conveyed to the United Nations Secretariat, in early June 1998, by the Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations. In view of the seriousness of the charge, the United Nations Secretariat immediately requested the United Nations Liaison Office in Belgrade to seek clarifications from the Yugoslav authorities on the alleged use of the stolen Dutch APCs in Kosovo. The United Nations Secretariat also followed up the matter with the Charge d’affaires of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the United Nations. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, on its part, also pursued the issue bilaterally with the Yugoslav authorities. Following intervention by the United Nations, the Secretary of the Yugoslav Federal Committee for Cooperation with United Nations Peace Missions and the Multinational Force, Mr. Mile Pe˘sut, in a letter dated 26 June 1998 addressed to the Head of the United Nations Liaison Office in Belgrade, denied that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had the stolen Dutch APCs in its possession. The letter read in part as follows: The armoured personnel carrier make YPR-765 does not belong to the armaments and equipment of the Army of Yugoslavia and any linkage between it and our Army is tendentious and malicious. Likewise, this vehicle does not exist in the Police Force of the Republic of Serbia either, so that it cannot be spotted in the anti-terrorist campaign mounted by that Police in Kosovo and Metohija.

In light of this reply, the United Nations Secretariat, on 16 July 1998, requested the Permanent mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations to provide additional information on the exact time and place that the APCs had allegedly been seen, as well as on the source of this information, so that the United Nations could follow up further on the issue with the Yugoslav authorities.

In a letter dated 7 August 1998, the Charge d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands provided the United Nations with a copy of a video tape of the original and uncut recordings made by the BBC television crew in the first week of March 1998. The Charge d’affaires, in his letter, stated that the camera footing constituted clear proof that the armoured personnel carriers had been used in the willful destruction of civilian housing in Kosovo. He noted further that the resemblance between the missing Dutch APCs from Srebrenica and the APCs used in Kosovo was striking and that the Dutch military experts had no doubt that the APCs filmed in Kosovo were of the YPR-765 type. He further stated as follows: Since no other country has deployed ADCs of the type YPR-765 in the former area of operations of UNPROFOR, the FRY has never bought any YPR765 and has denied to own these APCs, this leads to the inevitable conclusion that the television recordings prove that the FRY used Dutch YPRs765 in Kosovo.

The Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands also provided the Secretariat with a copy of a declaration of authenticity, dated 4 September 1998, in which the Executive Editor of the BBC News Bulletins solemnly declared that the journalists responsible for the footage of the two armoured personnel carriers had confirmed that the pictures had been filmed near the village of Prekazi in Kosovo, in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in the early evening of 5 March 1998. Upon receipt of the additional information presented by the Dutch authorities and the copy of the tape of the video evidence from the BBC, the Secretariat again requested clarifications on the issue, particularly on the video footage, from the Yugoslav authorities. The Secretariat also requested that the Yugoslav authorities permit an independent team of international experts, led by the United Nations, to visit the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to assist in a further investigation aimed at resolving the matter. On 9 October 1998, the Charge d’affaires a.i. of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the United Nations informed the Secretariat that, following the warning by the Netherlands that there were indications that two Dutch UNPROFOR ADCs had been spotted in Kosovo and Metohija, that competent Yugoslav authorities had carried out an investigation and established that the said vehicles were not in the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The find-

18 December 1998 • 601 ings of the investigation had been conveyed to the United Nations and the Dutch authorities in the 26 June 1998 letter from the Secretary of the Yugoslav Federal Committee for Cooperation with United Nations Peace Missions and the Multinational Force. Accordingly, the Yugoslav side considered the matter closed and all future inquiries in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia unwarranted.

18 December 1998 Letter (UN archives); Secretary-General’s achievements Internal note prepared for the Secretary-General by Elisabeth Lindenmayer, special assistant to the Secretary-General, in response to a request for a summary review of achievements and setbacks by the UN in 1998. 1998: An Assessment of the Secretary-General’s Achievements

1. The Secretary-General’s involvement in Iraq made the difference between peace and war in February and, at least temporarily, in November by offering the Iraqis a face-saving device (by visiting and by sending a written appeal respectively). Irrespective of what now happens, he has proved that he can play a central role in such confrontations between individual Member States and the Security Council. 2. He has redefined his role vis-à-vis the Security Council in particular. He has thereby established his independence from the major Member States and has regained the trust of the other members of the Organization. He has made clear that he serves 184 Member States besides the US, as was clearly expressed in the recent New York Times article by Crossette regarding strategy on Iraq. Pending the establishment of a new world order, the UN has become a counterweight to the US in a unipolar world. 3. Yet, he has maintained the trust of the Security Council. The strength of his working relationship with it is evident in the regularity with which members seek his views. 4. Through such issues, as well as through establishing the panel of eminent persons on Algeria and his strong statements on human rights, he has positioned the Organization as the conscience of world. His successes have helped restore faith in the UN. 5. He has increasingly portrayed the United Nations as a forum with unique convening power. While the UN cannot impose norms on the inter-

national community, it can create a climate and provide a forum in which those norms are discussed and codified. This has been highlighted by the creation of the International Criminal Court, for which he gave strong support. 6. He has been at the heart of the debate on globalization and has brought in the IMF and World Bank to ensure that the UN system is involved in discussions of a new global financial architecture. 7. He has redefined the notion of security as it traditionally pertained to the United Nations and has broadened it from peace and security to such issues as the environment, drugs, terrorism. 8. He has placed Africa at the top of the UN’s political agenda and highlighted the adverse impact of instability on the social and economic conditions. 9. By appointing senior officials of high calibre, he has helped restore respect in the professional competence of the Organization. 10. He is developing the vision of the Millennium Assembly as an occasion for a profound reflection on the raison d’etre of Organization. 11. Over Iraq and Libya, he has shown his negotiating talents, courage and independence, inspiring trust in him as an honest broker. 12. He has highlighted his conviction that he has a moral duty and is led by his faith in the principles of the Organization. 13. He has maintained good relations with the press. Areas for Improvement in 1999

1. Greater contact with UN staff: more public encounters similar to the Town Hall meeting on reform would reassure the staff that the SecretaryGeneral is in tune with their concerns. 2. 1998 has seen a series of devastating losses of personnel. Danger is inherent in many field positions, but it is inexcusable for the staff to be exposed to needless risks on account of economy or accepting tenders from companies with questionable safety records. The staff need reassurance that the Secretary-General will not compromise on such issues. A message or speech to the staff in early 1999 could help allay some of these fears. The UN should establish the principle that in certain situations, when Member States themselves do not wish to risk casualties, the UN will not necessarily deploy its own staff. 3. If meetings with visitors continue to crowd out internal meetings with managers, the former must be scaled back.

602 • 21 December 1998

21 December 1998 Remarks by the Secretary-General upon Entering UN Headquarters

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Iraq QUESTION: [Inaudible]. ANSWER: You ask some easy questions first thing on Monday morning. Let me say that, obviously we are now all going to focus on the questions of the morning after. And I will be discussing and talking to Council members. I have also been on the phone with some of the leaders around the world over the weekend. And we will see where we go from here. QUESTION: Have you spoken to the Iraqis at all? To Mr. Aziz? ANSWER: No. I have sent a message to him through Shah, and I am waiting to get a reaction. QUESTION: On Lockerbie, do you have a message for the families of the victims today on the anniversary? ANSWER: My message to them is that it is regrettable that ten years after the event, we have not been able to get to the truth so that they can put this behind them, mourn their dead and carry on with their lives. But I am still hopeful that we will still get a positive decision from the Libyan Government. I had hoped it would come before this date—the anniversary—but I have not lost hope. And they should not. QUESTION: Are you worried about the super powers—the five permanent members’ deadlock on Iraq now? ANSWER: I think it is not helpful that the Council is divided, and I would hope that in the weeks ahead we will find a way of bringing everyone together, so that we can carry on the essential work of the Council. QUESTION: An obvious issue still seems to be Richard Butler. The Council talks about healing rifts, but how can they do that with Richard Butler still at the helm? ANSWER: I think that is a question I would prefer not to answer today. You’ve heard all the discussions going on—several governments saying that we need a new structure, we need a new inspection mechanism. I don’t know what that means, I don’t know what that entails, and I don’t know what kind of structure they have in mind. But it will emerge after the discussions. QUESTION: [Inaudible]. Where do you see the relationship between Iraq and the UN? ANSWER: I think we first also need to find out the posture of Iraq, and this is why I’ve said I’ve sent a message to them and I’m hoping to hear

from Ambassador Shah. And then eventually I may get in touch with them directly. But I would also need to talk to the Council members at this end to see where we go from here. QUESTION: [Inaudible]. ANSWER: Maybe this is the beginning of it. Thank you.

21 December 1998 Letter to the UN staff (EOSG); year end Dear Friends and Colleagues, The year just past has been one of achievement and setback, of joy as well as grief, of challenges both ancient and new. Through it all, no matter what the task, you, the staff, have continued to meet the high expectations held by Member States and people around the world for our United Nations. I would like to convey my heartfelt gratitude to all of you for your outstanding work. The holiday season is a time for retrospection and introspection. Looking back at 1998, we can see important anniversaries relating to human rights and United Nations peacekeeping; new milestones such as the agreement on the Statute of the International Criminal Court; and an organization beginning to hit its stride through the process of reform. And yet, we have made insufficient progress in the age-old fight against poverty. The threats of globalization have overshadowed, at least for the moment, its many opportunities. And as the year ends, we remain humbled by the persistence of hatred, violence and conflict in many parts of the world, and saddened by the death and destruction that ensue. Our agenda brims with unmet needs and unresolved questions. Tragedy visited the United Nations family repeatedly in 1998. The crash of Swissair flight 111 in September took from us nine exceptional colleagues. Other crashes and assaults brought further losses. Our colleague Vincent Cochetel of UNHCR has arrived home, after 10 months in captivity, in time to spend the holidays with his family. His safety is a gift to us all, but his ordeal reminds us of the dramatic escalation of attacks on personnel, both civilian and military, who dare to wear UN blue in serving the cause of peace. And let us not forget that many staff members are still missing or in captivity. Staff security remains a cardinal concern and I will be looking for decisive action in this area in 1999 so that staff have the protection to which they are entitled. The United Nations operates year-round on the

24 December 1998 • 603 basis of resolutions, so I hesitate to suggest adding a New Year’s resolution to an already long list of mandates. But let us pledge at least this: to continue pulling together as a team, for that is the path to success. In that spirit, I would like to express my hope that you and your loved ones have a very happy New Year.

22 December 1998 Letter (EOSG); World Food Programme Letter to the president of the European Commission, Jacques Santer. Excellency, In May 1998, the Executive Board of the World Food Programme (WFP) initiated a review of the future directions of food aid for development. I am writing to ask that the European Union actively support WFP’s development role. There may well be some who have expressed reservations about food aid for development. But food aid has changed a lot since earlier days when it was driven by a concern for surplus disposal. Food aid, like other development assistance, is very much a scarce resource and great care is taken to use it where and when it is particularly effective. An important aspect of this is to concentrate WFP’s development food aid on the people who need it most, focusing on the least developed countries and the most vulnerable groups within them. Those who need development food aid are those who are not only poor but also marginalised in some way. These are the people least likely to be reached by the first benefits of broad economic growth and the least likely to benefit from technical assistance, from capital projects or other assistance provided bilaterally or through the Inter-national Development Banks. They need direct, immediate assistance, and targeted food aid brings it to them. As we have learned more about the linkages between development and humanitarian crises, the international community has underscored the importance of bridging the two. WFP, which works in both emergency relief and development, is particularly well placed to move seamlessly between the two. Its work in development is the foundation for effective responses to emergency situations. The most recent demonstration of this was in Central America. WFP’s support for development projects has given WFP an on-the-ground understanding of the region which was invaluable in responding to the devastation brought by Hurricane Mitch. WFP is a key member of the United Nations team to eradicate hunger and poverty. In recogni-

tion of the important role that WFP plays in development, it is a member of the United Nations Development Group, which was set up as part of the UN reform measures. The European Commission is well placed to have an influential and constructive voice in the ongoing policy discussion about where and when food aid can best contribute to development. I would, therefore, ask the Commission to support a strong development role for WFP. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

23 December 1998 Secretary-General Concerned About Military Activities in Lebanon

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6850); Lebanon The Secretary-General is concerned at the continuing military activities in Lebanon, which have once again resulted in civilian casualties. He deplores the death of Lebanese civilians in an Israeli air raid, which prompted the firing of rockets by Lebanese armed elements into northern Israel, endangering Israeli civilians. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was in touch with the parties in an effort to prevent an escalation. The SecretaryGeneral urges the parties concerned to put an end to the violence and, in particular, to respect the noncombatant status of civilians.

24 December 1998 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); peacebuilding/Iraq Manoel de Almeida e Silva, Deputy Spokesman for the Secretary-General, informed correspondents at today’s noon briefing that the Security Council was not scheduled to meet until Tuesday, 29 December, when consultations were planned on Ethiopia and Eritrea, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and possibly also on the maintenance of peace and security and post-conflict peace-building. . . . In a final note, he said the Secretary-General was receiving a very large number of calls and communications from people around the world, in particular, from the United States, expressing concern about the situation in Iraq. One letter that really moved the Secretary-General was written by a four-and-one-half-year-old boy who attended the United Nations International School in New York.

604 • 24 December 1998

The Deputy Spokesman read the letter, as follows: Dear Mr. Annan, Please talk to the President of Iraq. Please make up. Work it out.

The Secretary-General’s handwritten note said: Dear Lucas, Thank you for your kind letter. I am glad to see that one is never too young to speak out for peace. I promise you I will work very hard for peace in Iraq and everywhere else in the world. Good luck to you and happy holidays. Sincerely, Kofi Annan

In response to a question, the Deputy Spokesman said correspondents could receive copies of the exchange of letters. Replying to another question, he said he did not have any more details on the SecretaryGeneral’s conversation yesterday with the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz. . . . Mr. Almeida e Silva wished correspondents a happy holiday and expressed his appreciation for their support.

30 December 1998 Secretary-General Pleased by President Clerides’s Decision Not to Deploy Missiles on Cyprus

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6854); Cyprus The Secretary-General was very glad to hear of President Glafcos Clerides’ decision not to deploy S-300 missiles on Cyprus. He views this as a tangible, positive response to Security Council resolutions 1217 and 1218 of 22 December, and to the appeal (in his letter of 14 December addressed to the President of the Security Council) to both parties “to avoid any actions which might increase tension, including by further expansion of military forces and armaments”. The Secretary-General reiterates his full commitment to the initiative which he took on 30 September to ask his Deputy Special Representative, Dame Ann Hercus, to begin a process of on-island talks with both sides with a view to reducing tension and promoting progress towards a just and lasting settlement.

31 December 1998 Secretary-General Welcomes Inauguration of the Euro

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6856); European Union The Secretary-General welcomes the inauguration of the euro on 1 January 1999. He sees the euro not only as a contribution to the strengthening of European economic cooperation and integration but also as yet another building block in the solid foundation for peace and security in Europe which has been laid over the past 50 years. He is also confident that by contributing to increased prosperity in Europe, the new currency can simultaneously provide a much needed stimulus to the world economy at large.

31 December 1998 Letter (EOSG); Angola Letter to the president of the Security Council, Jassim Mohammed Buallay. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to the briefing given to the Security Council on 29 December 1998 regarding the situation in Angola, during which the Secretariat indicated that it was reviewing the deployment of the teamsites of the United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA) from a security point of view. You will recall that the Secretariat also informed Security Council members of its intention to redeploy to safer areas under Government control all those teamsites which, in MONUA’s view, could be potentially affected by the fighting in the country or which could not be safely supplied by land. Instructions along those lines were issued to my Special Representative, Mr. Issa B.Y. Diallo, immediately after the briefing. Following the briefing, I was informed by Mr. Diallo that he had received, on 29 December 1998, a note verbale from the Angolan Government, dated 21 December, which raised several important issues concerning the security of MONUA personnel and the presence of the Mission in Angola after the expiration of its mandate in February 1999. Copies of the original note verbale and its unofficial translation are attached to this letter. I also received information after the briefing, based on an unofficial source, that a MONUA compound in Angola may be fired upon in the coming days, with the intent of producing an increasing sense of insecurity among United Nations staff in the country. In this connection, my Special Representative has been requested to take

31 December 1998 • 605 additional precautionary measures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the security and safety of United Nations personnel in Angola. Pursuant to resolution 1213 (1998) of 3 December 1998, I intend to submit, by 15 January 1999, my report to the Security Council on the status of the peace process, the future role and mandate of the United Nations in Angola, and the proposed force structure of MONUA. My recommendations will naturally be based on the prevailing political and security situation in Angola, and will take into consideration the views of the Angolan parties on whatever role the United Nations might play to help restore the peace process in their country. You may wish to bring this letter to the attention of members of the Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

This page intentionally blank.

1999 6 January 1999 Letter (EOSG); Libya Letter to Danilo Türk, chairman of the Security Council committee established pursuant to Resolution 748 (1992) regarding handing over the suspects in the Lockerbie bombing case. Dear Ambassador Turk, It has come to my knowledge that on 30 December 1998 a waiver from the prohibition on flights to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya instituted by the Security Council in its resolution 748 (1992), was submitted to the Committee chaired by you, in order to enable emissaries of His Excellency Mr. Nelson Mandela, President of South Africa and His Royal Highness Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia, to fly to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and deliver messages in support of my own efforts with regard to the implementation of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. I welcome this expression of support for my personal efforts by President Mandela and Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz. It is my sincere hope that their messages will help convince the Libyan leadership to heed my call for compliance with the resolutions of the Security Council without further delay and without preconditions. I hope this information will be helpful for the purpose of the Sanctions Committee’s consideration of this matter. Please accept, Mr. Ambassador, the assurances of my highest consideration.

6 January 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Iraq Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the SecretaryGeneral, said at the start of today’s noon briefing, “12:04 p.m.—that’s a marginal improvement over yesterday”, referring to his New Year’s resolution

to start the briefing on time. He then said that all of the correspondents must have seen the story in The Washington Post today stating that the SecretaryGeneral was suspicious that the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) had assisted United States intelligence efforts in Iraq. The Spokesman reminded correspondents that the Secretary-General had no operational oversight responsibility for UNSCOM. That was the job of the Security Council, as UNSCOM was a subsidiary body of the Council. The SecretaryGeneral, therefore, had little detailed information about day-to-day operations. He had been aware for some weeks, however, that a number of journalists had been pursuing that story. When he first heard the allegations, he asked UNSCOM’s Executive Chairman, Richard Butler, about them, and Ambassador Butler had categorically denied them. “We not only have no convincing evidence of these allegations, we have no evidence of any kind; we have only rumours”, the Spokesman said. Neither the Secretary-General nor any member of his staff had access to classified United States intelligence, although UNSCOM does. “The Secretary-General therefore rejects the characterization of his state of mind attributed to so-called confidants, such as that he is convinced of things, that he is aware of facts, and so on”, he said. Obviously, if those charges were true, the Spokesman continued, that would be damaging to the United Nations disarmament work in Iraq and elsewhere. Finally, The Washington Post states that the Secretary-General was trying to pressure Richard Butler to resign. That was not so. In any case, the issue was not the Executive Chairman, but how to get on with the work of disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday, said Mr. Eckhard, the UnderSecretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, Hans Corell, sent an aide memoire to the Permanent Mission of Iraq to the United Nations concerning the Iraqi request to replace British and United States nationals working for the United Nations humanitarian programme in Iraq. Mr. Corell had stressed in his reply that it was the responsibility of the Iraqi Government, under the relevant international instruments, to ensure the safety and security of all United Nations humanitarian personnel in Iraq. Recalling the relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter, Mr. Corell also made it clear that the United Nations Secretariat was not in a position to accede to the Iraqi request to

607

608 • 6 January 1999

replace the personnel in question on grounds of their nationality. The Security Council was meeting in consultations today to hear two briefings by Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Hedi Annabi: first, an update on the situation in Angola, which Council members had requested daily; and second, the latest developments on Sierra Leone. On Angola, the United Nations Security Coordinator, Benon Sevan, had spoken with the Secretary-General from Luanda this morning. Mr. Sevan was in Angola to assess the growing security threat to United Nations personnel and to help facilitate a search mission to the assumed crash sites of two United Nations charter planes carrying 23 people, now missing. Mr. Sevan said he had met earlier today with Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos in Luanda, the Spokesman reported. They discussed cooperation on access to those sites. Mr. Sevan said that he and the President had agreed to set up a search team, and that the President had expressed his readiness to assist in its deployment. A further meeting to work out the details was scheduled for later today. Replying to an earlier question about the role of the United Nations in securing peace in Sierra Leone, Mr. Eckhard noted that Freetown had come under attack overnight. Rebels attacked east Freetown at approximately 3 a.m. and penetrated the city by first light. According to reports received overnight, the rebels had opened a prison where several hundred junta supporters were awaiting trial or serving sentences. At the time of the attack, the United Nations had 20 international staff in Freetown: 17 from the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL), as well as three United Nations agency staff members. They were being relocated from Freetown. Continuing, the Spokesman said that in the past two days, he had reported the rising concerns of the United Nations humanitarian agencies currently assisting the thousands of Sierra Leoneans forced to flee their homes as a result of the recent fighting. In the light of the most recent developments, the Secretary-General’s report to the Security Council on Sierra Leone, which was due out tomorrow, might be delayed until Friday. . . . Asked if the Secretary-General felt a further need to address the United Nations press corps directly about the rumours raised by The Washington Post, the Spokesman said that no, all the Secretary-General had to say had just been said by his Spokesman. . . .

Another correspondent asked the Spokesman to elaborate on his statement that UNSCOM, and not the United Nations, had access to United States intelligence. Mr. Eckhard referred to the statement made to the press at 11:30 a.m. by Mr. Butler, who had addressed that question directly. In the Spokesman’s own statement, he had said that when the Secretary-General had asked Ambassador Butler about those allegations, he had categorically denied them. Mr. Eckhard understood that he did so today as well. Even if those allegations were never proved, another correspondent asked how damaging those could be to UNSCOM and to United Nations disarmament efforts? Mr. Eckhard said it was not just about Iraq, but about the United Nations disarmament efforts worldwide, whose credibility rested on its ability to maintain integrity, impartiality and professionalism in its work. That was what the SecretaryGeneral expected of all Secretariat members, and any deviation from that was damaging to the United Nations. To a question about what the SecretaryGeneral planned to do about those allegations and about UNSCOM in this strangely quiet time devoid of any weapons inspections, the Spokesman said there had been a question yesterday about the strangely quiet time. The matter was in the hands of the Council. On UNSCOM, the Secretary-General had contacts with Mr. Butler as recently as this morning and he tried to stay in touch with UNSCOM’s work, which at the moment was suspended in Iraq. Essentially, he was waiting for the Council to deal with the matter and he did not have much leeway. Did the Secretary-General believe that UNSCOM needed to be reshaped? the correspondent asked in a follow-up question. Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General was of the opinion that “Iraq needs to be disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction”. That was the priority, and the question now was how best to do that. That was the question that was before the Council. The Spokesman said there was no discussion of replacing Mr. Butler, in response to a question about whether the Secretary-General had met with any potential candidates in recent days for Mr. Butler’s position. There were no candidates and therefore the Secretary-General had not met with any, he added. Asked about the procedure for replacing UNSCOM’s Executive Chairman, the Spokesman said that Security Council resolution 687 (1991)

11 January 1999 • 609 requesting the Secretary-General to establish the Special Commission had also called for an Executive Chairman and a Deputy. The SecretaryGeneral “fleshed out” that idea and made a proposal to the Council, which it accepted. Thus, the Commission had come into being. There was no discussion in any document of a replacement. The Secretary-General had a kind of administrative function in appointing the Executive Chairman, but he would do that only after informal consultations with all Council members. A correspondent asked whether the Security Coordinator was going to meet with the leader of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), Jonas Savimbi, and added that without such a meeting he could not do anything. The Spokesman said he did not know, but neither could the peacekeeping mission do anything if it could not meet with both parties. Those were among the issues presently on the table as the Secretary-General drafted his latest report to the Council. The report was due by 15 January, but under present circumstances the Secretary-General said this morning he was going to try to deliver it sooner. As one correspondent understood it, the bones of The Washington Post article was that something was going on in the United States Government, which Mr. Ruggie and Mr. Mack were attempting to find out from United States officials. Was the Secretary-General satisfied that nothing “untoward” had happened, or was he still trying to find out what happened? he asked. The Spokesman said he would have to stick with the statement he made earlier at the briefing. The Secretary-General had no evidence of any kind that UNSCOM had assisted United States intelligence—had no evidence, whatsoever. To a follow-up question, Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General had discussed the allegations with Mr. Butler, but he did not know whether he had also discussed the matter with Rolf Ekeus, Mr. Butler’s predecessor as UNSCOM’s Executive Chairman. Had Mr. Annan spoken with United States officials at any level about the topic? another correspondent asked. The Spokesman said the Secretary-General had received some telephone calls in the last few days, but he was not authorized to say who that was from. Referring to the profile story in the New Yorker magazine on former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter, in which Mr. Ritter said he had met regularly with Israeli and United States intelli-

gence agents, a correspondent asked if there had been a reaction to that disclosure and a sense that UNSCOM’s neutrality had been transcended. No, said the Spokesman, because the Council had called on all Member States to assist UNSCOM in its work. UNSCOM had said that it had consulted with intelligence agencies—not just of those two Governments—but of a number of Governments as part of its efforts to “break the back of this job that should have been completed in three to six months, and instead has gone on for eight years”, he said. Was anybody prepared to say where the rumours had come from—Baghdad or Washington? another correspondent asked. The Spokesman referred the correspondent to the journalists, adding that calls were received from journalists on the 38th floor and not just on the 3rd floor. The Secretary-General was aware that a couple of different newspapers were exploring that hypothesis because the journalists working on the stories were calling in and asking questions. That was what raised the matter in his mind. He then asked Mr. Butler what he knew and what he thought of it, and the Executive Chairman had denied the truth of those rumours. To a question about whether there was any brainstorming taking place on the 38th floor about restructuring UNSCOM and resuming weapons inspections, the Spokesman was unaware of such sessions. He added that any change in the existing structure of UNSCOM would be for the Council to discuss, decide and approve.

11 January 1999 Letter (UN archives); Sierra Leone Letter from the high commissioner for refugees, Sadako Ogata. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, I should like to take this opportunity to share with you my concern following the deterioration of the security situation in Freetown. This crisis has affected innocent civilians, including 8,000 Liberian refugees and some 14,000 Sierra Leonean returnees working in key professions such as medicine and administration. UNHCR had facilitated their repatriation following the return of President Kabbah in March 1998 and I feel doubly concerned under the present circumstances. The current situation has not only shattered the hopes of returning home of some 440,000 Sierra Leonean refugees, mainly in Guinea and Liberia, but raises the spectre of a repeat of the situation we

610 • 11 January 1999

saw last year when some 250,000 Sierra Leoneans fled to neighbouring countries in a matter of a few weeks. It is with these concerns in mind that I appeal to you to use your good offices and authority to urge the Sierra Leonean Government as well as other actors, including the Sierra Leonean rebels, to find a peaceful resolution to the ongoing crisis. We should take full advantage of the recently announced prospects for peace negotiations, despite expressed resistance in some quarters, and press for final political solutions. I also hope that the basic human rights of the civilian populations, including their physical integrity, will be respected and that unhindered access by relief agencies will be allowed by all parties involved, including the rebels. I am writing to the leaders of the region pointing out that my Office increasingly faces difficulties not only in carrying out humanitarian assistance but also in mobilizing resources for recurrent and seemingly endless crises such as those in Sierra Leone. I am appealing to them to seek all possible means to move away from the senseless cycle of violence and to pursue a path toward peace, a pursuit in which the international community would be prepared to assist. I wish to express my appreciation for your support. Yours sincerely, Sadako Ogata

15 January 1999 Secretary-General, Concerned at Heightened Tension Between Ethiopia and Eritrea, to Send Special Envoy to Region

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6863); Ethiopia and Eritrea The Secretary-General is concerned at reports of heightened tension between Eritrea and Ethiopia. In support of the diplomatic efforts of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the United States Envoy, Anthony Lake, he has decided to send his Special Envoy, Mohamed Sahnoun, to the region. The dates of Ambassador Sahnoun’s visit will be announced separately, after further consultation with the parties.

16 January 1999 Secretary-General Shocked by Alleged Massacre in Kosovo

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6864); Kosovo

I am shocked to learn today of the alleged massacre of some 40 individuals, apparently civilians, in Kosovo. I have received a full briefing from the Foreign Minister of Norway and Chairman-inOffice of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Knut Volleback. I am gravely concerned at this latest development and call for a full investigation by the competent authorities. I appeal once again to all sides in Kosovo to refrain from any action that would further escalate the tragic situation.

19 January 1999 Secretary-General Reflects on Promise, Realities of His Role in World Affairs

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6865); human rights Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Council on Foreign Relations, in New York. Thank you, Pete, for those generous words of introduction. I am delighted to join you tonight to inaugurate the Peter G. Peterson Center for International Studies here at the Council on Foreign Relations. Allow me to begin by paying tribute to everything Pete has done to strengthen your mission. The Council’s work is vital not only to this audience and to your many members. It has far greater implications. The Council has over time become an indispensable source of reflection and renewal in foreign affairs. It has helped us all to understand better the global challenges that lie ahead; it has advocated the engagement of the United States in international affairs, and always stood fast against the dangers of American isolationism. This is of particular value to the institution I represent. The United Nations needs the United States to achieve our goals, and I believe the United States needs the United Nations no less. I also believe that this audience appreciates the importance of this bond, and I hope that together we can ensure an ever closer relationship in the years ahead. For the United Nations, the challenges that lie ahead are humanity’s challenges—to secure peace, to defeat poverty, to protect human rights, and to widen the circle of freedom so that no one— regardless of colour, nationality or belief—is denied the chance to lead a life of their own choice. These are challenges with distant prospects and uneven results, fought against imponderable odds, and rewarded only rarely with laurels or lasting progress. They are, however, the challenges we

19 January 1999 • 611 were founded to meet, and as we begin a new century, the United Nations must seek and find new ways to defeat the age-old enemies of peace and prosperity. In fulfilling this task, the SecretaryGeneral himself is accorded a central role—by Charter, by history, and by the trust placed in him by the Member States. Tonight, I wish, therefore, to reflect with you on the role of the Secretary-General—its promise, its limitations, its responsibilities, and its realities. I do this not out of pride, but out of obligation, not because I wish to add further focus to my own role, but because I believe it is important for our friends and critics alike to judge the United Nations and this office with what Isaiah Berlin called a “sense of reality.” By this I mean a sense of the history of the United Nations no less than its present state; a sense of what the Secretary-General of a multilateral institution can do to advance peace, and what he cannot do. Above all, this means acknowledging that the Secretary-General’s office will have the potential to advance the interests of all States only so long as it does not appear to serve the narrow interests of any one State or group of States. This is the precarious balance to which any Secretary-General owes his office, his strength, his effectiveness and his moral authority. Every Secretary-General before me has had to maintain this balance, through more than 50 years of geo-political change and transformation. Every one of them has sought to fill two roles at once: the role of chief administrative officer of the organization; and the far less defined, and far more contentious role of political instrument of the Security Council. This lack of definition has proved as much an asset as a liability, as much a window of opportunity as a source of frustration. But throughout the history of the United Nations, it has allowed the Secretary-General to assume yet a third role: to be an instrument of the larger interest, beyond national rivalries and regional concerts. Without a doubt, it is sometimes tempting to give in to one’s feelings of personal outrage at a specific transgression, especially when doing so would win political popularity in some quarters. But it would betray the larger obligation to prevent aggression and preserve the peace. It is a luxury I cannot afford. The integrity, impartiality and independence of the office of Secretary-General are too important to be so easily sacrificed. One of the reasons, perhaps, that past Secretaries-General have been misjudged or misunderstood is that the office is as unique as the

institution it leads. With no enforcement capacity and no executive power beyond the Organization, a Secretary-General is armed only with tools of his own making. He is invested only with the power that a united Security Council may wish to bestow, and the moral authority entrusted to him by the Charter. By what standard, then, does one measure the words or deeds of a Secretary-General? By that of a head of government or a minister of foreign affairs? Surely not, for their duty is prescribed by the interest of their State, and their State alone. By that of a private group or non-governmental organization dedicated to ending land-mines or tending to the wounded in war? No, for they are the servants only of their cause, and not of the 185 Member States that make up the United Nations. A Secretary-General must be judged by his fidelity to the principles of the Charter, and his advancement of the ideals they embody. The end of the cold war ushered in a new era for the United Nations’ work for peace. Suddenly, one could witness a united Security Council speaking with one voice against the crimes of aggressors and violations of the Charter. It also meant that the automatic restraints on where a Secretary-General could go to pursue peace were removed, inviting new responsibilities and greater risks. It allowed the Secretary-General to place the United Nations at the service of peace in the forgotten corners of the world, whose wars and struggles no longer merited the interest or involvement of great powers. Now more than ever, the tools of quiet diplomacy, discreet negotiation, and thirdparty mediation could be employed not only to halt wars, but to prevent them. Above all, the end of the cold war transformed the moral promise of the role of the Secretary-General. It allowed him to place the United Nations at the service of the universal values of the Charter, without the constraints of ideology or particular interests. In my two years as Secretary-General, I have sought to pursue this role in two distinct ways. First, by speaking out in favour of universal human rights and in defense of the victims of aggression or abuse, wherever they may be. For Americans, the Presidency has been seen as a “bully pulpit”, at least since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. I have sought to make the Office of Secretary-General a pulpit, too. I have sought to use it as a vehicle for the promotion of the values of tolerance, democracy, human rights and good governance that I believe are universal. In Tehran, I have paid tribute to the great faith

612 • 19 January 1999

of Islam, while denouncing the terrorism so unjustly committed in its name. In Harare, I have called on Africans to recognize human rights as their rights as much as anyone else’s. In Shanghai, I have spoken out for freedom as the catalyst for China’s future prosperity. And in the Balkans, I have condemned early and repeatedly the crimes committed in Kosovo, calling on every concerned party to apply the lessons of Bosnia. Second, I have used my office as a bridge between two or more parties, wherever I believed an opportunity for the peaceful resolution of disputes could be found. To do so, I have traveled many miles, and embarked on many missions, confronting not only the doubts of others, but my own as well. I have, at times, been as skeptical about a leader’s true intentions as anyone, and I have entered every war-zone without any illusions about the prospects for peace, or the price of misrule. But I have persisted, because I must deal with the world, not as I would wish it to be, but as it is. I must confront it with a sense of reality about how far a leader can be pushed by peaceful means, and how long it will take to bring peace to a state of war. Does this make me, or anyone in my position, by definition morally blind? Can a SecretaryGeneral not therefore tell good from evil, or victim from aggressor? Of course he can, and precisely for that reason he must persist, for it is ultimately the aggressor more often than the victim who will benefit from isolation and abandonment by the international community. Impartiality does not—and must not—mean neutrality in the face of evil. It means strict and unbiased adherence to the principles of the Charter—nothing more, and nothing less. If I say that I can “do business” with one leader or other, I am not passing moral or any other kind of judgment. Nor am I guaranteeing the future behavior of any leader or State with regard to their relations with the international community. I am simply carrying out the task that I have been given by the United Nations to seek peaceful resolution to a dispute. When I went to Nigeria, in July, to advance the process of democratization, that great nation was undergoing a dramatic period of change. Uncertainty and unease was everywhere, with few able to discern a way out. The death of General Abacha opened a new chapter, and today General Abubakar appears determined to honour his pledge to allow popular sovereignty. If only as a bridge, my presence may have served to support a

democratic transition at a perilous moment, and in so doing will have advanced not only Nigeria’s prospects, but also the aims of the Charter. When I went to Libya, in December, I went at a critical time to place my service in the cause of securing justice for the victims of Lockerbie. I went also in the hope of closing the widening gap between Africa and the West in their treatment of that country. There, our prospects may be less favorable, and certainly no one can predict the time or content of Libya’s decision. But if my visit speeded up, even by one day, the closing of this tragic chapter, I believe it will have been worth it—to me and to the United Nations. Of the missions I embarked on last year, none was fraught with as much risk to my office and to the United Nations as Iraq. Confronted with a crisis in the relations between Iraq and the Security Council, I went to Baghdad in order to break an impasse, and to return the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to its vital work of disarming Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Briefly, but significantly, Iraq returned to compliance and UNSCOM was able to enter sites to which it had been denied access for over seven years. I say “briefly”, because Iraq subsequently decided to place new obstacles in UNSCOM’s way—a flagrant and deeply troubling violation of both the Memorandum of Understanding that I secured, and Iraq’s long-standing obligations to the Security Council. Since then, we have gone from crisis to crisis, punctuated by fleeting moments of cooperation between UNSCOM and the Government of Iraq, culminating with the air-strikes of last month. Clearly, we stand at a critical juncture now— between the use of force and the peaceful compliance I have always sought; between securing the disarmament of Iraq and the threat it would otherwise pose to the region; between looking to a future when Iraq’s long-suffering people can live free and unhindered lives, and continued isolation and impoverishment for civilians who bear no responsibility for their country’s calamities. As we meet tonight, members of the Security Council are actively engaged in seeking a way forward, a way that can restore the Council’s unity while maintaining the disarmament of Iraq and alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people. For those who still remember the days of the cold war, the unity of the Council in such an important matter will be recognized as a signal accomplishment. It is also what makes Iraq such a priority for me as Secretary-General. A divided Council can,

19 January 1999 • 613 and has in the past, paralyzed the United Nations. I must and will do all in my power to avoid such a fate, on this or any other matter before us. Whatever means I have employed in my efforts in dealing with Iraq, my ends have never been in question: Iraq’s full compliance with all relevant Security Council resolutions; the disarmament of Iraq; reintegrating its people into the international community; securing the stability of the Gulf region; and ensuring the effectiveness of the United Nations as a guarantor of international peace and security. By precedent, by principle, by Charter and by duty, I am bound to seek these ends through peaceful diplomacy. Ultimately, however, the peace we seek, in Iraq, as everywhere, is one that reflects the lessons of our terrible century: that peace is not true or lasting if it is bought at any cost; that only peace with justice can honour the victims of war and violence; and that without democracy, tolerance and human rights for all, no peace is truly safe. To apply those lessons wherever and whenever possible is a Secretary-General’s highest calling and foremost duty—to himself, to his office and to the United Nations. My great predecessor Dag Hammarskjold once said that it “is a question not of a man, but of an institution”. It is, therefore, for the United Nations itself, and the hopes and aspirations that it has embodied for over half a century, that we must succeed.

19 January 1999 Walking the International Tightrope

Op-ed (New York Times); role of the SecretaryGeneral Article by the Secretary-General that appeared in the New York Times. As the United Nations enters a new century of challenges, we must find new ways to defeat the age-old enemies of peace and prosperity. In fulfilling this task, the Secretary General is accorded a central role—by the United Nations Charter, by history and by the trust placed in him by member states. I believe, therefore, that it is important for our friends and critics alike to judge the United Nations and my office with what Isaiah Berlin called a “sense of reality.” By this I mean a realistic appreciation of the promise, limitations and responsibilities the organization and the officeholder face. Above all, this means acknowledging that the

Secretary-General’s office will have the potential to advance the interests of all states only so long as it does not appear to serve the narrow interests of any one state or group of states. This is the precarious balance to which any Secretary-General owes his office, his strength, his effectiveness and his moral authority. Every Secretary-General before me has had to maintain this balance, through more than 50 years of geopolitical change. It is sometimes tempting to give in to one’s feelings of personal outrage at a specific transgression, especially when to do so would win political popularity in some quarters. But that would imperil the Secretary-General’s ability to work effectively to prevent aggression and preserve peace. It is a luxury I cannot afford. The integrity, impartiality and independence of the office are too important to be so easily sacrificed. The end of the cold war transformed the moral promise of the role of the Secretary-General. It allowed him to place the United Nations at the service of the universal values of the charter, without the constraints of ideology or particular interests. In my two years as Secretary-General, I have sought to pursue this role in two distinct ways. First, I have sought to speak out in favor of universal human rights and in defense of the victims of aggression or abuse, wherever they may be. For Americans, the Presidency has been seen as a bully pulpit, at least since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. I have sought to make the Office of Secretary-General a pulpit, too. From New York to Teheran to Harare and to Shanghai, I have sought, without attacking specific regimes or individuals, to use it as a vehicle for promoting the values of tolerance, democracy, human rights and good governance that I believe are universal. Second, I have used my office as a bridge between two or more parties wherever I believed an opportunity for the peaceful resolution of disputes existed. To do so, I have embarked on many missions, confronting not only the doubts of others but my own as well. I have at times been as skeptical of a leader’s true intentions as anyone, and I have entered every war zone without any illusions about the prospects for peace or the price of misrule. But I have persisted, because I must deal with the world not as I would wish it to be, but as it is. I must confront it with a sense of reality about how far a leader can be pushed by peaceful means, and how long it will take to bring peace where a state of war exists. Does this make me, or anyone in my position, morally blind? Can a Secretary-General not tell

614 • 19 January 1999

good from evil, or victim from aggressor? Of course he can, and precisely for that reason he must persist, for it is ultimately the aggressor more often than the victim who will benefit from isolation and abandonment by the international community. Impartiality does not—and must not— mean neutrality in the face of evil. It means strict and unbiased adherence to the principles of the charter—nothing more, nothing less. Of the missions I embarked on last year, none was fraught with as much risk to my office and to the United Nations as the one involving Iraq. Confronted with a crisis in the relations between Iraq and the Security Council, I went to Baghdad last February seeking to break an impasse and to return the United Nations Special Commission—UNSCOM—to its vital work of disarming Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Briefly, but significantly, Iraq returned to compliance and Unscom inspectors were able to enter sites to which they had been denied access for more than seven years. I say “briefly” because Iraq subsequently decided to place new obstacles in UNSCOM’s way—a flagrant, deeply troubling violation both of the memorandum of understanding that I secured with Baghdad and of Iraq’s longstanding obligations to the Security Council. Since then, we have gone from crisis to crisis, punctuated by fleeting moments of cooperation between Unscom and the Government of Iraq. This back-and-forth culminated in last month’s air strikes. Clearly, we stand at a critical juncture now—between the use of force and the peaceful compliance I have always sought, between securing the disarmament of Iraq and the threat it would otherwise pose to the region, between looking to a future when Iraq’s long-suffering people can live free and unhindered lives, and continued isolation and impoverishment for civilians who bear no responsibility for their country’s calamities. Members of the Security Council are now actively engaged in seeking a way forward, a way that can restore the council’s unity while maintaining the disarmament of Iraq and alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people. For those who still remember the days of the cold war, the unity of the council in such an important matter will be recognized as a signal accomplishment. It is also what makes Iraq such a priority for me as SecretaryGeneral—a divided council can, and has in the past, paralyzed the United Nations. I must and will do all in my power to avoid such a fate. Whatever means I have employed in my efforts in dealing with Iraq, my ends have never been in question: full compliance with all relevant

Security Council resolutions; the disarmament of Iraq; reintegrating its people into the international community; securing the stability of the region, and insuring the effectiveness of the United Nations as a guarantor of international peace and security. By precedent, by principle, by charter and by duty, I am bound to seek these ends through peaceful diplomacy. Ultimately, however, the peace we seek, in Iraq as everywhere, is one that reflects the lessons of our terrible century: that peace is not true or lasting if bought at any cost; that only peace with justice can honor the victims of war and violence; that without democracy, tolerance and human rights for all, no peace is truly safe. To apply those lessons wherever and whenever possible is a Secretary-General’s highest calling and foremost duty—to himself, to his office and to the United Nations. My great predecessor, Dag Hammarskjöld, once said that it “is a question not of a man, but of an institution.” It is, therefore, for the United Nations itself, and the hopes and aspirations that it has embodied for more than half a century, that we must succeed.

20 January 1999 Secretary-General Pleased with President Clinton’s Pledge on US Debt to the UN

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6876); US dues to the UN The Secretary-General was pleased to hear President Clinton, in his State of the Union message last night, renew his pledge to work with the United States Congress to pay both United States dues and debts to the United Nations and refer to the “crucial role” the United Nations must play in the new century. As the Secretary-General said to the Council on Foreign Relations last night, the United Nations needs the United States to achieve its goals and, he added “I believe the United States needs the United Nations no less.” A strong and effective United Nations can exist only when all Member States pay their dues in full and on time.

25 January 1999 Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy Visits the Central African Republic

Letter (EOSG); Central African Republic Note from personal envoy, Hedi Annabi, outlining his visit to the Central African Republic.

27 January 1999 • 615 NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

MINURCA: My Visit to the CAR

1. As per your instructions, I visited the Central African Republic as your Personal Envoy from 19 to 23 January, where I met with President Patasse, Prime Minister Dologuele and other members of the Government, as well as the main opposition leaders. 2. I informed all my interlocutors that, although you had recommended (in your 18 December report) an extension of the mandate of MINURCA until the presidential elections, recent developments had raised some concern among members of the Security Council, as well as questions regarding the need for a continued presence in the CAR. In particular, in the course of a twohour tete-a-tete with President Patasse on 20 January, I made it clear to him that; in order to enable us to convince the Security Council to agree to the proposed mandate extension, he should: • Swiftly resolve the impasse surrounding the composition of the bureau of the newly-elected National Assembly, in a way that would be consistent with both the results of the elections and the spirit of national reconciliation dictated by the Bangui agreements; • Avoid allowing his country to be drawn into the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and • Make rapid progress in the implementation of some of his previous commitments, in particular the restructuring of the defence and security forces and the financial and economic reforms needed to normalize the situation in the country and avoid a recurrence of the tragic events of 1996. 3. At the same time, I provided the President with detailed elements of a response that he might wish to make, in the form of a letter to you. 4. On 23 January, shortly before my departure, I again met with President Patasse and he conveyed to me the attached letter addressed to you. While the letter contains almost all the elements I had suggested to him, it does exclude some which would help us to reassure the Security Council of his determination to continue to work towards genuine national reconciliation. 5. I would therefore suggest that you may wish to call the President and underline to him again the importance of adhering to the commitments and timetables specified in his letter. In this connection, you may also wish to stress the need for urgent action to resolve the dispute regarding the

bureau of the National Assembly in a manner that would enable it to function smoothly, with the participation of the opposition. You could point out that a solution of this problem in the coming days would be well received by Security Council members and facilitate their consideration of the future of MINURCA. 6. In view of the Security Council’s wish for additional information before taking a decision, I would propose that you submit a written report pursuant to my visit, with recommendations for future Council action. A draft is now being finalized, and can be submitted for your approval within the next few days.

27 January 1999 Secretary-General Welcomes Announcements on East Timor

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6876); East Timor The Secretary-General welcomes the reports of two major announcements made in Jakarta with regard to the question of East Timor. 1. The prospect of transferring the imprisoned leader of the National Council of Timorese Resistance, Xanana Gusmão, to residential detention. 2. The reported willingness of the Indonesian Government to countenance the possibility of independence for East Timor, if this were the wish of the people of the Territory. The United Nations is in the process of ascertaining the details of these reports. The SecretaryGeneral has for some time now been urging the Indonesian Government to release Xanana Gusmão, whose role in the political process is of paramount importance. The Secretary-General hopes that it will soon be possible for Xanana Gusmão to actively participate in the political dialogue. In the meantime, the tripartite talks, which resume on 28 January 1999, will continue to discuss the United Nations autonomy proposal. These discussions will doubtless take into account the latest developments. The Secretary-General would once again like to underline the need for maintaining peace and avoiding unnecessary violence and bloodshed in East Timor. He urges all parties concerned to show the maximum restraint and political wisdom in dealing with this important period of transition. The Secretary-General remains committed to assisting all the parties concerned in their desire to

616 • 27 January 1999

find a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution to the question of East Timor.

28 January 1999 Secretary-General Calls for Unconditional Respect for Human Rights of Kosovo Citizens

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6878); Kosovo Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), in Brussels. Let me begin by saying how pleased I am to meet with you today. Ever since my time as Special Envoy to NATO, I have greatly valued the bonds between our two organizations. As we enter a new century of challenges and inevitable crises, it is critically important for us to draw on each other’s strengths in pursuit of peace and security. We must create a new architecture of preventive, pro-active policies for peace—designed not for the wars of the past, but for those of the future. We must seek and find new ways to prevent instability from any source, even as we advance reconciliation in post-conflict societies to prevent the all-too frequent relapses into war and violence. We must build on the remarkable cooperation between the United Nations and the Stabilization Force in Bosnia to further refine the combination of force and diplomacy that is the key to peace in the Balkans, as elsewhere. The success of the NATO-led mission operating under a United Nations mandate is surely a model for future endeavours. No one, however, can expect our future tasks to be easy in execution or brief in duration. The bloody wars of the last decade have left us with no illusions about the difficulty of halting internal conflicts—by reason or by force—particularly against the wishes of the government of a sovereign State. But nor have they left us with any illusions about the need to use force, when all other means have failed. We may be reaching that limit, once again, in the former Yugoslavia. I have looked forward to this meeting as an exchange of views, and so I will only briefly outline three areas of common interest that I believe will affect our relationship in the years to come. Let me begin with Kosovo. When I addressed the NATO conference in Rome last June, I expressed the hope that we were beginning to draw the right lessons from the experience in the Bosnian war—about such critical factors as credibility, legitimacy and the morality of intervention and non-intervention. But I added that there is only

one way in which we can prove that we have done this: by applying those lessons practically and emphatically where horror threatens. Alas, horror no longer threatens. It is present, in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people of Kosovo, whose lives have been disrupted violently. And now, Racak has been added to the list of crimes against humanity committed in the former Yugoslavia. I know that you and your member States are engaged in intense consultations—in the Contact Group and elsewhere—in order to restore the fragile agreement that halted the killings last time around and bring the parties to the negotiating table. Therefore, let me ask only that we all—particularly those with capacity to act—recall the lessons of Bosnia. That means full and unconditional respect for human rights of all citizens in Kosovo; full and unconditional acceptance of peaceful negotiation as the only way to resolve the conflict in Kosovo; and full and unconditional respect for the authority of the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal throughout all of the territory of the Former Yugoslavia. Ultimately, however, it means providing the people of Kosovo with the degree of autonomy that is consistent with their need to live lives free from terror and violence. What form such autonomy will take will depend not only on the wishes of the Kosovars, but also on the actions of the Yugoslav authorities. We can only hope that they, too, have learned the lessons of Bosnia. Second, let me say that the cooperation between the United Nations and the Stabilization Force in Bosnia remains essential in its prospects for lasting peace. In every area—from security to the return of refugees to restoring schools and roads and hospitals—we are working together. Still, we need to ensure that International Police Task Force and Stabilization Force communication remains clear and effective, so that all threats to the peace can be contained in concert. Let me conclude by congratulating you—a bit early perhaps—on the upcoming fiftieth anniversary of the alliance, and wish you all success in your deliberations on devising a new strategic concept for the next century. How you define your role, and where and how you decide to pursue it, is of vital interest to the United Nations, given the long tradition of cooperation and coordination between NATO and the United Nations in matters of war and peace. I look forward to hearing your views on this matter.

28 January 1999 • 617 28 January 1999 Press Conference on the Secretary-General’s Visit to NATO Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG); Kosovo NATO SECRETARY-GENERAL: The Secretary-General of the UN visited NATO. Therefore we are in front of a historical moment, a historical day. It’s for me a real pleasure that that person is our friend Kofi Annan. And now I like also to say that this day is historical in a different sense. As you know, at this very moment, the international community is all together. Besides to give an input, to try to reach peace in Kosovo. And it couldn’t be a better moment for the Secretary-General of the UN to share here his comments or intelligence with the NATO countries on a round table of the council. So I want once again to thank the Secretary-General for his time and to come here in this double historical moment. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Thank you very much Javier. Let me say that I had a very useful discussion with the NATO Council. We have exchanged ideas on where we go from here in Kosovo and also NATO-UN relationship. And it was for peace I am encouraged by these talks and I think as the Secretary-General said the whole international community should try and bring this collective pressure to bear, and encourages the parties of the conflicts in Kosovo to move ahead in search of a political solution for that’s the only viable way for the longer term. I made a statement to the Council and I am sure copies will be available. I will take your questions. QUESTION: NATO Secretary-General, could you tell us how NATO’s new military threat differs from the one you issued earlier? ANSWER: Well, let me say that at this very moment today, tomorrow, the following days, new political initiative is going to be placed. We know by now that tomorrow morning in London will take place a contact group meeting and we hope that we give that new momentum to the peace process in Kosovo and the only thing I want to say that will be supported by NATO in all the capacities that NATO has. We will be in permanent contact with the UN Security Council with the Secretary-General to show clearly that this is a global initiative for all the institutions in order to stop the catastrophe in Kosovo. QUESTION: Monsieur le Secrétaire général des Nations Unies, pensez-vous que seule une action militaire de soutien peut aider une résolution diplomatique au conflit? ANSWER: Je crois que ça peut aider je ne veux

pas dire que c’est la seule chose qui puisse aider. L’essentiel est que les deux parties acceptent de négocier à la table pour trouver une solution pacifique. Evidemment nous sommes obliges de mettre toute la pression pour encourager le processus. QUESTION: In your statement to the Council you appeared to have given a very strong backing to NATO for the strategy warning on the lessons of Bosnia must be learned and most clearly is not repeated; are you giving a clear signal of the UN approval for the use of threat to conclude a final agreement in Kosovo? ANSWER: First of all, I think that if you look at the statement in its totality, I’m pushing very hard for a political settlement. We are pushing for an agreement on the autonomy discussion and the proposals on the table. If force becomes the concept and is used, it becomes a necessity to use that force. That is something else that I would need to think about. Threat is essential. QUESTION: Monsieur le Secrétaire Général estce que vous pensez que l’OTAN pourrait intervenir sans laval du Conseil de Sécurité? ANSWER: Normalement il faut l’approbation du Conseil de Sécurité pour l’utilisation de la force. Je l’ai toujours dit.

28 January 1999 Letter (EOSG); priorities of the SecretaryGeneral Memo to deputy secretary-general, Louise Fréchette, from assistant-secretary-general, John Ruggie, laying out the Secretary-General’s priorities for 1999. To: Madame Louise Fréchette, Deputy Secretary-General From: John G. Ruggie Assistant-Secretary-General, EOSG Subject: Secretary-General’s Priorities 1999 Attached please find the final draft of the priorities document. It has been reviewed by the Task Force and is ready to go to the SMG if you decide to take it there. Thank you. ATTACHMENT I: SECRETARY-GENERAL’S 1999 PRIORITIES

I. Functional 1. Humanitarian Challenges

Lead campaign in the context of the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Convention against the abuses

618 • 28 January 1999

of civilian populations, particularly the brutalization and abuse of children, in armed conflicts. Play a personal role in the consideration of humanitarian issues by the inter-governmental machinery, e.g. by addressing the humanitarian segment of ECOSOC. 2. Globalization

Encourage UN system to be more responsive to the multi-faceted challenges of globalization and interdependence. Highlight the social costs of globalization, especially on the poor, and advocate appropriate responses. Foster increased cooperation with Bretton Woods institutions and concentrate on issue-areas where UN has a special advantage. 3. Development

Advocate need for a comprehensive approach to secure more stable capital flows to developing countries and reverse decline in Overseas Development Assistance. Revisit the issue of debt relief. Continue to stress poverty eradication as a central goal of the UN. Stress the continuing importance of long-term sustainable development issues facing small island developing states in light of the special session of the General Assembly in September on Small Island Developing States.

7. Disarmament

Advocate universal adherence to CTBT, urge progress in nuclear disarmament and encourage global and regional action to combat the proliferation of small arms. Encourage Member States to sign and ratify the Ottawa Convention on Land Mines. 8. Human Rights and International Law

Promote ratification of the Rome Statute and the early establishment of a functioning ICC. Stress the growing importance of international law and institutions in a globalizing world, and the need to strengthen relevant global norms, including those established by the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Issue series of major policy statements to mark the anniversaries of key human rights and humanitarian conventions. 9. UN, the Business Community, and International Civil Society

Continue to promote closer engagement between the UN, the business community and NGOs. Encourage private sector to assist developing countries to overcome the Y2K problems and to formulate practices more sensitive to human rights issues. Support NGOs in preparations for the Millenium Forum. II. Regional

4. Collective Security and Human Security

Promote integrated UN approach (including Bretton Woods) to security, governance, peacebuilding and development challenges. Stress synergies between different policy areas (conflict prevention, human rights, humanitarian relief, peacekeeping, peace-making, reconstruction and development). Highlight means to this end, e.g. the “strategic framework” and other mechanisms. Stress the human security and economic benefits of conflict prevention over conflict management and crisis control. 5. Sanctions

Facilitate emerging consensus on need for “smarter” sanctions and the reduction of the humanitarian costs of sanctions regimes. 6. Peacekeeping

Re-articulate the case for UN peacekeeping and the concomitant responsibilities of the Security Council. Draw attention to the disadvantages as well as benefits of peacekeeping by regional organizations. Consider holding high-level informal retreat on prevention, peacekeeping and peace-making for the Security Council.

General: enhance cooperation with regional organizations as follow-up to the high-level meeting of 1998, and consider attending regional summits. 1. Africa

Continue to give special priority to the enormity of challenges engulfing Africa. Vigorously follow up on the recommendations from the SecretaryGeneral’s report on Africa. Stress urgent need for humanitarian agencies’ unimpeded access to threatened populations in DRC, Angola, Sierra Leone and elsewhere. Increase efforts to manage and eventually resolve DRC crisis. Encourage the parties in Burundi to forge an agreement in the Arusha talks. Consider personal intervention to assist UN efforts to end civil war and humanitarian crisis in Sudan, and to prevent the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea from escalating. Support ECOWAS peacemaking efforts in Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau, and seek ways to assist ECOWAS enhance its peace-building and peacekeeping capacities. Pursue personal diplomacy to improve bilateral relationships (e.g. Liberia-

30 January 1999 • 619 Sierra Leone) in the region. Encourage the transition to democracy in Nigeria, and consider attending the inauguration of the new President in May. Pursue implementation of outstanding elements of the “Settlement Plan” for Western Sahara. Continue efforts with Libya to break Lockerbie impasse. Help mobilise action against HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa. 2. Asia and the Middle East

Promote the development of a coordinated and consensual international policy towards Iraq. Use rescheduled visit to India and Pakistan to stress need for bilateral confidence-building measures as well as address disarmament issues, Kashmir and Afghanistan. Consider visit to Indonesia (and possibly South-East Asia and/or Oceania) contingent on progress on East Timor and the domestic situation. Continue to monitor the social costs of the Asian financial crisis, and facilitate UN responses. Consider renewed personal efforts in the Middle East if the peace process unravels. Seek to restore adequate resources for UNRWA. 3. Europe

Consider ways to help advance a resolution of the crisis in Kosovo. Stress that resolving Kosovo crisis requires cooperative action on the political, humanitarian and developmental fronts. III. Institutional 1. Safety of personnel

Urge Member States to take decisive action to ensure the security of UN staff and humanitarian workers in conflict situations; urge all States to sign and ratify the UN Convention on the Safety of UN and Associates Personnel. Devise means to extend protection to all UN staff. 2. Advancement of women

Accelerate process of achieving parity between the sexes in UN staff hiring, development and promotion at all levels. Ensure that UN policies are sensitive to issues of gender. 3. UN Reform

Maintain the momentum for UN reform. Vigorously pursue remaining agenda items i.e. the overhaul of human resources management, results-based budgeting, development account, etc. Continue to press Member States to pay outstanding dues. 4. Disaster reduction

Develop a better-coordinated UN approach to natural disaster reduction in the lead-up to the close of

the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. Consider participation in the international conference in China in May on lessons learned from recent major disasters. 5. Millenium Assembly

Focus attention of all parts of the UN system on the preparations for the Millenium Assembly. Reinforce the need to act on the recommendations arising from the various International Conferences of the last decade.

30 January 1999 Letter (EOSG); Great Lakes region Letter from Ketumile Masire, chairman of the International Panel of Eminent Personalities established by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to investigate the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, regarding the panel’s first meeting. Your Excellency, As you are aware, the thirty fourth Ordinary Session of the OAU Assembly of Heads of State and Government held in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, in June 1998, established an International Panel of Eminent Personalities to Investigate the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda and the Surrounding Events in the Great Lakes Region (IPEP), of which I have the honor to be Chairman. The Panel held its first meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 26 to 28 October 1998. At that meeting, the Panel considered its work programme. As part of our activities, we decided that in addition to the use of available documented data, there is the need to hold meetings with various individuals and institutions who are conversant with the Rwanda and the Great Lakes situations. Given your close involvement in the situation in both Rwanda and the Great Lakes regions as a former Under Secretary-General, in charge of the Department for Peace-Keeping Operations as well as your knowledge of events in Rwanda and the region, I should be most appreciative if you could spare some time to meet with a team of the Panel I will be leading which will be visiting New York from March 22–29, 1999. In addition, Mr. Secretary-General, I would appreciate if you could authorize your officers concerned to make available to the Panel any documents which are relevant to the work of the Panel. I am, indeed, cognizant of the delicate nature of the assignment and I would like to assume that any classified information shall be treated as such.

620 • 30 January 1999

I, therefore, count on you and your Organization for the necessary cooperation and support. Accept, Your Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration and esteem. Sir Ketumile Masire Chairman

31 January 1999 Secretary-General Proposes Global Compact on Human Rights, Labor, and the Environment

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6881); Global Compact Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland. I am delighted to join you again at the World Economic Forum. This is my third visit in just over two years as Secretary-General of the United Nations. On my previous visits, I told you of my hopes for a creative partnership between the United Nations and the private sector. I made the point that the everyday work of the United Nations— whether in peacekeeping, setting technical standards, protecting intellectual property or providing much-needed assistance to developing countries— helps to expand opportunities for business around the world. And I stated quite frankly that, without your know-how and your resources, many of the objectives of the United Nations would remain elusive. Today, I am pleased to acknowledge that, in the past two years, our relationship has taken great strides. We have shown through cooperative ventures—both at the policy level and on the ground—that the goals of the United Nations and those of business can, indeed, be mutually supportive. This year, I want to challenge you to join me in taking our relationship to a still higher level. I propose that you, the business leaders gathered in Davos, and we, the United Nations, initiate a global compact of shared values and principles, which will give a human face to the global market. Globalization is a fact of life. But I believe we have underestimated its fragility. The problem is this. The spread of markets outpaces the ability of societies and their political systems to adjust to them, let alone to guide the course they take. History teaches us that such an imbalance between the economic, social and political realms can never be sustained for very long. The industrialized countries learned that lesson in their bitter and costly encounter with the

Great Depression. In order to restore social harmony and political stability, they adopted social safety nets and other measures, designed to limit economic volatility and compensate the victims of market failures. That consensus made possible successive moves towards liberalization, which brought about the long post-war period of expansion. Our challenge today is to devise a similar compact on the global scale, to underpin the new global economy. If we succeed in that, we would lay the foundation for an age of global prosperity, comparable to that enjoyed by the industrialized countries in the decades after the Second World War. Specifically, I call on you—individually through your firms, and collectively through your business associations—to embrace, support and enact a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards, and environmental practices. Why those three? In the first place, because they are all areas where you, as businessmen and women, can make a real difference. Secondly, they are areas in which universal values have already been defined by international agreements, including the Universal Declaration, the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work, and the Rio Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992. Finally, I choose these three areas because they are ones where I fear that, if we do not act, there may be a threat to the open global market, and especially to the multilateral trade regime. There is enormous pressure from various interest groups to load the trade regime and investment agreements with restrictions aimed at preserving standards in the three areas I have just mentioned. These are legitimate concerns. But restrictions on trade and investment are not the right means to use when tackling them. Instead, we should find a way to achieve our proclaimed standards by other means. And that is precisely what the compact I am proposing to you is meant to do. Essentially there are two ways we can do it. One is through the international policy arena. You can encourage States to give us, the multilateral institutions of which they are all members, the resources and the authority we need to do our job. The United Nations as a whole promotes peace and development, which are prerequisites for successfully meeting social and environmental goals alike. And the International Labour Organization, the United Nations High Commissioner for

31 January 1999 • 621 Human Rights and the United Nations Environmental Programme strive to improve labour conditions, human rights and environmental quality. We hope, in the future, to count you as our allies in these endeavours. The second way you can promote these values is by taking them directly, by taking action in your own corporate sphere. Many of you are big investors, employers and producers in dozens of different countries across the world. That power brings with it great opportunities—and great responsibilities. You can uphold human rights and decent labour and environmental standards directly, by your own conduct of your own business. Indeed, you can use these universal values as the cement binding together your global corporations, since they are values people all over the world will recognize as their own. You can make sure that in your own corporate practices you uphold and respect human rights; and that you are not yourselves complicit in human rights abuses. Don’t wait for every country to introduce laws protecting freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. You can at least make sure your own employees, and those of your subcontractors, enjoy those rights. You can at least make sure that you yourselves are not employing underage children or forced labour, either directly or indirectly. And you can make sure that, in your own hiring and firing policies, you do not discriminate on grounds of race, creed, gender or ethnic origin. You can also support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges. You can undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility. And you can encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what I am asking of you. But what, you may be asking yourselves, am I offering in exchange? Indeed, I believe the United Nations system does have something to offer. The United Nations agencies—the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the International Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)—all stand ready to assist you, if you need help, in incorporating these agreed values and principles into your mission statements and corporate practices. And we are ready to facilitate a dialogue between you and other social groups, to help find viable solutions to the genuine concerns that

they have raised. You may find it useful to interact with us through our newly created website, www.un.org/partners, which offers a “one-stop shop” for corporations interested in the United Nations. More important, perhaps, is what we can do in the political arena, to help make the case for and maintain an environment which favours trade and open markets. I believe what I am proposing to you is a genuine compact, because neither side of it can succeed without the other. Without your active commitment and support, there is a danger that universal values will remain little more than fine words—documents whose anniversaries we can celebrate and make speeches about, but with limited impact on the lives of ordinary people. And unless those values are really seen to be taking hold, I fear we may find it increasingly difficult to make a persuasive case for the open global market. National markets are held together by shared values. In the face of economic transition and insecurity, people know that if the worst comes to the worst, they can rely on the expectation that certain minimum standards will prevail. But in the global market, people do not yet have that confidence. Until they do have it, the global economy will be fragile and vulnerable—vulnerable to backlash from all the “isms” of our post-cold-war world: protectionism; populism; nationalism; ethnic chauvinism; fanaticism; and terrorism. What all those “isms” have in common is that they exploit the insecurity and misery of people who feel threatened or victimized by the global market. The more wretched and insecure people there are, the more those “isms” will continue to gain ground. What we have to do is find a way of embedding the global market in a network of shared values. I hope I have suggested some practical ways for us to set about doing just that. Let us remember that the global markets and multilateral trading system we have today did not come about by accident. They are the result of enlightened policy choices made by governments since 1945. If we want to maintain them in the new century, all of us—governments, corporations, non-governmental organizations, international organizations—have to make the right choices now. We have to choose between a global market driven only by calculations of short-term profit, and one which has a human face. Between a world which condemns a quarter of the human race to starvation and squalor, and one which offers everyone at least a chance of prosperity, in a

622 • 31 January 1999

healthy environment. Between a selfish free-forall in which we ignore the fate of the losers, and a future in which the strong and successful accept their responsibilities, showing global vision and leadership. I am sure you will make the right choice.

3 February 1999 Foreign Ministers of Indonesia, Portugal to Meet with Secretary-General on Plan for East Timor

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6883); East Timor The Foreign Ministers of Indonesia and Portugal have accepted the invitation of the SecretaryGeneral to meet with him in New York on Monday, 8 February. Their discussions will, inter alia, focus on a review of the United Nations plan for a wide ranging autonomy for East Timor, and also on the reported Indonesian proposal of independence for East Timor in case the autonomy proposal is rejected by the majority of East Timorese. The meetings will also discuss the situation on the ground in East Timor. The Foreign Ministers are scheduled to have preliminary meetings on Sunday, 7 February, with the Personal Representative of the SecretaryGeneral for East Timor, Jamsheed Marker.

3 February 1999 Secretary-General Welcomes Kosovo Peace Talks

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6884); Kosovo The Secretary-General welcomes the timely decision of the Contact Group to convene peace talks on Kosovo at Rambouillet. He is convinced that a peaceful settlement can only be reached through direct dialogue between the parties concerned. He urges the Yugoslav authorities and the Kosovo Albanian leadership to shoulder their responsibilities and to use the opportunity offered by the international community to settle the Kosovo crisis by committing themselves to the Rambouillet peace talks without preconditions or delays.

4 February 1999 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter to Robert Fowler, president of the Security Council, regarding the safety of UN inspectors in

Iraq. Following is an Aide-Memoire sent to the permanent mission of Iraq. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to attach a copy of an aidememoire dated 5 January 1999 sent to the Permanent Mission of Iraq in response to the aidememoire dated 4 January 1999 received from the Deputy Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations, a copy of which was sent to you under cover of my letter dated 5 January 1999. Both prior to the exchange of aide-memoires and since then, the Office of the Iraq Programme (OIP) has held discussions with the Iraqi authorities both in Baghdad as well as with the Permanent Mission of Iraq in which OIP emphasized the Iraqi Government’s responsibility under the relevant international instruments to ensure the safety and security of all United Nations personnel in Iraq. Throughout the discussions, the Iraqi authorities have reiterated that the Government cannot guarantee the safety of United Nations personnel of British and United States nationality in Iraq and have requested that such personnel be replaced. In the absence of assurances and taking into account the repeated warnings by the Government of Iraq regarding the security and safety of United Nations personnel of British and United States nationality, and acting on the advice of the United Nations Security Coordinator, I have decided, purely on security grounds and without prejudice to the position of principle communicated to the Permanent Mission of Iraq in the attached aidememoire dated 5 January 1999, to withdraw from Iraq United Nations personnel of United Kingdom and United States nationality. I should be grateful if you would bring this letter together with the attached aide-memoire to the attention of the members of the Security Council, for their information. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. Aide-Memoire

5 January 1999 On 4 January 1999 the United Nations Office of the Iraq Programme received from the Permanent Mission of Iraq to the United Nations and AideMemoire concerning the safety and security of certain United Nations personnel assigned to that Programme by the Secretary-General. In particular, the United Nations was advised that it will be difficult for Iraq to ensure that there will be no unfriendly reaction of the part of some Iraqi citizens to United Nations humanitarian personnel of British or

622 • 31 January 1999

healthy environment. Between a selfish free-forall in which we ignore the fate of the losers, and a future in which the strong and successful accept their responsibilities, showing global vision and leadership. I am sure you will make the right choice.

3 February 1999 Foreign Ministers of Indonesia, Portugal to Meet with Secretary-General on Plan for East Timor

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6883); East Timor The Foreign Ministers of Indonesia and Portugal have accepted the invitation of the SecretaryGeneral to meet with him in New York on Monday, 8 February. Their discussions will, inter alia, focus on a review of the United Nations plan for a wide ranging autonomy for East Timor, and also on the reported Indonesian proposal of independence for East Timor in case the autonomy proposal is rejected by the majority of East Timorese. The meetings will also discuss the situation on the ground in East Timor. The Foreign Ministers are scheduled to have preliminary meetings on Sunday, 7 February, with the Personal Representative of the SecretaryGeneral for East Timor, Jamsheed Marker.

3 February 1999 Secretary-General Welcomes Kosovo Peace Talks

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6884); Kosovo The Secretary-General welcomes the timely decision of the Contact Group to convene peace talks on Kosovo at Rambouillet. He is convinced that a peaceful settlement can only be reached through direct dialogue between the parties concerned. He urges the Yugoslav authorities and the Kosovo Albanian leadership to shoulder their responsibilities and to use the opportunity offered by the international community to settle the Kosovo crisis by committing themselves to the Rambouillet peace talks without preconditions or delays.

4 February 1999 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter to Robert Fowler, president of the Security Council, regarding the safety of UN inspectors in

Iraq. Following is an Aide-Memoire sent to the permanent mission of Iraq. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to attach a copy of an aidememoire dated 5 January 1999 sent to the Permanent Mission of Iraq in response to the aidememoire dated 4 January 1999 received from the Deputy Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations, a copy of which was sent to you under cover of my letter dated 5 January 1999. Both prior to the exchange of aide-memoires and since then, the Office of the Iraq Programme (OIP) has held discussions with the Iraqi authorities both in Baghdad as well as with the Permanent Mission of Iraq in which OIP emphasized the Iraqi Government’s responsibility under the relevant international instruments to ensure the safety and security of all United Nations personnel in Iraq. Throughout the discussions, the Iraqi authorities have reiterated that the Government cannot guarantee the safety of United Nations personnel of British and United States nationality in Iraq and have requested that such personnel be replaced. In the absence of assurances and taking into account the repeated warnings by the Government of Iraq regarding the security and safety of United Nations personnel of British and United States nationality, and acting on the advice of the United Nations Security Coordinator, I have decided, purely on security grounds and without prejudice to the position of principle communicated to the Permanent Mission of Iraq in the attached aidememoire dated 5 January 1999, to withdraw from Iraq United Nations personnel of United Kingdom and United States nationality. I should be grateful if you would bring this letter together with the attached aide-memoire to the attention of the members of the Security Council, for their information. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. Aide-Memoire

5 January 1999 On 4 January 1999 the United Nations Office of the Iraq Programme received from the Permanent Mission of Iraq to the United Nations and AideMemoire concerning the safety and security of certain United Nations personnel assigned to that Programme by the Secretary-General. In particular, the United Nations was advised that it will be difficult for Iraq to ensure that there will be no unfriendly reaction of the part of some Iraqi citizens to United Nations humanitarian personnel of British or

8 February 1999 • 623 United States nationality and that the Government of Iraq therefore cannot guarantee the safety of personnel of either of these two nationalities. Iraq accordingly requests that such personnel be replaced. The Secretariat is concerned by and has taken careful note of this warning of possible risks to certain United Nations humanitarian personnel. It wishes to observe, however, that it is the responsibility of the Government of Iraq under the relevant international instruments to ensure the safety and security of all United Nations humanitarian personnel in Iraq. The Government of Iraq is also under the obligation to provide United Nations humanitarian personnel with the assistance required to facilitate the performance of their functions. The Secretariat therefore trusts that the Government, in discharge of its international obligations, has already taken or is in the process of taking the necessary measures for the protection of the United Nations humanitarian personnel in Iraq. The Secretariat further recalls that pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 100 of the Charter each Member of the United Nations has undertaken to respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the staff of the Organization and not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities. Paragraph 1 of Article 100 also makes clear that as international civil servants the staff of the United Nations shall not seek or receive instructions from any Government or from any other authority external to the Organization and that they shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organization. The Secretariat is, therefore, not in a position to accede to the request to replace the personnel in question on grounds of their nationality. It is for the Secretary-General of the United Nations as the chief administrative officer of the Organization to determine in the light of all the available information and acting on the advice of the United Nations Security Coordinator which personnel should be assigned to provide humanitarian assistance to Iraq in furtherance of the functions that have been entrusted to the Secretariat.

8 February 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); East Timor/Lebanon Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard.

Death of King Hussein

The Secretary-General yesterday expressed his deep and personal grief upon learning of the death of King Hussein of Jordan early Sunday morning. The full text of his statement is available in the Spokesman’s Office. On Sunday afternoon, the Secretary-General departed for Washington, D.C., where he was the guest of United States President William Clinton aboard the President’s plane en route to Jordan. The Secretary-General attended the memorial service today in Jordan for the late King Hussein, and was expected to return to Washington on the President’s plane tonight, and arrive early in the morning tomorrow. The Secretary-General’s programme in New York for today and tomorrow has been adjusted accordingly. Security Council

The Security Council has no consultations scheduled for today, but Council President Robert Fowler of Canada, is holding bilateral meetings with Council members. The Secretary-General was scheduled to brief the Council tomorrow on a number of issues in Africa and on Kosovo, but given his trip to Amman, that briefing would be postponed most likely until Thursday. East Timor Talks

Before tripartite talks resumed this morning in New York, the Secretary-General’s Personal Representative for East Timor, Ambassador Jamsheed Marker, met with East Timorese resistance leader, Jose Ramos Horta, for about half an hour. The tripartite talks at the ministerial level resumed at 11:15 a.m. whereupon Ambassador Marker met with Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas, and Portuguese Foreign Minister Jaime Gama. A working luncheon and a continued afternoon meeting is planned. At the end of today’s talks, Ambassador Marker and the two Foreign Ministers will brief correspondents in Room 226 at 5 p.m. The Secretary-General had intended to attend the ministerial meetings. Before leaving for Washington yesterday, he and Ambassador Marker met with the two Foreign Ministers for approximately one hour. Discussions between the two delegations and the United Nations team, led by Ambassador Marker, continued Sunday afternoon. . . .

624 • 8 February 1999 UNIFIL (UN Interim Force in Lebanon)

On Sunday, armed elements carried out attacks against the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), also known as the de facto forces (DFF) in the Irish battalion sector of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The IDF/DFF retaliated with artillery and mortars. One mortar round fired by the IDF/DFF impacted inside a United Nations position located in the suburbs of Haddatha, while eight other rounds impacted nearby. Two Irish soldiers were wounded by shrapnel. They were evacuated to the UNIFIL hospital in Naquora and they are not in any danger. There was also considerable damage to the equipment and building. UNIFIL is gravely concerned at this incident as well as at the pattern of firing, and has strongly protested to the IDF. In the aftermath of the Qana incident, UNIFIL obtained a commitment from IDF to respect a safety zone around UNIFIL positions. Later, it also received assurances from the Islamic Resistance, which accounts for the vast majority of operations against IDF/DFF that it would not operate in the vicinity of UNIFIL positions. These commitments and assurances were made unilaterally to the United Nations and they are not mutually conditional. As reported in the recent report of the Secretary-General on UNIFIL, there has been some slippage, however. Incidents of armed elements operating close to United Nations positions became more frequent, while the number of firings at or close to United Nations positions by both IDF/DFF and armed elements increased. Although there have been no fatalities since the Qana incident, there were several potentially serious incidents, including this one. UNIFIL is vigorously pursuing the matter with both sides. [The socalled Qana incident refers to the bombardment in 1996 of UNIFIL’s Fijian battalion, which killed more than 100 Lebanese civilians.] . . . Also available in the Spokesman’s Office is the text of the Secretary-General’s speech to the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Financing for Development, which will also be delivered by Mr. Desai. In that statement, the Secretary-General acknowledges the fatigue and frustration resulting from modern-day development challenges. He stresses the importance of multilateral cooperation, which is central to creating a world, not only of competition, but of solidarity. Official development assistance must be cou-

pled with debt relief, the Secretary-General says. He welcomes recent debt-relief initiatives put forward by Germany and the United States, and expresses hope that these initiatives will translate into tangible results before too long. . . .

11 February 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Africa Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. Secretary-General Briefs Security Council

Good afternoon. This morning shortly after 11, the Secretary-General started his tour d’horizon briefing of the Security Council. The briefing will focus on Sierra Leone, Angola, Congo-Brazzaville, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Kosovo. Following that meeting, the Council members and the Secretary-General will have their monthly working luncheon. . . . East Timor

The Secretary-General welcomes the transfer of Xanana Gusmão from prison to residential detention. He hopes that this will enable Mr. Gusmão to participate actively in the discussions about the future of East Timor. Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone is among the situations the SecretaryGeneral is briefing the Council on this morning, as we mentioned. He will be bringing to the Council’s attention the findings of a human rights mission fielded to Freetown last week by the UN Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL). The report says that the rebels have inflicted “devastating human rights violations” on Freetown. Many of the 5,000 people estimated to have been killed during the fighting are feared to have been civilians, and hundreds of civilians have been mutilated. The rebels, many of whom appear to be child soldiers, also committed mass rapes. In the city centre, up to 20 per cent of the housing is estimated to have been destroyed by fire and, in some areas, such as Calaba in the eastern part of the city, up to 90 per cent may have been destroyed. At least 150,000 people have been displaced, and more than 1,000 men, women and children are known to have been forcibly abducted by the rebels. While ultimate responsibility for the fighting, most civilian casualties and the related humanitar-

11 February 1999 • 625 ian emergency in Freetown rests with the rebels, the human rights team also reported that ECOMOG (Economic Community of West African States’ Monitoring Observer Group) and the Civil Defence Forces have also been accused by eyewitnesses of committing summary executions of suspected rebels, and otherwise mistreating civilians, including children. During the fighting, ECOMOG jets bombed parts of Freetown, causing civilian casualties. . . . Question-and-Answer Session

QUESTION: The mandate of the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (UNPREDEP) expires on 20 February. Do you have any news whether the Security Council will meet to renew or change the mandate, and when? SPOKESMAN: The Council would naturally meet to discuss the renewal of the mandate. This time around, there’s the added political complication of the decision by the former Yugoslav Republic to open diplomatic relations with Taiwan, which has drawn a protest from China. We don’t know yet if this will play out in the Council’s deliberations, but we’ll just have to wait and see.

11 February 1999 Secretary-General’s Briefing to the Security Council

Presentation to the Security Council (EOSG); Africa/Kosovo Introduction

Today, taking into account your deliberation of yesterday on Ethiopia-Eritrea, I would like to focus on some other important issues—Sierra Leone, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), the Central African Republic and Kosovo. I have chosen them because they strike me as particularly critical areas requiring special attention of the international community. Of course, there are many other problems which regularly take up the time of the Council, such as Afghanistan, Bosnia, Burundi, Cambodia, Cyprus, Georgia, Haiti, the Middle East, Somalia, Tajikistan, or problem areas in which I am engaged in a good offices role. In the latter case, I am thinking of issues such as East Timor, which is currently in the headlines, and Guatemala. Sierra Leone

An issue of grave concern is Sierra Leone, where a lasting solution to the current crisis must be

sought immediately, to prevent any further loss of life in a country already devastated by almost nine years of civil conflict. As you know, rebel forces, which include the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and remnants of the formed armed forces, attacked Freetown in early January. While in the capital, they murdered more than 3,000 people, and burned much of the city, including UNOMSIL Headquarters. This led to 150,000 internally displaced persons in Freetown alone. The rebels were also responsible for rape, abduction and other atrocities. Eye witnesses indicate that ECOMOG and Civil Defence Forces were also involved in summary executions of suspected rebels. My Special Representative for Sierra Leone, Mr. Francis Okelo, has been engaged in a series of intensive negotiations with the neighbouring Governments to stimulate diplomatic efforts to address the crisis, as well as achieve a cease-fire which would enable the delivery of urgently-needed humanitarian assistance to the population of Freetown. I welcome the 7 February announcement by President Kabbah expressing willingness to enter into dialogue, which deserves the support of the Security Council. The RUF reportedly has welcomed cautiously President Kabbah’s offer. I have instructed my Special Representative, to assist in facilitating such dialogue with the rebels. I shall report to the Security Council by 5 March with recommendations for the future of UNOMSIL. In the meantime, I hope the donor community will help to ensure that ECOMOG receives the resources it needs to carry out its important mission for regional peace and security. It is also essential that all parties in Sierra Leone must commit themselves to recognizing the neutrality of humanitarian organizations and the government must reiterate its willingness to permit the free flow of assistance to all parts of the country. The international community’s role in this regard is vital. Angola

In my report of 17 January, I indicated that, the international community should not turn its back on the Angolan people and recommended to the Council a number of steps to help put the peace process back on track, as well as to provide the Angolan population with the necessary humanitarian relief and human rights protection. As you are aware, on 27 January, my Special Representative in Angola, Mr. Diallo, received a note verbale conveying the Angolan Government’s position that a multi-disciplinary UN presence,

626 • 11 February 1999

“was not necessary”. The Government indicated that the United Nations could continue its activities through UNDP and specialized agencies. Following the Council’s presidential statement of 21 January, I sent a letter to President dos Santos advising him to reconsider the advantages of a continued UN multi-disciplinary presence in Angola. However, I consider it imperative that my efforts be reinforced by démarches by members of the Security Council and members of the Troika and that they will convey to the Government of Angola the position expressed in the 21 January statement. On 9 February, Mr. Diallo was received by President dos Santos. The President indicated that he would respond to my message in writing, after consulting with his Government, the National Assembly and the MPLA. I await this response. I also stand ready to send a Personal Envoy to Luanda to discuss with the Government the future of the United Nations presence in Angola. My decision in this regard will be taken in light of the contents of President dos Santos’ reply to my last letter, and the outcome of efforts by the members of the Council and the Troika. There is a need to stress to the Angolan parties that the United Nations is ready to intensify its humanitarian assistance to vulnerable groups in the country, but it cannot do so without guarantees of access (including to UNITA-held areas), and assurances for the security of humanitarian personnel. Such constraints have resulted in more than 50% of the population and geographical area not receiving much-needed assistance. The rapid increase in the number of IDPs (550,000 of whom have been created in the past ten months) underscores the need to find a political solution to this conflict that has already caused so much suffering.

12 February 1999 Letter (UN archives); Libya/Iraq Internal note to the Secretary-General from John Ruggie, regarding his meetings in Washington, D.C. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

At the State Department today I had very good meetings with Tom Pickering, David Welch (the new Assistant Secretary for I.O.), and Welch’s deputy, Bill Wood. I won’t summarise the entire conversations here. But a few points are worth noting, and in one instance I was explicitly asked to convey a message to you.

Libya

The message concerns Libya, and the issue was raised by both Pickering and Welch. I told both that this was not a file I am involved in, but that I would be happy to report the message to you. In brief, they are concerned that if you send any clarification to the Libyans that it fully reflects US/UK views on the terms of reference for the trial and imprisonment, and on the suspension of sanctions. Pickering actually hinted that they would be appreciative of reviewing any such communication. Iraq

The issue of Iraq was also raised, principally by Welch. He stated that the constitution of the panels seemed to be going well and that there was new hope for cooperation in the Council at least for the duration of the panels’ enquiries. He added a couple of other points as well. One, he stated the view that the French proposal for moving toward on-going monitoring and verification as well as lifting of sanctions was “not a serious proposal”, nor had a real effort been made to sell it to the United States. Apparently, Pickering’s conversations with the French were not productive. Welch indicated that the United States would not yield on the disarmament issue or on sanctions. On the latter, he indicated that the argument that, apart from the issue of controlling revenues, there is a similarity between lifting sanctions and lifting the ceiling on oil exports was quite misleading and would simply undermine support in Washington for sustaining the US proposal to lift the ceiling. Two, you may recall from my report on my last visit with Welch a month ago that he then complained about the influence of “Iraq symps” on the 38th floor. I mentioned to him today that you had decided to involve the substantive departments much more extensively in the Iraq issue, and he was pleased to hear that. He also asked me to thank you for your quiet efforts with the P3 to limit (with mixed success) their making Butler an issue in the Council. Other Issues

We also discussed your up-coming visit to Washington, the arrears issue and UN reform. Little progress has been made on arrears but they hope to begin to move forward in the next weeks. Their hope is to limit the number and content of benchmarks—Pickering described this as “the son of Helms-Biden”. On the question of reform, Pickering thought that it might be useful for us all to have a serious discussion of what

16 February 1999 • 627 benchmarks are necessary for the Congress and are also “doable” from the point of view of the United Nations. When I pointed out to him how difficult it would be to continue to maintain zero nominal budgetary growth into the indefinite future, he asked David Welch to explore the feasibility of gradually moving toward a zero realgrowth mode.

16 February 1999 Secretary-General Says Establishing International Criminal Court Will Be Fitting Way to Inaugurate New Millennium

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6895, L/2908); International Criminal Court Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the opening of the first meeting of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, in New York. On 18 July last year I had the honour to take part in the ceremony held at the Campidoglio, in Rome, to celebrate the adoption of the Statute of the future International Criminal Court. I said then that the adoption of the Rome Statute was a gift of hope to future generations and a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law. The Statute is now deposited with me, as Secretary-General of the United Nations, and is open for signature until 31 December 2000. Seventy-five States have signed it so far, and this month Senegal became the first to ratify it. That is very encouraging but, as you know, we need 60 ratifications before the Statute can come into force. There are also many practical arrangements and points of detail to be settled before the Court actually begins to function. With that in mind, the Conference which adopted the Statute also decided to establish a Preparatory Commission. The General Assembly asked me to convene it, and to provide it with secretariat services. The Secretariat is at your service, to help you carry out the vital task before you. That task requires you to produce a number of documents which will make it possible to put the Court into operation. In particular, you have to elaborate clear and unambiguous rules on the practice of the Court, and on the elements of the crimes over which it has jurisdiction. You must also draw up proposals for a provision on aggression—the crime which is most profoundly threatening to international order, and

whose prevention and deterrence is one of the prime objectives of this Organization. As you know, some States have expressed reluctance to become parties to the Statute. I believe the Commission can help overcome that reluctance by “discussing ways to enhance the effectiveness and acceptance of the Court”, as the General Assembly said in its resolution. This is crucial, because the Court’s effectiveness will depend, to a great extent, on the number of States that support it. I would therefore strongly encourage all States, whether or not they voted for adopting the Statute in Rome, to play an active part in this Commission’s work. Meanwhile, I am delighted to see many nongovernmental organizations represented here today. The role of such organizations was decisive in the process leading to the adoption of the Rome Statute. I am sure they will continue to assist you in the work of creating an effective and universal international criminal jurisdiction. This is an issue on which there really is such a thing as world public opinion. The world is eager to see the International Criminal Court established as soon as possible. It expects this Commission to work hard and fast. This century has seen a remarkable development of what lawyers call “substantive law”, including the definition of international crimes and principles of international criminal law. And yet, until now we have had no general, pre-established criminal jurisdiction to enforce that law, and to punish people who commit those crimes. The ad hoc tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo, and more recently those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, were important steps forward. But only a permanent Court with universal jurisdiction can finally lay to rest the charge that the international community is being selective or applying double standards in deciding which crimes to investigate and punish. I believe the establishment of such a Court will be a fitting way to inaugurate the new millennium. It puts the world on notice that crimes against humanity, which have disfigured and disgraced this century, will not go unpunished in the next. And it gives concrete expression to Francis Bacon’s famous principle that not even the Sovereign can make “dispunishable” those crimes which are malum in se—evil in themselves, “as being against the Law of Nature”. The best chance humankind has ever had to

628 • 16 February 1999

end the “culture of impunity” is within our grasp. We must not let it fail.

solving the Libya/Lockerbie issue by offering a presence at/in the Scottish prison.

17 February 1999

As already indicated in the Understanding attached to your letter to Mr. Qaddafi of 17 February 1999, the United Nations will be given a role in monitoring the treatment of the two persons in the Scottish prison. This arrangement will be subject to discussions with the British authorities. However, it could be assumed that the United Nations will be given the right to send its representatives to observe the conditions of imprisonment in order to determine whether all the requirements of applicable Scottish law as well as the arrangements referred to in the Understanding attached to your letter are duly respected. It may also be assumed that United Nations observers should have direct access to the prisoners in accordance with the relevant provisions of Scottish law. Although the prisoners during these contacts may convey to the United Nations observers their complaints, it should be clearly understood that any official representations by the prisoners can only be made to the British authorities. The question arises, of course, what the United Nations observers should do with their findings, whatever they are. It appears that since this matter is consequential to Security Council Resolution 1192 (1998), the Secretary-General will be required to report periodically to the Council about this aspect of the implementation of the resolution. Also, there would be the question of financing the observers. Preferably these costs should be absorbed within the existing budget. Otherwise, the General Assembly will have to be approached for additional funding.

Observers Remarks by the Secretary-General upon Entering UN Headquarters

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Libya/Ocalan QUESTION: [inaudible] [Libya]. SECRETARY-GENERAL: I am going to be sending them a letter, but obviously I cannot discuss with you what’s in the letter. QUESTION: Is it today that you are sending the letter? S-G: That is correct. QUESTION: . . . obviously you have consulted with the British and the Americans now and the Libyans as well. Is this letter that is agreed to by the three basically? S-G: I hope that the contents of the letter will be acceptable to all of them. QUESTION: [inaudible] . . . their conditions or their request for assurances? S-G: We have offered clarifications and answered some of their questions. I hope that the understandings contained in the letter will be sufficient for us to move forward. QUESTION: Are you still optimistic or is there any snag that has crept out unexpectedly. S-G: I am always optimistic. QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the capture of the Turkish leader, Ocalan? S-G: Well you know we have some Kurds also in the United Nations in the Palais [Geneva]. They have been there since yesterday and I did speak with Mr. Petrovski about it this morning. They are in contact with them and have undertaken to get their concerns known and are trying to get them to leave the building. I hope he will be given a fair treatment and due process. Thank you. QUESTION: The letter and then wait now? S-G: If I write a letter, I have to wait to get a reaction.

19 February 1999 Letter (UN archives); Lockerbie bombing/UN flag Internal note from Hans Corell of the UN legal office. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL—SUBJECT: UN PRESENCE AT/IN A SCOTTISH PRISON

You have asked me, through Mr. Knutsson, to what extent the United Nations can contribute to

UN Guards

It has also been suggested that the two persons, if convicted, could be under the authority of UN Guards. This is a completely different matter: it would mean that the sentences would be executed under UN authority (even if in principle Scottish law could be applied). It is doubtful that the United Kingdom will ever agree to this condition, which will require the adoption of special legislation to that end. In any event, this suggestion cannot be implemented unless the Security Council mandates the Secretariat to do so because normal responsibilities of United Nations Secretariat under the Charter do not foresee such a function. In sum: this alternative raises a host of questions that would have to be examined very carefully and would require extensive consultations with the British authorities.

23 February 1999 • 629 Flying of UN flag

You have also asked me whether it would be possible to fly the UN flag on the prison. One must distinguish between two situations. (a) If the prisoners were held by United Nations Guards, the prison or part thereof, would be a United Nations prison. If so, the United Nations flag shall be flown (Flag Code, paragraph 4 (1) (a), attached); (b) If there are only United Nations observers monitoring the conditions of imprisonment, paragraph 4 (2) may apply: “The flag shall be used by any unit acting on behalf of the United Nations such as any Committee or other Commission or other entity established by the United Nations in such circumstances not covered by this Code as may become necessary in the interest of the United Nations”. It should, however, be remembered that hoisting of the United Nations flag, as any other arrangement, in accordance with the understanding attached to your letter, is subject to discussion with the British authorities and cannot be implemented by the United Nations unilaterally. The above information is provided on a very short notice. I, therefore, have to reserve my position as to details. Also, any solution indicated in your request would of course have to be agreed to by the United Kingdom/the Scottish authorities.

22 February 1999 Secretary-General Calls on International Community to Redouble Efforts Toward Eradication of Colonialism

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6988, GA/COL/2996); colonialism Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the opening meeting of the 1999 session of the Special Committee on Decolonization, with regard to the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, in New York I am pleased to join you as you begin your deliberations for 1999. The decolonization movement has brought about one of the signal transformations of our century. This Committee, helping to bring to life the Charter principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples”, has made important contributions to that historic change. The General Assembly established this Special Committee in 1961 to examine the application of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence

to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and to make recommendations on the Declaration’s implementation. Thirty years later, the General Assembly adopted a plan of action for the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, with the aim of achieving complete decolonization by the end of the year 2000. Today, working closely and constructively with the peoples of the remaining territories and the administering Powers, you continue to play a key role in our efforts to reach that goal. As always, my staff and I are pleased to assist and work with you. Let me also use this occasion to urge the specialized agencies, the offices of the United Nations system and the international financial institutions, each in its respective field, to continue assisting the Special Committee. Last year, in commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the struggle for independence and the right of a people to be the master of its own destiny. In that spirit, I would encourage the administering Powers to work closely with this Committee and especially with the people of the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories to help them reach a “full measure of self-government”, in the words of the Charter, and to realize their aspirations. More than 80 nations whose peoples were formerly under colonial rule have joined the United Nations as sovereign independent States since 1945. Many other territories have achieved selfdetermination through political association with other independent States or through integration with other States. This is great progress. As the century comes to a close, and as we mark the penultimate year of the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, let us redouble our efforts to see this process through to its conclusion.

23 February 1999 Letter (UN archives); small arms Letter to Khiphusizi J. Jele, permanent representative of South Africa to the UN, welcoming South Africa’s decision to destroy surplus arms. The letter was prompted by a note to the chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, from Jayantha Dhanapala, UN undersecretary-general for disarmament affairs. Excellency, I thank you for your note of 22 February 1999 in which you inform me of the decision by Your

630 • 23 February 1999

Excellency’s Government to destroy all surplus small arms in the possession of the Government, following the recommendation contained in my report on small arms. I welcome this initiative by the Government of South Africa. The devastating effects that the excessive proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons have on the social, economic and political progress of nations, especially in a conflict-affected area such as Africa, are well known. South Africa’s unilateral initiative of destroying all surplus small arms will certainly serve as a valuable example for other nations to follow. May I assure Your Excellency of the full support of the United Nations for this and other initiatives aimed at alleviating the problems posed by small arms and light weapons around the world. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. NOTE TO MR. RIZA

1. Please find enclosed a note verbale addressed to the Secretary-General by the Permanent Mission of South Africa to the UN regarding the decision of the South African Government to destroy all surplus small arms in its possession. 2. The South African Government has decided to take this step in line with the recommendations contained in the Report of the Secretary-General on Small Arms (A/52/298), and because of its concern about the proliferation of small arms which have a devastating effect on the social, economic and political developments in the South African region. 3. The Government of South Africa plans to destroy the weapons in a public ceremony and will invite the United Nations to be represented at the ceremony. 4. The South African Mission has requested to circulate the note verbale as well as the attached statement as an official UN document. It has also expressed the wish to receive a prompt response from the Secretary-General welcoming this initiative and encouraging other countries to do the same. Enclosed herewith is a draft response for your consideration and approval.

23 February 1999 Secretary-General Says Future of Peacekeeping Will Depend on Mobilizing New Forms of Leverage to Bring Parties Toward Settlement

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6901, PKO/80); peacekeeping

Speech delivered by the Secretary-General upon receiving the Jit Trainor Award for Distinction in the Conduct of Diplomacy, at Georgetown University, in Washington, D.C. The theme of the address was “The Future of United Nations Peacekeeping.” Thank you, Don, and Father O’Donovan, for those very kind words. I am greatly flattered by what you have said and greatly honoured to become the eighteenth recipient of the Jit Trainor award. I am more than happy to speak to you this evening about United Nations peacekeeping. As Don has mentioned, I was head of the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations for four years before I became Secretary-General. It was a very exciting time and, on the whole, a very inspiring one. So the subject has remained close to my heart. The United Nations can, I think, fairly claim to have invented both the word and the concept of peacekeeping, but it did so by improvising in response to specific situations and events. Not surprisingly, therefore, peacekeeping has evolved over time, and has taken different forms as it adapted to different circumstances. Since the end of the cold war, our operations have become more ambitious and more complex. Almost without exception, the new conflicts which have erupted since 1991 have been civil ones. Although, often, there is outside interference, the main battle is between people who are, or were, citizens of the same State. This has obliged the United Nations to redefine the tasks that peacekeeping involves. Instead of maintaining a ceasefire while waiting for a political solution to be negotiated, we are now more often deployed as part of an agreed process, to help implement a fledgling political settlement. This involves us in such activities as collecting weapons, disarming and demobilizing militias, supervising elections, and monitoring— sometimes even training—police forces. Putting a war-torn society back together is never easy, and one can seldom say with real confidence that the point of no return has been achieved. But we can claim some success stories. Not all the wounds of conflict have yet healed, but Namibia, Mozambique, El Salvador, even Cambodia are countries which have now lived several years without war, and which have at least a fair chance of lasting peace, thanks to the hard work of United Nations peacekeepers in the late 1980s and early 1990s. To some extent, we have been victims of our

23 February 1999 • 631 own success. In the early 1990s, expectations ran very high, and some of the assignments we were given were ones which could only have been carried out successfully by much larger forces, armed with heavier equipment and, above all, with clearer mandates. The international community has drawn lessons from these sad experiences, but perhaps not always the right ones. In Africa, the effect was to make external Powers more reluctant to expose their forces. Indeed, the tragedy of Rwanda was caused, in part, by fear of repeating the experience of Somalia, which haunted some members of the Security Council. In Europe, thankfully, a different lesson was drawn. External Powers, especially the United States, became more involved, not less. We saw diplomatic skill and military muscle combined— late in the day, but with great effect—to produce the Dayton Agreement. The Implementation Force in Bosnia, and the Stabilization Force, which has succeeded it, have to my mind been model peacekeeping forces. Heavily armed, and authorized to use their arms if challenged, they have, in practice, hardly used them at all because their authority has not been challenged. But, although authorized by the Security Council, they are not United Nations peacekeeping forces, in the sense that they do not wear blue helmets. As you know, they are under North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) leadership. But another success was the parallel operation in Eastern Slavonia. There, too, a force was deployed strong enough to intimidate the local parties, so that the Transitional Administration was able to see off early challenges and fulfil its mandate without being dragged into combat. But this was a United Nations operation in the full sense of the term. It brought together a broad range of international responses—military, political, and humanitarian— under the authority of a Special Representative of the Secretary-General, who happened to be a very distinguished American, Jacques Paul Klein. The result was an integrated strategy, and the force was able to withdraw on time, without leaving renewed bloodshed behind it. But peacekeeping is not, and must not become, an arena of rivalry between the United Nations and NATO. There is plenty of work for us both to do. We work best when we respect each other’s compe-

tence and avoid getting in each other’s way. In fact, the United Nations Charter explicitly encourages regional arrangements and agencies, like NATO, to deal with regional problems, provided they do so in a manner consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. So I welcome NATO’s role, as I welcome that of other regional organizations in other parts of the world. But few others have, or would claim to have, the same operational capacity that NATO has. It is, therefore, unfortunate that in recent years the Security Council has been reluctant to authorize new United Nations peacekeeping operations, and has often left regional or subregional organizations to struggle with local conflicts on their own. That puts an unfair burden on the organizations in question. It is also a waste of the expertise in peacekeeping which the United Nations has developed over the years. As a result, the number of United Nations peacekeepers fell precipitately between 1994 and 1998. If only that meant there had been a drop in the need for peacekeeping, we could all rejoice. But that is far from the case. In fact, the overall number of peacekeepers deployed around the world remains roughly constant. It is only the proportion of them wearing blue berets that has declined. Ironically, this happened just when the United Nations, with the support of its Member States, was developing a sound infrastructure for directing and supporting peacekeeping operations. It is a paradox that, in technical terms, we are better equipped now that we have only 14,000 soldiers in the field than we were five years ago, when we had nearly 80,000. And if our capacity continues to be underutilized, there is an obvious risk that Member States will no longer give us the resources we need to sustain it. This would not matter if the peace around the world were being successfully kept. But the truth is that the role played by NATO in Bosnia has proved very hard for regional arrangements or defence alliances to reproduce elsewhere. In Africa especially, I find that local Powers, and indeed regional organizations, are turning more and more to the United Nations for help. We must not dismantle the capacity that can provide that help. Of course, we must be careful to avoid the mistakes of the past. We must never again send a United Nations force, just for the sake of it, to keep a non-existent peace, or one to which the parties themselves show no sense of commitment.

632 • 23 February 1999

That, perhaps, is the lesson of Angola, where, as you know, civil war is now raging once again, and I have had to recommend the withdrawal of the United Nations force. But let us not forget the positive lesson of Mozambique, which, 10 years ago, seemed quite as tragic and hopeless a case as Angola. There, the presence of 7,000 United Nations troops had a calming effect, helping to reassure vulnerable parties and people, and to deter disruptions of the peace. Conflict was successfully channeled into legitimate political institutions, so that interests no longer had to be pursued at the point of a gun. This required working with the parties to strengthen national institutions and broaden their base. And to ensure that the parties could make use of the new institutions, we had to help them— especially the guerrilla opposition—to transform themselves from an army into a political party. Had we not done that, the opposition leaders would quickly have become disillusioned with the political process and would have been tempted to return to the battlefield. We also provided incentives for individual combatants, many of whom had been pressed into service as children, had come of age as fighters, and knew no other way of life. And so, with a little help from the United Nations, the parties in Mozambique were able to make peace. What was once a violent and ruthless rebel movement has become a constructive and peaceful opposition party. No doubt we got some things right in Mozambique, which we got wrong in Angola, but surely the main difference lies in the behaviour of the political leaders, on both sides, in the two countries. So yes, we have to be cautious about taking on new mandates in countries where many different interests and ethnic animosities are involved. But, let us not nurture any illusions that regional or subregional bodies will be able to handle these problems on their own, without help from the United Nations. You only have to list the countries which might make up a “regional force” in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for instance, to realize that many of them are already involved in the hostilities on one side or the other. Indeed, the experience of decades has shown that peacekeeping is often best done by people from outside the region, who are more easily accepted as truly detached and impartial.

So I think we must be prepared for a conclusion which many African leaders have already reached: that if a peacekeeping force is required in the Congo, the United Nations would probably have to be involved. But, equally, we must be prepared to insist that no such force can be deployed unless it is given sufficient strength and firepower to carry out its assignment, and assured of the full backing of the Security Council when it has to use that power. I see no need for it to include American troops. But, I think, in other respects, the Bosnian model is just as relevant to Africa as it is to Europe. Increasingly, we find that peacekeeping cannot be treated as a distinct task, complete in itself. It has to be seen as part of a continuum, stretching from prevention to conflict resolution and “peacebuilding”. And these things cannot be done in a neat sequence. You have to start building peace while the conflict is still going on. It is essentially a political task, but one which is part and parcel of a peacekeeping role. More than ever, the distinctions between political and military aspects of our work are becoming blurred. I have no doubt that in future we will need to be even more adaptable. The future of peacekeeping, I suspect, will depend, in large part, on whether we succeed in mobilizing new forms of leverage to bring parties towards a settlement. In the past, when a peacekeeping operation ran into trouble, the most effective response was to report this to the Security Council, whose permanent members would then put pressure on their respective proxies, mainly by extending or reducing economic and military aid. In today’s conflicts, that kind of governmentto-government aid is less important. Conflicting parties now finance their armies with hard currency earned by exporting the commodities they control. How do we obtain leverage over those sources of income? It may involve a new kind of relationship with the private sector, where the foreign customers and backers of the parties are to be found. Also, given the civil nature of today’s conflicts, which are always, in some degree, a battle for hearts and minds, we may need to engage on a broader front with the civilian population. At the very least, we must ensure that they have access to reliable and objective information, so that they are not an easy prey for artificially fanned fear and hatred. It is sadly clear that the need for United

26 February 1999 • 633 Nations peacekeeping will continue and, indeed, will probably grow. And it is very much in America’s national interest to support an international response to conflicts—even those which seem remote—because, in today’s interconnected world, they seldom remain confined in one country or even one region. Take Rwanda, for example. The failure of the international community to respond effectively led not only to genocide in Rwanda itself, but also to the exodus of refugees and combatants across the borders. Because we failed to act in time, seven countries are now fighting each other in a mineral-rich region which should have been a prime area for investment and development. Is this something the United States can afford to ignore? Personally, I shall always be haunted by our failure to prevent or halt the genocide in Rwanda until nearly a million people had been killed. The peacekeeping force was withdrawn at the very moment that it should have been reinforced. But whether we express remorse or outrage, or both, our words are of little value—unless we are sure that next time we will act differently. Which means that next time we will not hide behind the complexities and dangers of the situation. Next time we must not wait for hindsight to tell us the wisest course. Nor must we set impossible conditions, thereby ensuring that the Security Council takes no decision until too late. We must be prepared to act while things are still unclear and uncertain, but in time to make a difference. We must do so with sufficient resources— including credible military strength when a deterrent is necessary—to ensure the mission’s success and the peacekeepers’ safety. And once the Council has authorized an operation, everyone—but especially those Council members who voted for it—must pay their share of the cost, promptly and in full. Only if we approach our work in that spirit can we dare hope that peacekeeping in the twenty-first century will build on the achievements of the twentieth.

23 February 1999 Secretary-General Welcomes the Conclusion of the Rambouillet Negotiations on Kosovo

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6902); Kosovo

The Secretary-General welcomes the conclusion of negotiations led by the Contact Group in Rambouillet, France, that have led to an agreement on substantial autonomy for Kosovo, while respecting the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. He is encouraged to note in the Co-Chairmen’s conclusions following the talks that they have provided for a political framework, thereby laying the groundwork for finalizing the implementation Chapters of the Agreement, including the modalities of the invited international civilian and military presence in Kosovo. The Secretary-General is pleased that there is a commitment to attend a conference, covering all aspects of implementation, on 15 March, and hopes that it will result in a comprehensive interim agreement. He wishes to congratulate the members of the Contact Group for their persistence and initiative in forging this framework, and trusts that its fulfillment will provide genuine autonomy for the long-suffering people of Kosovo. The Secretary-General strongly supports the appeal made by the Contact Group to the parties to abstain from any actions which could undermine the achievements of Rambouillet, to honour fully and immediately the ceasefire which should be in place throughout Kosovo, to abstain from all provocative actions, to provide for the security of all international personnel, and to abide fully by their commitments of October 1998 and to comply with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

26 February 1999 Letter (UN archives); UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations Internal note from Bernard Miyet, under-secretary-general for peacekeeping, regarding the DPKO’s budget. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Re: Support account for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 Posts for DPKO 1. At the time when the previous support account budget was issued, DPKO had 358 staff of which 134 were gratis. In September 1998, in order to replace these 134 gratis personnel, the General Assembly approved only 77 additional posts for the Department, of which 22 were to be met through redeployment. If all 22 posts could be redeployed in favour of DPKO, this Department would still experience a 16% reduction.

634 • 26 February 1999

2. In other Departments of the Secretariat, there are a total of 120 posts financed from the support account which have remained untouched. Despite the radical decrease in DPKO’s capacity, we managed to identify one post within this Department for redeployment. Therefore, it would be necessary to identify 21 other posts for redeployment to DPKO in order to obtain the 77 posts approved by the GA. If the required 21 posts were to be redeployed from these other Departments, they would experience a 17% reduction in their personnel funded by the support account. 3. DPKO has already experienced a tremendous reduction in staffing. At this stage, any further reductions would seriously impact on the substance of our work, particularly in the areas of logistics, military planning and training. Drastic reductions have, in fact, already been made especially in areas such as the Situation Centre, Military planning and training as well as in FALD. 4. While I understand the fact that a cap of 400 support account posts has been set in light of certain political difficulties, I also believe that budgets should be reviewed on the basis of the merits of the proposals. However, I also feel that, if efforts are made, the burden of these reductions could be distributed equitably among those Departments which have been provided with staff financed from the support account specifically in support of peacekeeping operations.

26 February 1999 Secretary-General Regrets Impasse in Angolan Peace Process and Resumption of Conflict

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6908, AFR/134); Angola The Secretary-General very much regrets the impasse in the Angolan peace process and the resumption of conflict, which have led to the termination of the United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA) mandate today. Since the conclusion of the Lusaka Protocol in November 1994, United Nations peacekeeping operations have contributed to four years of relative peace, the longest such period the people of Angola had ever enjoyed since its independence. The Secretary-General believes that the United Nations can be proud of its contribution, which gave the Angolan parties a unique opportunity to achieve peace and national reconciliation. It is tragic that this historic opportunity has not been seized by the Angolan parties.

With the steadily worsening security situation, and the inability of MONUA to carry out its mandate, it has become increasingly clear that, for the time being, the conditions for an effective United Nations peacekeeping role in Angola have ceased to exist. The United Nations will not, however, abandon the people of Angola and is prepared to continue and, if need be, increase its humanitarian assistance, human rights and development activities. The United Nations, of course, stands ready to offer its support again whenever the parties in conflict decide to seek a peaceful settlement. In the meantime, consultations will continue with the Government of Angola regarding the follow-up configuration of the United Nations presence in Angola, as required by Security Council resolution 1129 (1999) of today.

26 February 1999 Letter (UN archives); Guinea-Bissau Letter to Robert Fowler, president of the Security Council, regarding the situation in Guinea-Bissau and arrangements between ECOMOG and the UN. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to the situation in Guinea-Bissau and to Security Council resolution S/1998/1216 of 21 December 1998 which, inter alia, requests that I “make recommendations to the Council on a possible role of the United Nations in the process of peace and reconciliation in GuineaBissau, including the early establishment of arrangements for liaison between the United Nations and ECOMOG.” On the basis of recommendations of a United Nations multi-disciplinary mission dispatched early December to Guinea-Bissau, I am pleased to propose that a United Nations Peace-Building Office be established in Guinea-Bissau. The Office would be entrusted with the following mandate: a) to help create an enabling environment for restoring and consolidating peace, democracy and the rule of law and for the organization of free and transparent elections; b) to work with the Government of National Unity, with ECOWAS and its interposition force (ECOMOG), as well as with other national and international partners to facilitate the implementation of the Abuja Agreement; c) to seek the commitment of the Government and other parties to adopt a programme of voluntary arms collection, their disposal and destruction; and d) to provide the political framework and leadership for harmonizing and integrating the activities of the United Nations system in the country, partic-

26 February 1999 • 635 ularly during the transitional period leading up to general and presidential elections. The above mandate responds to the needs of Guinea-Bissau as conveyed to the United Nations mission by the Prime Minister of the Government of National Unity and is consistent with my report to the Security Council on “the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa”, as well as with Security Council resolution 1170 (1998). In light of the above, I recommend that the United Nations Peace-building Support Office in Guinea-Bissau be headed by a Representative of the Secretary-General (RSG) at the D-2 level. The RSG will be assisted by several Political Affairs and Human Rights Officers, an Electoral Officer, a Military Adviser and support staff. I should be grateful, Mr. President, if you would bring this letter to the attention of Members of the Security Council. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

26 February 1999 Press Conference with the Secretary-General After Meeting with the Security Council

Press conference (OSSG); Lockerbie bombing Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. As you know, I have just briefed the Council on the Libya/Lockerbie file, brought them up to date on where we are in my exchanges with the Libyan authorities, and have indicated to the Council that in my judgment, we have given all the explanations and clarifications that have been demanded by the Libyan authorities, and that we are waiting for their decision. Some of you may know that over the last couple of months beginning last Fall, my legal team and the Libyan legal team had been working together in clarifying issues related to the Lockerbie issue. Lots of good work has been done by the two legal teams, and I have had very good support and constructive help from all the governments concerned, in particular the United Kingdom, the United States, the Netherlands, France, and others who have supported the process. Of course, as you know, President Mandela and Crown Prince Abdullah also sent envoys to assist the process. We are now at a critical and delicate stage, and I hope that we don’t have much to go. I am still reasonably optimistic that we will have a breakthrough soon. Thank you very much. I will take your questions.

QUESTION: Do you support the idea mentioned by the U.S. and Great Britain of setting up a 30day deadline for a response? ANSWER: The Council, of course, is still in session. I don’t know what the final decision will be, but obviously I gave a letter to the Libyan authorities yesterday, and they would need a reasonable period to react. QUESTION: Is 30 days a reasonable period? ANSWER: I don’t know what the Council is going to decide, but I would say, yes, it would be a reasonable period. QUESTION: Ces trente jours qu’on leur donne, les trente jours supplementaires, ça ne veut pas dire qu’ils vont repondre positivement . . . ANSWER: J’espere qu’ils vont repondre positivement. QUESTION: There are those who would perceive the withdrawal of MONUA as a failure of the United Nations. How would you react? ANSWER: I think the UN made a very good effort in [Angola] to help the parties come to an agreement. I think we need to be careful not to be too quick in blaming the UN or the international community when these operations fail. Where are the leaders who are supposed to be there to protect their people, to seek their interest? Why is it that sometimes the necessary decisions and compromises are not taken for us to arrive at peaceful solutions that would be in the interest of all the people? The international community, be it in the form of the UN or any group of countries, can help in these situations. They can help if the will to reconcile is there, but the inspiration for a viable and long-term solution has to spring from the leaders and the people. Why does it work in [some] situations but not in others? Why did it work in Mozambique? The leaders have something to do with it. Why did it work in El Salvador, and others? So be careful not to blame the UN. Of course, the UN is not perfect; we may have made some mistakes. But, we have tried, and I hope that the leaders will have to accept that they have to seek solutions at the negotiating table through political means, and not on the battleground. QUESTION: [inaudible] [On the future of peacekeeping.] ANSWER: I think it’s a phase. I think it’s a phase and I think the pendulum will swing back. I think, as we all know, after our experiences in Somalia, that the Council itself had been hesitant in getting engaged in peacekeeping operations. But I think that attitude it also changing. Secondly, regional organizations have a role to play. Our own

636 • 26 February 1999

Charter encourages them to get involved with the resolution of some of these conflicts. So I welcome the role by the regional organizations. But we have to admit that, with the exception of NATO’s arrangements, not all regional organizations have the capacity to take on these crises. Time and time again, they turn back to the UN, either for military or logistical or financial support, which we are not in a position to give because of our own budgetary constraints and our rules. But if we do not have a way to helping the regional and subregional organizations tackle some of these issues, they are all going to come directly to the UN. In fact, they are not going to take it on—to be saddled with it— without resources, and they would organize themselves and bring it all to the Council. And so, if we expect them to play a role, we also have to find some way of supporting them. I am not overly worried that they are playing a role. As I’ve said, and I have always known that there will be peaks and troughs in UN peacekeeping. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, do you believe in your heart, Sir, that a month from now these two suspects will be in custody? ANSWER: [laughs] That’s an interesting question. I think I started by saying that I am reasonably optimistic that, because we have been at this for awhile, and quite a lot of governments have gone out to do whatever they can to press the Libyan authorities to do this. I think they’ve got all the explanations and clarifications that are required. Those who have also worked with the Libyan government, including President Mandela and others, believe that they are working in good faith. I’m hopeful. I’m hopeful. QUESTION: You just came back from Washington. How would you characterize your meetings with Congress, and what about the arrears question? Are you optimistic about that? ANSWER: Well, we had a very frank and useful discussion. We have some support. There are others who still believe that some of the old problems—the linkage with the abortion issue—may still be there. And so one has to find a way of delinking it, but that is an issue and a problem that has to be worked out in Congress. But I walked away optimistic. I had very good meetings with the Administration and on the Hill, despite the fact that some people in the press think we are at war [laughs]. QUESTION: How soon do you expect that UNPREDEP is going to be withdrawn from Macedonia, and what would be the next step for the United Nations?

ANSWER: Liquidations always take quite a bit of time. The liquidation and the withdrawal of our presence is not going to happen tomorrow. I would also hope, expect that despite of what happened yesterday, that we will continue the dialogue with the Chinese authorities, with the Macedonians, the FYROM, and find a way forward. What we do not need is a vacuum in that area in this critical stage.

1 March 1999 Secretary-General Marks Entry Into Force of the Ottawa Convention

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6906); antipersonnel mines Text of a message by the Secretary-General on the occasion of the entry into force of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention). Today, March 1st 1999, marks the entry into force of the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines. It is a day whose arrival few could have predicted, and whose import to the millions whose lives or limbs may be saved from these barbarous weapons cannot be overestimated. For the global community of conscience who fought against all odds to see this day arrive, it is a milestone indeed. I would particularly like to pay tribute to the efforts of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and the International Committee for the Red Cross, whose visionary advocacy for what seemed a lost cause has made it a reality. They have built the foundation of a new era in the struggle against small arms and all weapons which kill and maim civilians indiscriminately. The struggle to eliminate anti-personnel mines is paramount in this effort, not only for the damage they have done, but for the permanent threat they represent to communities and villages throughout the world, from the Balkans to Africa and Asia. The battle ahead is to make this treaty fully effective not just in law, but also in implementation; not just in the capitals of the signatories, but also in the fields and forests where mines still exist; not just in principle, but in practice. The United Nations remains deeply engaged in this effort by assisting States in locating and clearing these weapons. I have invited all States members of the United Nations and observer States to attend the First Meeting of States Parties to this Convention, which will be held in Maputo, Mozambique, from 3 to 7 May, and hope that as many States as possi-

636 • 26 February 1999

Charter encourages them to get involved with the resolution of some of these conflicts. So I welcome the role by the regional organizations. But we have to admit that, with the exception of NATO’s arrangements, not all regional organizations have the capacity to take on these crises. Time and time again, they turn back to the UN, either for military or logistical or financial support, which we are not in a position to give because of our own budgetary constraints and our rules. But if we do not have a way to helping the regional and subregional organizations tackle some of these issues, they are all going to come directly to the UN. In fact, they are not going to take it on—to be saddled with it— without resources, and they would organize themselves and bring it all to the Council. And so, if we expect them to play a role, we also have to find some way of supporting them. I am not overly worried that they are playing a role. As I’ve said, and I have always known that there will be peaks and troughs in UN peacekeeping. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, do you believe in your heart, Sir, that a month from now these two suspects will be in custody? ANSWER: [laughs] That’s an interesting question. I think I started by saying that I am reasonably optimistic that, because we have been at this for awhile, and quite a lot of governments have gone out to do whatever they can to press the Libyan authorities to do this. I think they’ve got all the explanations and clarifications that are required. Those who have also worked with the Libyan government, including President Mandela and others, believe that they are working in good faith. I’m hopeful. I’m hopeful. QUESTION: You just came back from Washington. How would you characterize your meetings with Congress, and what about the arrears question? Are you optimistic about that? ANSWER: Well, we had a very frank and useful discussion. We have some support. There are others who still believe that some of the old problems—the linkage with the abortion issue—may still be there. And so one has to find a way of delinking it, but that is an issue and a problem that has to be worked out in Congress. But I walked away optimistic. I had very good meetings with the Administration and on the Hill, despite the fact that some people in the press think we are at war [laughs]. QUESTION: How soon do you expect that UNPREDEP is going to be withdrawn from Macedonia, and what would be the next step for the United Nations?

ANSWER: Liquidations always take quite a bit of time. The liquidation and the withdrawal of our presence is not going to happen tomorrow. I would also hope, expect that despite of what happened yesterday, that we will continue the dialogue with the Chinese authorities, with the Macedonians, the FYROM, and find a way forward. What we do not need is a vacuum in that area in this critical stage.

1 March 1999 Secretary-General Marks Entry Into Force of the Ottawa Convention

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6906); antipersonnel mines Text of a message by the Secretary-General on the occasion of the entry into force of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention). Today, March 1st 1999, marks the entry into force of the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines. It is a day whose arrival few could have predicted, and whose import to the millions whose lives or limbs may be saved from these barbarous weapons cannot be overestimated. For the global community of conscience who fought against all odds to see this day arrive, it is a milestone indeed. I would particularly like to pay tribute to the efforts of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and the International Committee for the Red Cross, whose visionary advocacy for what seemed a lost cause has made it a reality. They have built the foundation of a new era in the struggle against small arms and all weapons which kill and maim civilians indiscriminately. The struggle to eliminate anti-personnel mines is paramount in this effort, not only for the damage they have done, but for the permanent threat they represent to communities and villages throughout the world, from the Balkans to Africa and Asia. The battle ahead is to make this treaty fully effective not just in law, but also in implementation; not just in the capitals of the signatories, but also in the fields and forests where mines still exist; not just in principle, but in practice. The United Nations remains deeply engaged in this effort by assisting States in locating and clearing these weapons. I have invited all States members of the United Nations and observer States to attend the First Meeting of States Parties to this Convention, which will be held in Maputo, Mozambique, from 3 to 7 May, and hope that as many States as possi-

2 March 1999 • 637 ble will be able to join in opening the second chapter in this vital endeavour for humankind.

1 March 1999 Remarks by the Secretary-General upon Entering UN Headquarters

closely followed the ongoing process of democratization in Nigeria, particularly following his visit to Abuja last year. He attaches the highest importance to Nigeria’s return to civilian rule and hopes that these elections will constitute a major positive step in the transition to democracy.

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Libya QUESTION: Will you speak to us briefly about Libya—that they haven’t quite accepted the latest proposal for trial? ANSWER: Well, I haven’t heard from the Libyan authorities yet. As you know, I wrote to them. I am expecting a formal communication from them. In the absence of communication I cannot comment authoritatively on their response. QUESTION: Will you speak to us today about it being a momentous day as far as the landmine treaty going into effect? ANSWER: I’m very excited about that. It’s good to see it happen. It couldn’t have happened without the support and enthusiasm of grassroots movements—people around the world who work with governments and NGOs—to make this convention come about. I think that lots of people around the world today are happy, and I hope that it will be fully implemented and we will keep on removing landmines. QUESTION: You have the obvious exception of the United States lacking from the landmine treaty. Your thoughts on that? ANSWER: I hope they will not be out of the Convention forever, and that in time they will come aboard. Thank you.

1 March 1999 Secretary-General Hopes Nigerian Elections Will Be Positive Step in Transition to Democracy

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6911, AFR/135); Nigerian elections The Secretary-General has been informed of the provisional results of the Presidential elections of Saturday, 27 February, as published by the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC). The United Nations has been providing technical assistance to INEC throughout the electoral process and has also provided coordination and support to international observers who have not yet reported on their observations. It appears that Olusegun Obasanjo has received a majority of the votes cast. As you are aware, the Secretary-General has

2 March 1999 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6913) SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The last time I met with the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA) Executive Committee, they asked me if I could try to see you a bit more often this year. We agreed that I would try to do this almost every six or eight weeks. And so here I am today, in response to that request. You may recall that the last time I spoke to you in this room, on 14 December of last year, I said that if people did not abide by their commitments—indeed, if they did not redouble their efforts to find peaceful solutions—there was every reason to fear the worst in 1999. As it turned out, we did not have to wait until 1999 to see renewed military action in Iraq, and the first two months of the new year have brought renewed and continued fighting in many parts of Africa, as well as in Kosovo and Afghanistan. For the United Nations, the withdrawal of United Nations peacekeepers from Angola and, for very different reasons, from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is especially disappointing. But we still have plenty of work to do, and I am glad to say that there have been some encouraging developments as well, and some of them are welcome in the sense that they have been long overdue. Just this week, Eritrea accepted the Organization of African Unity (OAU) proposals for ending its war with Ethiopia. There have been peaceful presidential elections in Nigeria, heralding a return to democracy and civilian rule. And yesterday, the bells rang out to celebrate the entry into force of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention). As you know, in recent weeks there have also been some promising developments in East Timor. I continued my efforts to secure Libya’s compliance with Security Council resolutions. The Council itself has made some progress in appointing three panels which are now working hard on

638 • 2 March 1999

the Iraq issue. And, appropriately enough for the fiftieth anniversary year of the Geneva Conventions, the Council is also turning its attention to the protection of civilians in conflict areas. My staff are already working on the report that the Council expects by the end of September. Finally, let me say that I am particularly gratified by the good reception of the proposals I put forward to the business community at Davos on 31 January. It is more than ever clear that States alone cannot solve all the problems of today’s global economy, and that the United Nations needs to work in partnership with the private sector and non-governmental organizations if humanity is to achieve the goals it has set itself in areas such as human rights and environmental and labour standards. The United Nations is ready to do its part. I will now take your questions. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General, for responding and coming to see us. We are always glad to see you here. This is your first press conference this year, and I would like to welcome you on behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association. The first question regards peacekeeping operations and the involvement of the United Nations in a certain region. Bearing in mind what has happened recently in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in Iraq and in Africa, what are you intending to do to overcome certain setbacks to United Nations involvement in certain regions, and what have you discussed with Member States so as to avoid this kind of trend of trying to substitute for United Nations involvement other kinds of international [inaudible]? Secondly, would you be so kind as to inform us about the status of the investigation of the involvement of peacekeepers in Srebrenica, in accordance with the General Assembly resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina. S-G: On the first question, let me first say that I know there has been concern in some circles that regional organizations and arrangements are doing more in the area of conflict resolution and peacekeeping. I do not think we should be unduly concerned about that. Our own Charter allows room for regional organizations and arrangements, and where they have the capacity and are able to play a role, I think we should welcome it and we should encourage it. The difficulties are that, apart from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), regional organizations do not have that capacity and, therefore, run into difficulties once they take on some of these operations. The Council itself,

after its reluctance following the Somalia experience to get involved in peacekeeping operations, is beginning to look at these issues more critically and with a bit more of an open mind. Now one of the areas that the Council members have talked about, and are aware that they may have to become engaged in, is the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And so I am confident the pendulum will swing back at some future date, and I do not think we should be unduly worried about that. On your second question, I cannot give you a detailed answer; I will have to talk to my colleagues in peacekeeping and others to see where we are. QUESTION: Can you share with us what you think of the latest prospects for a resolution of the Libyan situation? Will they turn over the two suspects? S-G: I met with the Libyan Ambassador yesterday to discuss this issue and to ask him about his Government’s response, which I hope will be forthcoming shortly. Obviously, he was disturbed about press reports that there had been an ultimatum. And as most of you will know, the Council did not offer any such ultimatum. But we did discuss a reasonable period for Libya to respond since my last letter was given to them on 25 February, the day before the Council met. I have seen a press dispatch today saying that President—leader— Qadhafi has said that the answer will be forthcoming shortly—I do not know if you have also seen it—and I hope it will be a positive one. As I indicated last week, we have provided Libya with all the answers, clarifications and explanations that they have sought, and we are now waiting for a decision to be able to move on with a trial. And I hope it will be forthcoming soon. QUESTION: Your response please to the latest reports in The Washington Post—and there have been other reports over the last few months—that the United States Government used the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), a United Nations agency—deceiving UNSCOM, the United Nations and the leaders of UNSCOM—to spy on Iraq. Your response, and what action you intend to take. S-G: First of all, let me repeat what I told the press earlier: that I personally had no direct knowledge of these things. As you know, UNSCOM does not report to me; it does report to the Council. I think the United Nations disarmament effort in Iraq has been an important step in international efforts to disarm, and I would hope that all of us, particularly the Council, would draw the right les-

2 March 1999 • 639 sons from what has happened in Iraq and move on from there. QUESTION: Are you outraged, though, by this? S-G: This is an issue that I hope—as I said— the Council, which is responsible for UNSCOM, should draw the right lessons. I know the Council itself has not taken up the matter. But I hope that lessons will be drawn. Obviously, when you raise a question of outrage, I notice that Mr. Butler has indicated—it has been indicated that [executive chairman of UNSCOM] [Richard] Butler and [former UNSCOM executive chairman] [Rolf] Ekeus may not have known anything about this. And, of course, we did not set up—we went in to focus on disarmament and to implement the Council decisions, and we would have preferred for everyone involved, everyone on the United Nations ticket, to focus on that. QUESTION: On East Timor, if I may. The Indonesian army admits that it has been arming civilians, and independent agencies such as the Red Cross report that bloodshed has been on the rise there. I wonder, first, whether you suspect the Indonesian Government may wish to foment violence in East Timor as a way of aborting the move towards independence or, secondly, might they wish to see an East Timor born into independence in chaos and bloodshed as a warning to other separatist provinces in Indonesia. Thirdly, do you think President Habibie has full control of his armed forces? S-G: That is more of a comment than a question, but let me also comment on your comment. Let me say that, as far as I know, the Indonesian authorities have always denied supplying weapons to the inhabitants of East Timor, whether they are pro-Indonesia or not. In fact, I raised this issue directly with Minister Alatas when he was here, and he denied it. We would hope that the transition of East Timor, either to autonomous status or to independence, would be peaceful, and we would hope— and I believe—that the Government of Indonesia understands that it is in its interest to work with us to make it a peaceful transition and to leave in a dignified manner. If there were to be violence, I do not think that it would be in the interest of Indonesia or of its neighbours, whether it is intended to set an example for one region or the other, and so I fail to believe that it is a deliberate policy to destabilize East Timor. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, among the trouble spots you mentioned, you forgot Haiti, which is going from worse to even worse.

S-G: I know it has been a rather disappointing situation. We have tried to work with the Government and elected representatives, but, of course, you also need the support and cooperation of political forces on the ground. Unless the political forces and the leaders come together to work in the interest of the nation, rather than undermining each other regardless of the impact on society, I do not think that we are going to make much progress. I am not pleased with what is happening in Haiti, and I do not think anybody could be. I wish that the leaders periodically would think of the Haitian people, their needs and their future, and really develop that sense of compromise and concern for their needs that will allow us to move forward. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, you mentioned the presidential elections in Nigeria as one of the [inaudible] of this year. But you also are aware that the defeated candidate has not conceded to the winner. With the information at your disposal, how would you react to the fears that actually Nigeria has not crossed to the other side of its transition? Secondly, the situation in Angola. Right now the United Nations mission is pulling out. If by some miracle the parties agree to talk and to stop fighting, would the United Nations be ready to send another mission to that country? Would you be in a position to recommend another mission? S-G: On your first question, I am aware that Mr. Falae has questioned the election results. But I am also aware that the independent electoral commission has declared Mr. Obasanjo the winner, and I hope that whatever complaints they have about irregular activities will be investigated and looked into by the legal mechanism established for that purpose. In the meantime, we will have to live with the results as pronounced by the properly constituted electoral commission. I would hope that all Nigerians will come together and work with the new Government to make this transition a true success and lead Nigeria into an era of democracy and prosperity. I also want to congratulate General Abubakar for the work he has done in honouring his commitment and in working purposefully with the Nigerians and the international community to make this transition possible in a relatively short period of about eight months. On your second question, if the parties agreed to a peace settlement and the climate were right for a United Nations presence or further United

640 • 2 March 1999

Nations action, I am sure that the Council would reconsider its position. But for the moment, the will does not seem to be there. There seems to be a determined effort for an all-out war. QUESTION (translated from French): My question concerns Angola. How do you foresee a humanitarian presence, given that the fighting continues, the death toll is rising and the United Nations has been declared undesirable? S-G (translated from French): Yes, but they have decided to accept humanitarian assistance and human rights officials. We shall, therefore, be pursuing our efforts and our work if possible, if we have access and if they work with us. If we decide that we cannot continue our work with the two parties, then we shall have to review our situation. In any case, we are going to do our best. QUESTION: I have two questions, but they could have “yes” or “no” answers. The first one: do you support the establishment of an international tribunal on Cambodia? Number two: do you support the United States and the United Kingdom’s rather tough enforcement of their no-flight zones in Iraq? S-G: On the first question, as you know, I have received the report from my team in Cambodia. We are analysing it. On 8 March, we will issue the summary of conclusions and recommendations. We will make that public and, on 15 March, I will issue the entire report, and copies will go to the General Assembly members and to the Council. As to what I will recommend or what I will do, we are analysing the report and I have not made up my mind yet. I am discussing the matter with my staff and the legal team. On the question of the United States/British action on Iraq, again, as I have indicated on the whole Iraq issue, the Council is so actively engaged now and is in the lead. I will follow their lead and I think I am waiting for them to indicate what the next step should be, along with the results of the panels. But I think it is very much an issue for the Council, which is fully seized of that dossier, rather than for the Secretary-General. QUESTION: You have [inaudible] and political forces and leadership. In the South Asian region, the situation is changing. The Taliban are back at the negotiating table with [Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan] Lakhdar Brahimi. Indian and Pakistani leaders are talking to each other, making public commitments to resolve their issues, including Kashmir and [inaudible]. What is your comment on both these situations? Do you plan to visit the region sooner

than you planned or to keep away until the bilateralism is worked out? S-G: First of all, let me say that these are very encouraging developments, and I was particularly pleased with the meeting between Prime Minister Vajpayee and Prime Minister Sharif. I hope that this is only a beginning and that the dialogue will continue, and we will see results sooner rather than later. On the question of Afghanistan, as you know, Mr. Brahimi is there or has been there recently. We have sent two security missions in, and I have allowed two missions to go to, Kabul and Badakhshan, which we sent in because of the emergency situation there. We are reassessing our own return to Afghanistan, and probably I will have an announcement in the next week to 10 days, depending upon what reports I get. On my own visit to the region, I still plan to go [to] the region and I don’t think it is directly tied to the talks which are going on. I would hope that it will be sooner rather than later, but I cannot give you a date yet. QUESTION: There is a throw-away comment in The New York Times this morning about your attitude to General Pinochet, saying that you’re concerned about General Pinochet’s arrest. Is that an accurate characterization of your views? S-G: First of all, I don’t know where that quote came from. I think people have been discovering so many confidants, close associates, advisers— most of them I don’t know. So I don’t know who gave away that quote. Obviously, that is not my view. My sense is that each situation differs from the others; and governments handle these issues differently. South Africans went through the Truth Commission; we have done interesting work in El Salvador; this week I received the commission on Guatemala, and we have circulated the conclusions and all that. So, what is in the paper does not reflect my view. And, as I said, I will be submitting the report to the Council and the General Assembly on 15 March. It will be submitted with a forwarding memorandum from me, and hopefully in that memorandum you will know my views. But those are not my views. On Pinochet, I think I did speak to you—the press—at the time. I did indicate that this is an issue before the legal system and I did not want to comment or be drawn in or say anything that might affect ongoing proceedings. I also indicated at the time that what had happened in London indicated in a sense how humanitarian law and international

2 March 1999 • 641 law were developing in this area, and I do not think I have anything to add to that. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, you mentioned that the Iraq matter is in the hands of the Council. But, at the same time, because the value of UNSCOM as a model for other disarmament work of the United Nations has been stressed, do you feel that any disarmament body of the United Nations can carry out its work if there are suspicions, or for that matter confirmations, that some of its members have been drawn into espionage work and possibly even into covert efforts to destabilize governments? S-G: There is no doubt that these allegations will make disarmament regimes or future efforts difficult if governments believe that this kind of thing can happen. But I still believe that the Council will have to draw the right lessons and assess the situation. QUESTION: On Guatemala, on the Truth Commission: there have been a lot of suggestions that maybe some of the military leaders during the 1980s—Rios Mont, Lucas García—are the kinds of people whom maybe courts should be looking at to prosecute for crimes, including genocide. Do you have any view? Do you think that this is an area that is worth pursuing, or that, along the lines of some other peace agreements in the past, the focus should be on reconciliation? S-G: I think the report has been made public, and I think that, in itself, is a very healthy development. I applaud the commissioners for the solid work that they did, and the frankness and determination with which they approached their work. We have released a report, and the Government and the people of Guatemala are discussing this. Of course, the findings are not binding as such, and so the Government will have to decide what the next steps should be. QUESTION: Given this Washington Post report this morning about the United States using UNSCOM unbeknownst to the United Nations to plant military intelligence, and your response just now that that will make future efforts difficult, what do you think is the most likely procedure within the United Nations to establish future guidelines that can prevent this? How could that be handled in the United Nations? S-G: I am not sure I can give you an answer to that. We have several United Nations entities that are involved with this kind of work, and I think each of them, from the chemical weapons to the atomic agency and others, will have to assess the situation and determine what steps they have to

take to ensure the sanctity of their work and to make sure that their staff focus on the work that has been assigned to them. QUESTION: Have you received any indications from Prakash Shah [Special Envoy of the Secretary-General in Baghdad] or others that Iraq might be willing to allow members of the panel assessing disarmament into the country? And the second question: the charter airline that owned the two planes that crashed in Angola filed a report with [UN security coordinator] Benon Sevan about both incidents. What more can you tell us about the crashes? S-G: On your first question, I have received no assurance from Mr. Shah or from anybody in the Iraqi authorities as to what their reaction will be, or their future plans are, with regard to the relationship with the Security Council. On the second question, we are still continuing our investigations into the two plane crashes and I have no details at this stage to provide to you. QUESTION: Sir, there is an ongoing crisis between Greece and Turkey lately over the Kurds. Some diplomats even fear a war. Do you plan to intervene in any way, and what is the latest from Cyprus? S-G: Well, I hope that there will be no war between Greece and Turkey. We have all followed the developments with the arrest of Ocalan, and also the relationship between Turkey and Greece. But I hope that this difficult period, this tension will be overcome and that it is not going to lead to any war. On Cyprus, as you know, based on the work that [Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral for Cyprus] Dame Ann Hercus did, the S300 missiles were not deployed, which has helped reduce tension somewhat. We will continue our efforts to try to seek a solution to the conflict. It is not an easy conflict and, as you know, we have lived with it for quite a while, and it has become a bit more complicated for various reasons. But we would hope that, in the course of this year, we may be able to move the process forward a bit more as a result of certain initiatives we are taking. But I am not in a position to go into details at this stage. QUESTION: How goes the search for a replacement for Ambassador Butler, who has said he does not think he will continue after his contract expires? And, on Cambodia, have you got any kind of assurances from the Government that they will be willing to follow the panel’s recommendation for a tribunal and a truth commission? Are you concerned that the Government and, perhaps,

642 • 2 March 1999

some members of the Security Council may not want to follow that recommendation? S-G: On your first question, we have not commenced a search for Mr. Butler’s replacement. On the second question, I hope to receive the Foreign Minister of Cambodia here next week, and I will be able to discuss some of the issues you have raised with him personally. QUESTION: Yes, Mr. Secretary-General, back to the no-flight zone in Iraq, given the fact that the United Nations is the international body or organ to prevent conflict and so on, what do you intend to report to the Council in your next report concerning the “oil-for-food” programme and the noflight zone issue, especially given that the Humanitarian Coordinator said that it may interrupt the flow of goods allowed into Iraq and also the flow of oil? S-G: If the indications are that the flow of oil was stopped—that the going into Turkey was stopped, I think, about 48 hours ago—and Iraq indicated that its capacity has been damaged by one of the bombs—if they are not able to repair it and the situation were to affect negatively Iraq’s capacity to pump and sell oil, it will have a negative impact on the humanitarian operations, in that we will not have sufficient money to cover the costs of the operations and we will, therefore, have to report it to the Council in our next report. If it is able to be repaired and we are able to carry on with our work, that will also be reflected. But on the enforcement of the no-flight zone and the no-flight zone itself, I think I have given you an answer: it is really an issue for the Council. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, you recently appointed Ambassador Vorontsov as your Special Representative to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries. Do you have any specific tasks in mind that you will ask Ambassador Vorontsov to fulfil, and when is he going to go into business? S-G: Let me say, first of all, that he is not so much going to focus on CIS countries. We are operating in that region and we periodically need advice, both in terms of our dealings in Moscow and in the countries that we deal with. We wanted an experienced person who can give us some advice periodically. Let me stress that the appointment is on an as-and-when-employed basis—when advice is offered. It is not a full-time assignment that requires him to come here or to open an office in Moscow or somewhere in the region. But we will approach him periodically for advice.

QUESTION: Are you encouraged by what you heard from Mr. Qadhafi? Do you view it as a positive sign? But the question is on Iraq really. You have been a man who has played a role in Iraq. It is very peculiar, actually, that you just say, “It’s the Council, it’s the Council.” You are a man who took a position, saying, “We want to implement Security Council resolutions.” So why wouldn’t you make a démarche to the United States on the issue of UNSCOM’s spying or the United States spying on UNSCOM? And why can’t you tell us what your reading is—is the no-flight zone based on Security Council resolutions? Does this have the authority of the Security Council or not? S-G: On the question of Libya, as I said, I did not hear from leader Qadhafi directly. I read it in the press. And if it is indeed accurate, it is an encouraging sign. On the question of Iraq, let us be quite clear here. Iraq has always been a responsibility of the Council. I stepped in last February because we had a problem of access into the palaces. In my negotiations with the Iraqi leadership, I was able to gain access, and it worked for about five months or so, and we were back to where we were. Obviously, I tried to press the Iraqi authorities to comply and comply fully with Security Council resolutions through peaceful means. My efforts obviously were deemed insufficient, and other approaches are being tried now. I think we need to wait and see how they develop. So this is where I said that the Council is running the Iraqi operation. The Council has set up three panels. On the question of the no-flight zone, the Council has been aware of this from the beginning. Has it acquiesced by its silence? Has it endorsed it? Does the Council have a problem with it? I think all the 15 members occupy this building with us, and you can ask them. QUESTION: So will you make a démarche or will you not? S-G: I will not make a démarche. I think the Council should take this on. QUESTION: Given the UNSCOM spying allegations and the fact that it is pretty clear now that United States policy favours a change in leadership in Iraq, what is the incentive for the Iraqis to commit to any kind of cooperation with the United Nations again? And do you think that the United States policy is undermining the United Nations disarmament effort in Iraq? S-G: That is a very good question. I think you

3 March 1999 • 643 are ready to take on Fred, and I would not want to stand in your way. But that is a very good question.

3 March 1999 Letter (UN archives); media guidelines The following are guidelines for dealing with the media prepared by the under-secretary-general for the Department of Public Information, Shashi Tharoor. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (throuth Mr. Riza)

Media Guidelines

Please find attached the final draft media guidelines, which have been endorsed by the Communications Group and include the input of Mr. Riza. The most important provisions are highlighted. I would be grateful for your approval. Once approved, I would recommend that the guidelines be circulated to all Heads of Department for them to distribute to their own staff as appropriate. We would propose that all EOSG and DPI staff get copies. It was also agreed in the Communications Group that the Spokesman should announce at a noon briefing that the guidelines exist and should make them available to any journalist who is interested (as they are certain to leak in any case). Thank you. * * * UN Secretary Relations with the Media The Policy

1. There is hardly an international news event today that doesn’t have some United Nations angle. We want the world’s media to report the United Nations side of each story fully, fairly and accurately. For that to happen, the United Nations itself must be open and transparent in its dealings with the press. Indeed, wherever appropriate, we must be out in front projecting our point of view on important international developments in which the UN is an actor; a reactive stance or defence has much less credibility. 2. Public understanding of the United Nations is the key to political support. The media provide us with the quickest and best way to reach the public at large. It is therefore in our interest to service the media quickly and honestly, and to develop a coherent communications strategy based on those same principles. 3. As an organization of Member States that often engages in sensitive diplomacy, however, we

must sometimes keep confidences—not to mislead or conceal, but to protect a diplomatic process. Our media policy must therefore balance the need to be open and the need to respect confidentiality. Speaking to the Press

4. The principal voice of the Organization is the Secretary-General. He speaks to the media frequently, at Headquarters and when travelling. But he cannot, and does not want to, restrict this to himself. 5. Media policy is part of the overall communications strategy for the UN, the development of which is co-ordinated by the Director of Communications in the Office of the SecretaryGeneral. That strategy is aimed at defining a consistent message for the Organization and ensuring a coherent approach to the world’s media. 6. The Secretary-General’s Spokesman’s Office is made up of professionals who speak to journalists on his behalf throughout the day. DPI professionals, including Directors of UN Information Centres, also interact regularly with the media on matters related to their responsibilities. As the media professionals cannot be experts in all subjects, they seek the assistance of UN specialists—either to provide them with information that they can pass on to the press or to speak directly to the journalists themselves. 7. Direct contact between UN specialists and the media is often more practical and even desirable. The journalist can get more in-depth information, and the United Nations gets to display its expertise to the world. 8. As a matter of principle then, every member of the Secretariat may speak to the press, within certain limits: • speak within your area of competence and responsibility; provide facts, not opinions or comment; • leave sensitive issues to officials who are specifically authorized to speak on them (see paragraphs 9 and 10 below). Sensitive Issues

9. The Spokesman will speak on sensitive issues on the basis of guidance provided by the Office of the Secretary-General or Heads of Department. The number of other officials speaking on such issues must necessarily be limited. 10. Designated members of the SecretaryGeneral’s staff may speak on sensitive issues. Heads of Department may address sensitive issues within their areas of competence and may authorize members of their staffs to speak on the basis of guidance.

644 • 3 March 1999

11. For those authorized to speak on sensitive issues, it is usually a good idea to check with the Director of Communications or the Spokesman before speaking to a journalist, in order to be briefed about the journalist’s particular interest in the story. Sometimes even a seemingly innocuous comment by an official can become the basis of an important story in the context of what the journalist is pursuing. 12. No staff member should presume or pretend to speak for the Secretary-General without his explicit consent. Sharing Information

13. For the United Nations to communicate effectively with the outside world, it must do the same internally. 14. Department heads, senior members of Office of the Secretary-General, Heads of Mission and Special Envoys should share information with those under their supervision. 15. Senior Secretariat officials should keep each other informed of their media activities. 16. Officials who speak to journalists directly should inform the Spokesman’s Office afterward so that office has a sense of the questions asked and answers given. Reporting back will keep the process more open and help sustain the Spokesman’s standing with the press. He certainly should be as well informed as the press are. “On the Record”, “Not for Attribution” and “On Deep Background”

17. All UN officials should normally speak to journalists on the record—that is, for attribution. That is best for the journalist, and best for the Organization. You should be prepared to stand behind what you say. 18. Sometimes, though, officials specifically authorized to address sensitive issues can give a journalist a deeper understanding of an issue by speaking on background. Because the term “background” can have different meanings, such officials are urged to establish clearly at the outset of their conversation the basis on which they are speaking: • “everything I say can be attributed to me by name” (on the record), or • “don’t attribute this to me by name, but rather to a UN official” (on background, not for attribution), or • “use my ideas but not my words; don’t attribute to anyone” (deep background). 19. The Secretary-General’s Spokesman must

be kept informed of background briefings and interviews. Ground Rules

20. Journalists compete with each other. Do not betray a confidence by telling one journalist what another is working on. Similarly, do not suggest that one journalist discuss a pending story with another. 21. Do not feel obliged to answer hypothetical questions. 22. Never discuss the policies or internal politics of Member States—not even “on deep background.” Appendix: Useful Tips in Conducting Interviews

Our colleagues in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees developed “General Public Information Guidelines for Field Staff.” We thought they were so good, we adapted them for our staff: 1. Be Yourself. While journalists are always on the lookout for a good story, they are not out to make your life miserable. So relax and be friendly. If they call and you’re not in, try to return their call as soon as possible. 2. Be Realistic. Journalists are intelligent persons. Too many organizations think they can manipulate the media for their own purposes, “using” them when they want to and ignoring them the rest of the time. They think journalists will swallow any line thrown at them. 3. But most reporters know when someone is trying to “use” them simply for the sake of publicizing something that is self-serving and not even newsworthy. So try not to be patronizing, and do not presume that the message you want to get across is the same one the journalist is interested in. 4. Be Open. The very nature of the work of the United Nations means we encounter many problems. Most journalists understand this and respect our efforts. Mistakes will inevitably be made. We should not try to hide these problems and difficulties. However, keep in mind that questions dealing with sensitive issues should be referred to officials who are specifically authorized to speak on such issues. 5. Be Patient. Journalists are often pressured by very strict deadlines and at times become impatient and expect to be briefed immediately. Don’t let that disturb your good humour—a negative attitude might taint the journalist’s judgment of the Organization.

5 March 1999 • 645 6. Be Factual. Talk about your work in concrete terms. Give facts and figures. Talking with journalists is almost like briefing a delegate or a colleague. There’s no need to panic. Remember that you know more than they do, and you probably have most of the information they need. 7. Journalists want factual information. If you are talking about a peacekeeping operation, they would want to know things like the start date of the mission, the number of troops, the budget, and the mandate spelled out in clear, concise language. 8. Journalists also want to know about the problems you face, and what you are doing to overcome these difficulties. Experience shows that openness and frankness usually result in a report sympathetic to the United Nations. 9. Be Interesting. Sticking to the facts doesn’t mean you have to be boring. There are many ways of illustrating the facts, problems, challenges and success of your work. Journalists like colourful human interest stories that can bring to life the dry facts and statistics. 10. If you know of someone involved in especially interesting work or with an interesting background or dramatic personal story to tell that will add to the journalist’s understanding of your operations, by all means introduce that person to the journalist. 11. Be Positive. Do not criticize colleagues, other UN system activities or Member States. 12. Be Accurate. If you do not know the answer to a question, say so and offer to follow up on it and get back to the journalist with a reply. That is the correct approach and it adds to our credibility. 13. Be Smart. Use your common sense. Don’t feel you have to answer every question. Don’t feel tempted to comment on issues which are not your direct responsibility. Above all, remain strictly factual in describing the nature of the problems you are dealing with. Policy issues of a general nature or topics you feel are too sensitive should be dealt with by responsible senior officials, most often the head of your office. 14. Be Conversational. When you talk to journalists, keep it simple and clear. Avoid UN jargon and the type of language found in many UN documents. In everyday conversation, ordinary people don’t use terms like “modalities”, “inter-alia” and “NGO.” 15. Be Concise. A ten-minute interview may end up being 20 seconds on the air, or three lines in a newspaper. It is essential to crystallize your thoughts in a few hard-hitting sentences.

16. Be Personal. Use your interviewer’s name once or twice in your answers and look directly at him or her. 17. Be Aware. During an interview, don’t get sidetracked. Don’t let the interviewer put words in your mouth. Don’t argue, or attack the media. 18. Be Photogenic. If you are being interviewed for television, try to get a UN logo in the background. Avoid nervous gestures and mannerisms. Keep your answers short and simple. In the field, don’t wear sunglasses, no matter what. Keep your hair off the face and always look at the reporter, not the camera.

5 March 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Sierra Leone Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. ... Secretary-General’s Report on Sierra Leone: The Secretary-General’s report on the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) is out today, as scheduled. In the report, which is available on the Internet through the United Nations Home Page, the Secretary-General “unreservedly” strongly condemned the merciless murders, inhumane mutilations and other appalling human rights violations perpetrated by the rebels on innocent civilians. He also said that in the light of some allegations that members of pro-Government forces may also have been guilty of violations, he hoped that the Government will fulfil its assurances that such allegations will be investigated. He said he intends to deploy an additional human rights officer to Sierra Leone. He flagged to the Security Council the possible partial withdrawal of Nigerian forces from the Economic Community of West African States’ Monitoring Observer Group (ECOMOG), following the elections in that country, and the consequent effects on ECOMOG’s military effectiveness in Sierra Leone could require a major reappraisal of the situation. He praised, as bold and valuable, President Kabbah’s decision to allow the leader of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Foday Sankoh, to meet with rebel leaders in order to develop a coherent set of political demands, which would form the basis of subsequent negotiations with the Government.

646 • 5 March 1999

Should negotiations between the Government and the rebels take a favourable turn, UNOMSIL— that is the United Nations peacekeeping force— should remain in a position where it is capable of rendering further assistance to the peace process. The Secretary-General said that he, therefore, recommends the extension of UNOMSIL’s mandate for a further period of three months, until 13 June. In view of the improvement in the security situation in and around Freetown achieved during the past few days, he said that it was his intention to re-establish UNOMSIL in Freetown as soon as possible. In the meantime, United Nations agencies have also been authorized to re-establish a limited presence in Freetown. . . . Secretary-General Addresses Lions Clubs: The Secretary-General this morning spoke to the twenty-first Annual Lions’ Day with the United Nations. He stressed that the Lions have become one of the United Nations most valuable friends and allies, and highlighted what both organizations have in common, including their work in the areas of health, drugs, youth and older persons. The Secretary-General called for more partnerships such as that between the Lions and the United Nations. “Our doors are open as never before to NGOs”, he said, “to trade unions, local authorities, youth and women’s groups, academic institutions and private sector enterprises.” He said that such partnerships of the like-minded are not an option, but a necessity. . . . Monday is International Women’s Day, and the Secretary-General will take part in a global videoconference linking New York with four other sites—Mexico City, Nairobi, New Delhi and Strasbourg (that is the home of the European Parliament)—on the theme: “A World Free of Violence against Women”. That will be in the General Assembly Hall from 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. Francis Okelo, the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Sierra Leone, is expected to brief the Security Council on Monday and, I think, he’ll brief you immediately afterwards. That should be in the morning.

the Surrounding Events in the Great Lakes Region. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on the assumption of the chairmanship of this Panel and to extend to you and the members of the Panel my best wishes as you embark on this most important and challenging task. As you know, I have, from the outset, welcomed the establishment of the Panel and have pledged that the United Nations will cooperate with it in its work. In the spirit of this cooperation, I shall be available to meet you and a team of the Panel in New York, at 12:00 noon, on 22 March 1999. I have also requested the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to be of assistance to you and intend to designate a focal point in the Secretariat for further support and liaison. In order to facilitate the work of your Panel, I have requested the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to let you have access to United Nations documentation, including that which is not in the public domain. I have also requested the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to permit you in general to make copies of such documentation. You will naturally appreciate that, among those documents which are not in the public domain, there are however, some which it will not be possible to permit you to copy, specifically: documents which may not be disclosed without risk to the personal safety of individuals mentioned in or identifiable from them; documents which have been provided to the Organization by third parties on a confidential basis or which contain information which has so been made available; and documents which cannot be disclosed consistently with maintaining the confidentiality of the internal decision-making process of the United Nations or of those Member States which contributed contingents to UNAMIR. In the case of certain of these documents, it might nonetheless be possible to permit you to make copies after appropriate deletions from the documents concerned have been made. Looking forward to your visit, please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

9 March 1999

10 March 1999

Letter (EOSG); Rwanda genocide

Letter (UN archives); speech themes

Letter to the chairman of the OAU International Panel of Eminent Personalities, Ketumile Masire.

Internal note regarding themes for upcoming speeches.

Excellency, Thank you for your letter of 30 January regarding the OAU Panel of Eminent Personalities to Investigate the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda and

NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (Seen and approved by JR [John Ruggie] and ST [Shashi Tharoor])

10 March 1999 • 647 Ref: Upcoming Speeches

You may remember that a month ago we discussed some possible themes for you to tackle in major speeches during the year. After that, I circulated a list to colleagues and gathered reactions. Perhaps the most useful suggestion (from GMS [Gillian Martin Sorensen]) was that you should have at most two or three clear priorities for the year, and that these should be “repeated, echoed, developed”, so that people identify you with them. Reflecting on this, I came to the conclusion that we should start from one overall theme or “mission statement” which would sum up your effort not only this year but for the whole of your mandate. I have since learnt that such a mission statement, or something like it, is to be the subject of the SMG [Senior Management Group] retreat the weekend after next. My own suggestion is that your distinctive theme or “signature tune” should be the promotion of shared universal values, which the peoples of the world need if they are to work together in confronting global challenges. If you agree on that, I would suggest that this year the theme be developed under four main headings: 1. Economic and social: “giving a human face to globalization”. This should deal with implementation of your Davos programme, and provide a positive but distinctive UN response to Mr. Wolfensohn’s proposal for a “comprehensive development framework”. 2. Humanitarian: the need to strengthen humanitarian law, protect civilians and children in conflicts, and improve the UN’s capacity to cope with humanitarian crises. 3. Ethical and cultural: the need for openness, dialogue and mutual respect between different traditions and cultures, in order to identify the essentials of a shared global ethic. 4. Peace and security: the need to combat and reverse the apparent erosion of the collective security principle embodied in the UN Charter. I do not suggest that only one speech be devoted to each of these headings. On the contrary, I think a series of speeches could be used to develop different aspects of each theme while reinforcing the overall message. At some point also, perhaps towards the end of the year, there could be an “over-arching” speech which would bring them all together and show how they relate to each other. One other general point was made by Steve Whitehouse, the head of UNTV. He said that speeches often get better TV coverage, and are

more widely remembered, when the speaker is shown not on a podium in a conference hall but in some outdoor setting which relates to the point he/she is making. I suggest this is something which should be borne in mind when planning your itinerary for the year. For instance, what you have to say about the devastating social consequences of the Asian financial crisis would get much more attention if you delivered it standing in front of shops burnt out during rioting in Jakarta. (That is perhaps an extreme example, more suitable for a few remarks to reporters than for a full-dress speech, but I hope it makes the point.) The Berlin speech on 26 April will be given in the Adlon Hotel, next to the Brandenburg Gate. We should arrange a photo op with the gate in the background. Meanwhile, we need to agree, as a matter of urgency, on themes for the speeches coming up during April and May. I suggest the following: Commission on Human Rights (Geneva, 7 April): the importance of humanitarian law and its relevance to human rights. Berlin Speech (26 April): collective security— the need to replicate, on a world scale, the processes and institutions which have brought lasting peace to Germany and Western Europe after centuries of conflict. ECOSOC-BWI meeting (29 April): the UN response to Wolfensohn. Michigan Commencement (1 May): the dialogue of civilizations and the importance of accepting diversity within societies as well as between them. Howard Commencement (7 May): peace and development in Africa one year after your Africa report. (If you agree, we might contact Prof. Skip Gates for some suggestions on this. You might also wish to address the Security Council first on this theme—perhaps on the actual anniversary (16 April)?) Hague Appeal for Peace [NGO] Conference (15 May): concluding remarks on peace and justice. Official Centennial of First Hague Peace Conference (18 May): collective security and the international rule of law. University of Lund (27 May): humanitarian law and human rights. We then need to look for suitable occasions to develop the economic and social theme later in the year. You can come back to the ethical/cultural theme in your speech to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies in June.

648 • 10 March 1999

Please let me know if you are happy with this list, or would like to discuss it further.

11 March 1999 Letter (UN archives); International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Internal note from Hans Corell of the UN legal office, with the attached terms of reference.

OLA (retired in 1995 at D-2), be Secretary of the Group, and that Mr. Hermann Gilli, a former Executive Officer of OLA (retired in 1989 at P-5), who has had administrative experience in both Tribunals, be the Administrative Officer: 5. OLA will provide legal backstopping and Department of Management will hire Mr. Basnayake and Mr. Gilli and arrange for the financing and accommodation of the Expert Group, which will operate from the Hague. 6. Draft terms of reference are attached.

NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

1. General Assembly resolutions 53/212 and 53/213 requested that the Secretary-General constitute an Expert Group to review the effective functioning of the ICTR and ICTY. Mr. Connor and I have now agreed on the composition of the Group (it was exceptionally difficult and time-consuming to find qualified candidates), its terms of reference and a Secretariat. Before I speak to the proposed members of the Group seeking their consent, I would be grateful if I could have your approval on the composition on the Group, its conditions of service and the Terms of Reference. 2. We would propose that the membership of the Group be as follows: Mr. Jerome Ackerman, former partner Covington and Burlington, Washington, former President of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal (USA) Mr. Justice Pedro David, Juez de la Camara Nacional Casacion Penal de la Republica Argentina (Argentina) Mr. Justice H.B. Jallow, Justice of the Supreme Court of The Gambia, former Minister of Justice (The Gambia) Mr. Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy, former Public Prosecutor; former Judge of the Supreme Court of India (India) Mr. Patricio Ruedas, former Under-SecretaryGeneral for Administration and Management of the United Nations (Spain) This membership would ensure a broad geographic representation from the principal legal systems of the world. It would also provide an appropriate balance of experience and expertise. 3. We would propose that Mr. Ackerman be the Chairman of the Group. In view of the high-level of the Group, it seems to me that they must be retained (on SSAs [special service agreements]), when actually employed, at the USG level. 4. We would propose that Mr. Sinha Basnayake, former Director of the General Legal Division of

Terms of Reference Constitution and Composition

Pursuant to General Assembly resolutions 53/212 and 53/213, an Expert Group to Conduct a Review of the Effective Operation and Functioning of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is constituted (hereafter the “Expert Group”). The Expert Group shall be composed of 5 experts as follows: Mr. Jerome Ackerman, former partner Covington & Burlington, Washington, former President of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal (USA) Mr. Justice Pedro David, Juez de la Câmara Nacional Casaci o¯ n Penal de la Repüblica Argentina (Argentina) Mr. Justice H. B. Jallow, Justice of the Supreme Court of The Gambia, former Minister of Justice (The Gambia) Mr. Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy, former Public Prosecutor; former Judge of the Supreme Court of India (India). Mr. Patricio Ruedas, former Under-SecretaryGeneral for Administration and Management of the United Nations (Spain) Secretariat

The Expert Group shall be assisted by a Secretary and such other staff as may be necessary. Financing

The costs of the Expert Group are to be borne in equal shares by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Location

The Expert Group will be based in and work from The Hague. Mandate

The Expert Group shall prepare an evaluation of

11 March 1999 • 649 the functioning and operation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda with the objective of enhancing the efficient use of the resources allocated to the Tribunals. In conducting its review, the Expert Group shall be guided by the conclusions and recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) which are contained in paragraphs 65 to 67 of its report on the revised budget estimates for 1998 and proposed requirements for 1999 of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (document A/53/651) and in paragraphs 84 to 86 of its report on the revised budget estimates for 1998 and proposed requirements for 1999 of the International Tribunal for Rwanda (document A/53/659) and by the statement of the Chairman of the ACABQ made before the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly at its 37th meeting (AJC.5/53/SR.37, paragraph 43). Copies of the relevant portions of these documents are attached to, and form part of, these Terms of Reference. The review of the Expert Group shall be conducted in full cooperation with the Presidents of both Tribunals and without prejudice to the Statutes of the Tribunals and their independent character as judicial bodies. Report

The Expert Group is to report to the SecretaryGeneral by 31 August 1999.

11 March 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); East Timor/women Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. Good afternoon, everyone. I’d like to welcome Felix Downes-Thomas to the briefing. He’s the Representative of the Secretary-General in Liberia. He’s just out of the Security Council where he briefed them and he’ll give you some idea of the latest developments in Liberia and take your questions. East Timor

I’ll start with East Timor. The round of talks continued this morning as scheduled, after yesterday afternoon’s meetings when the Secretary-General met with Foreign Minister Ali Alatas of Indonesia and Foreign Minister Jaime Gama of Portugal for one-and-a-half hours. The discussions were described as cordial and constructive and centred

on methods to advance the process and mechanisms of consulting East Timorese opinion. Ambassador Jamsheed Marker, the Personal Representative of the Secretary-General for East Timor, started a meeting at 10 o’clock this morning with the two Foreign Ministers. Following that, the Ministers will have a working lunch with the Secretary-General. They’ll then go into an afternoon session. Ambassador Marker and the two Foreign Ministers will brief you this afternoon in this room at 4 p.m. Security Council

The Council is holding consultations this morning on Iraq and Liberia. Council members were briefed by Ambassador Celso Amorim of Brazil on the work of the three panels on Iraq. After that, the Council was briefed by Felix Downes-Thomas, who is here to speak with you after my briefing. Once consultations are concluded this morning, the Council is to hold a formal meeting when a resolution on the extension of the mandate of the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) is expected to be adopted. . . . Women Breakthrough

This morning an optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was adopted by the Working Group of the Commission on the Status of Women. The protocol, which is the result of three years of negotiations, contains two procedures: a communications procedure allowing women, individually or in groups, to submit complaints; and an inquiry procedure allowing the Committee of its own right to initiate an inquiry into alleged grave or systematic violations. Angela King, the Special Advisor of the Secretary-General on Gender Issues, said: “This is particularly timely as this year marks the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.” The Working Group will present the protocol tomorrow to the Commission on the Status of Women for action. This will be in the form of a recommendation to the Economic and Social Council and to the General Assembly to adopt the optional protocol and to open it for signature, ratification and accession. . . . Swiss Parliamentary Vote

The Secretary-General is sending letters of congratulations to the President and Foreign Minister of Switzerland on the action taken yesterday by the

650 • 11 March 1999

Swiss Parliament, approving, by a vote of 108 to 13, a measure favouring membership in the United Nations. In the letters, the Secretary-General says that he hopes Swiss citizens will vote for United Nations membership when the matter comes up in a national referendum some time before 2003. You’ll recall that Swiss voters turned down United Nations membership in a similar referendum in 1986. . . .

11 March 1999 Letter (UN archives); Rwanda Internal note from the Secretary-General’s spokesman, Fred Eckhard, alerting him to the need to appoint a commission to investigate the Rwanda genocide. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Alain Destexhe’s UNCA Briefing

The Belgian Senator called for an independent investigation of the UN role in the Rwanda genocide. You should appoint a commission of independent persons, such as Desmond Tutu, which should have access to all UN files and UN staff. If the Council doesn’t come on board, your commission should investigate just the Secretariat. Questions to be asked: • Why was the Council not informed of the 11 January cable? • Why was Dallaire not allowed to seize the arms caches? • Why was Dallaire not allowed to testify? • Why was the genocide not identified as such early on? He said this was not a campaign against you; he knew you as a decent person. But you might have been surrounded by poor advisers. In 1995, the UN said it had done nothing wrong. Now, Iqbal Riza tells the BBC the UN made mistakes. It’s time to set the record straight. His group is planning a demonstration in Brussels on 5 April for the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the genocide. If there is no action by the UN at that time, they will form a committee to press the UN into acting.

12 March 1999 Press Conference on East Timor Talks

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6922); East Timor

Transcript of the press conference on the East Timor talks, held at UN headquarters. Participants included the Secretary-General; Ambassador Jamsheed Marker, personal representative of the Secretary-General for East Timor; Ali Alatas, foreign minister of Indonesia; and Jaime Gama, foreign minister of Portugal. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am happy you are here in your numbers to find out what happened with this round of discussions. Let me first thank the Ministers for their presence and the cooperative spirit they displayed throughout our talks. We have just completed a very positive and constructive round of talks and the main issues we discussed at this round were, one, the autonomy proposals for East Timor and its finalization; two, the method of consulting the people of East Timor on the autonomy proposal; and three, the situation in East Timor. Foreign Minister Ali Alatas of Indonesia informed the meeting that he will convey to the tripartite forum Indonesia’s revisions of the autonomy plan as soon as these are completed. And I think he indicated to you yesterday that further discussions were going on at home. On the means of consulting the East Timorese, which I know is of great interest to you, the meeting has reached an agreement that a method of direct ballot will be used to ask the people of East Timor whether they accept or reject the autonomy proposal. The specific modalities of how the popular consultation will be carried out are being worked out at the moment. Members of my Personal Representative’s staff will soon be visiting Jakarta, East Timor and Lisbon to continue the process of consulting East Timorese leaders and personalities. While the situation in East Timor remains a matter of concern to all the parties, I welcome the recent positive steps to promote dialogue and reconciliation amongst the East Timorese. In particular, I am encouraged by efforts to set up a mechanism for fostering peace and stability in East Timor to which I am prepared to lend my full support. As to the next steps, let me share with you what we’ve decided to do. We shall organize a senior officials meeting here in New York on 13 and 14 April, under the chairmanship of my Personal Representative Ambassador Jamsheed Marker. We will follow that with a meeting of the two Ministers and myself on 22 April, again in New York. We will now take your questions.

12 March 1999 • 651 Question-and-Answer Session

QUESTION: On behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA), to you, the two Ministers and your Personal Representative, welcome. The first question is to you, Mr. Secretary-General. Once the political settlement is reached, have you discussed what kind of United Nations involvement will be in place? SECRETARY-GENERAL: We are in the middle of discussing that and, obviously, the United Nations will have to play an important role. And these are some of the issues that we will discuss and clarify with friends of the process, with the Security Council, as we move forward. And it tends to become much clearer once we have agreed on the plan, which I hope we will be able to do by next month. We are still trying to meet the deadline we set of settling the autonomy plan by end of April. QUESTION: My question is to Mr. Alatas. The situation on the ground seems to be the thing that is preoccupying people the most at the moment. In the meantime, while we wait for the final agreement, people are dying and it’s not now just a question of the violence between those who are in favour and against independence, it’s also a question of shortages of food. We’ve heard reports in the last few days of the situation getting quite nasty—3,000 teachers have asked to be evacuated. Could you tell us what steps your Government is taking to try to improve the situation on the ground to prevent bloodshed and to get food there? MR. ALATAS: Well, we are continuously trying to address the issues that you raised in a comprehensive manner. Let me first say, however, that, as usual, there is a lot of exaggeration about the food situation, and so on. I’ve read the dire predictions of José Ramos Horta about the impending food shortage, as if we will be soon seeing East Timorese falling down in the street because of hunger. There is no such thing. We are in a very severe economic and financial crisis all over Indonesia. That is admitted, but we don’t have anywhere in Indonesia, famine. We have overcome earlier threats to shortages of food, especially rice. So, if there are any shortages of food in East Timor, they will be quickly overcome because no where in Indonesia is there any famine. As to the question of teachers and medical personnel feeling very nervous in East Timor, that, unfortunately, is the result of a period of harassment, intimidation and even murder by pro-independence East Timorese, that has been perpetrated against especially these two categories of people because they are mostly coming from outside East

Timor. But I think that is the most stupid thing to do for any nation, because now we have great problems in trying to convince the medical personnel not to leave East Timor. We have continuous talks with the teachers, who are up in arms and want to be sent back home. We hope we will be able to convince them that leaving East Timor would cause a lot of problems for the East Timorese. But let me stress once again, this is a situation caused by very irresponsible elements of precisely those who want independence and not those who want integration, who have no interest in causing this kind of situations. There has also been fighting, unfortunately. There has been tensions between the two groups— those for integration and for independence. But we are trying to overcome them, as I have said, in a comprehensive way. We are trying to set up a group of accepted and acceptable leaders from all groups, including Xanana Gusmão. This is a proposal by our National Commission on Human Rights. One of the first encouraging steps has been what the Secretary-General has just referred to, namely, the meeting between the chief representative of the armed factions of pro-integration with Xanana Gusmão. They have agreed to stop the fighting there. I hope that their joint appeal to both groups will have an effect. Beyond that, we are going to see the creation of a commission of peace and reconciliation, which we hope will include all members of the different factions in East Timor and different political persuasions. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, do you see that there is political will in the Security Council to finance a United Nations mission in East Timor? And to the Ministers, it has been suggested, even by some pro-integration leaders in East Timor, that an early release of Xanana Gusmão would be very helpful to this process. My question to the Portuguese Minister is, is it helpful? My question to the Indonesian Minister is, is it helpful, are you going to do it, and if so, when? S-G: On the first question, I hope the Security Council will find a way of financing this operation, if and when we get there. I believe that it is a problem that has been with us for quite a while, and everybody has been searching for a solution. For the first time, we seem to be moving forward, and I would hope that the process would not stop or fall apart for lack of funding. I don’t think the Council would want that on its hands. MR. GAMA: We have been insisting on the liberation of political prisoners as a factor for reconciliation. There has been some progress, but,

652 • 12 March 1999

unfortunately, that progress has not been totally accomplished. We have been presenting the United Nations elements relating to the situation of the political prisoners. Now that needs to be compared with others, namely, the ones that are in the possession of the Indonesian Government. We hope that along this process we can have the release of all the political prisoners, including Xanana Gusmão. It will be, as you can understand, a big impulse towards a peaceful settlement of this problem. But as you know, the solution of that question is not dependent on my Government. MR. ALATAS: If the purpose for asking the early release of Xanana Gusmão is for him to be able to play a role in the process of finding a solution to East Timor, to be more active in that process, to be consulted, and so on—this is already happening. We have recently, as you know, moved him out of the prison into a special house. He is receiving more visitors than I do and not in a prisoner’s garb. He is playing his role. So I want to know what else is the purpose then for him to be released earlier, in which he can play even a better role. We believe that there are other factors at stake for our Government to take into consideration. There are many East Timorese in Indonesia who would be up in arms if we were to release him early because they feel that they have been the victims of what he has been doing for years as head of the group that was fighting against the Government. There will be a lot of people who would be very uneasy if we were to change our law under pressure because he is someone who has, apart from his political beliefs, been convicted on some of the things he has done which are criminal in nature—killing people, burning villages, stealing cattle, etc. Therefore, we believe that we have gone very far in accommodating what the international community would like us to do, and that is include him actively in this process. He is already being included. As for the other political prisoners, we have made great strides, in that this Government has released almost all the political prisoners, but it is a legal process. We cannot do it just by the stroke of a pen. We have to check case by case and they are released in batches, by giving amnesty to certain groups. There are now only 17 to 18 East Timorese prisoners left who are eligible for release, outside of Xanana Gusmão. I am sure that within a short span of time we will be able to announce the release of these remaining people. S-G: As you know, we have all encouraged the Indonesian Government to ensure that Mr.

Gusmão is able to play his role in this. What the Minister has indicated is correct, that he is now under house arrest, which we had discussed with the Government, and he is now able to play a role. Perhaps, what the Minister may want to comment on is the fact that his release may come as part of this whole solution. I think that, eventually, he has to be released, and a comment from you would be helpful. MR. ALATAS: Thank you, Mr. SecretaryGeneral. I forgot to mention that, because that is long-standing policy. We have announced from the very beginning that Xanana Gusmão will be released as part and parcel of an overall settlement. So, the minute we have reached an overall settlement of the question of East Timor, his release will be automatic. We do not need to negotiate that any longer with anyone, but we will do it ourselves. QUESTION: There have been a number of ideas discussed, obviously you are still working out specific modalities as you said, but we had heard the idea of a rolling ballot as one of the options discussed today. I was wondering whether you could clarify what a rolling ballot means in this context and what advantages that offers, that you could not agree on in a referendum. S-G: Let me say that we did not discuss in detail this sort of rolling ballot. What we have sought to do is to select the most democratic and direct means possible to consult the East Timorese. Obviously, there are logistical considerations to factor into any decision that we take. Given the fact that the polls will not be held only in the territory of East Timor, but in the diaspora, where East Timorese live in large numbers— from Portugal to Australia to the United States and other parts of the world where there are large numbers of East Timorese. So we have to organize it in such a way that we can pool all those East Timorese whether they live in the diaspora or in the territory. These are the logistical aspects that we are going to be working out and as I indicated, a team from Mr. Marker’s office will go to the ground and visit some of these capitals for us to be able to firm up our plans. QUESTION: I would like to ask to both the Ministers, what are the differences between your positions now, if any, concerning this matter of consultation. Can you clarify this? For the Secretary-General, what would the United Nations need to provide this consultation and when do you intend to do that? Don’t you think it will be useful to form a delegation to deal with this as soon as possible?

12 March 1999 • 653 S-G: On the question of a United Nations presence, let me say that we did discuss it and I would hope that immediately after the agreement, which as I indicated would be by the end of next month, we will establish a United Nations presence there. In the meantime, the United Nations staff are able to visit and go in and out. As we indicated, fairly soon we are sending a team to the region. On the question of the method of consulting the East Timorese if there were any disagreement, I will say that, as someone who chaired the meeting, we had unanimity as to the approach and the method, but I will let the Ministers speak for themselves. MR. ALATAS: Well, as I have tried to explain on several occasions and just now a few minutes ago before CNN, our objection to applying the method of a full-fledged referendum in order to determine or ascertain the views of the East Timorese towards a package of autonomy, whether they accept it or whether they reject it, is that it may not be the most efficient or the most effective method. Furthermore, a full-fledged referendum is a method that is fraught with risks. Also, it is cumbersome because it has to fulfil certain formalities according to the United Nations before you can apply a full fledged official referendum. For one thing, everything has to take place in East Timor itself. Of course, because it will be a United Nations conducted referendum, the United Nations must come in there, United Nations peacekeeping troops must be there after debate at the Security Council to replace the Indonesian presence there. Then all the people abroad—the East Timorese from Australia, Lisbon and so on—have to participate. They have to be back there in East Timor, we have to allow them all back, including, of course, Xanana Gusmão, and so on. This method is quite democratic theoretically, but practically speaking, it is fraught with risks of returning conflict. Indonesia is not against a referendum because we are afraid of the results. I would like to point out to you that a change has now occurred in the Indonesian position. We are offering independence already. So whether the assessment of the views of the East Timorese will result in acceptance of autonomy or in a rejection of autonomy, meaning independence, for us it is no longer a problem. In the past, you may have assumed that Indonesia is against a referendum because we are afraid of the results. We are not. Indonesia is also not against a referendum because we want to be undemocratic. On the contrary, from the beginning we have said that

although we honestly believe that the referendum may not be the right methodology because of its formalities and its cumbersomeness, we are in favour of assessing the views of as many, if not all, of the East Timorese in other ways. For example, by having an assessment abroad by a United Nations team and an assessment in East Timor, so you do not bring them together. So you do not have any peacekeeping troops, etc. There are methods that are just as democratic. Let me stress one thing, Indonesia is vitally interested to have as many East Timorese approached for a view because we are eager to see whether it is really true, what for years now we have been enduring from people like Ramos Horta saying, that 90 per cent of the East Timorese are for independence. I would like to see very much, but for that we need all of them to be approached and to participate in the counting, including in the villages, and not only the vocal few who live in Lisbon or Australia. We are not undemocratic, on the contrary, we want as many East Timorese—as far as the funds and the time is concerned—to be approached. Please don’t have any misunderstandings. I think it is the other side that is getting a little bit nervous because we are calling their bluff now. Now we are saying fine, let them find out, and if they want autonomy, fine. If they want independence, fine. We are relaxed and have no more fears. Please, choose what you want. I hope this is now finally understood by everybody, including the press. MR. GAMA: I would like to comment on this point. First, on our side what is important is not words but the substance of the issue. We have been stressing—and now we are coming very, very close—that it would be a consultation of the East Timorese conducted by the United Nations and democratic. In modern times, you have no democratic consultation which is not universal. All the countries have elections. Indonesia is gearing to have a general and democratic election. For us the methodology for consulting the East Timorese will be equal to the methodology used in free and fair elections in democratic countries. That is why we have come to a conclusion in the negotiations yesterday and today. It is a turning point, but we still need some details. The consolidation of free and fair consultations for the East Timorese have been acquired in this process. QUESTION: Mr. Alatas, what do you think the result of the consultations is going to be? Mr. Alatas: Frankly, I don’t know, but, as I said, I am eager to know. Finally then we will know whether it is true that 90 per cent are for

654 • 12 March 1999

independence and only 10 per cent are for integration, or whether it is otherwise. As far as the results are concerned, we don’t know. QUESTION: Would this balloting take place on a single day or would it be over several days, or one day in East Timor and over several days in the diaspora? And we are talking about a United Nations organized, United Nations conducted ballot. You do all agree on that, yes? S-G: That is what we are talking about. Obviously it will depend on our own team going down on the ground, visiting the areas concerned. We would want to do it in as short a time period as possible, but there will be voting in different time zones. So we need to be clear on that. If we want people in the diaspora, those in New York cannot vote the same day or the same time as those in East Timor. These are the logistical and other things we need to work out. We will organize the votes in a concentrated manner and try to get the results out as quickly as possible. So they will be able to vote in East Timor and wherever they live in the key centres, and then the results will be made known as soon as possible. MR. ALATAS: It is precisely as you have described. There has never been at any time a proposal by Indonesia that such a consultation would stretch out over weeks or months, which Mr. Gama said was a joke. Well, we never made that joke. Let’s at least correct that misinterpretation. MR. GAMA: I would just like to emphasize that according to the exile situation, obviously the voting of the diaspora will not take place at the same time. But for East Timor, I would like to stress that, if it is possible to have elections in such a big country—more than 200 million in Indonesia in one day, then why not the East Timor territory to have the balloting in one day. That is our opinion. S-G: That is our intention anyway. QUESTION: How many people are going to vote? I mean 280,000 in East Timor, but beyond that what is the whole figure? MR. ALATAS: Well we don’t know. According to the numbers registered during the most recent elections in Indonesia, but that includes, of course, people who are not of East Timorese identity but also other people who are there in East Timor, there are around 600,000 eligible voters out of a population of about 800,000. That is in East Timor alone. I don’t know the numbers in the diaspora, but I’ve been told, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that it is between 20,000 and 30,000 spread out in several countries—mostly in Portugal, Australia, Macau, the United States and Canada. These are the numbers we are talking about.

S-G: Jamsheed, do you want to say something here? MR. MARKER: At the moment, no. We will have to find out exactly. We are not in a position yet to give any realistic figures. But this will be part of the exercise we will be working on. QUESTION: I was going to ask Mr. Marker what he thought. He has been following this process regarding these two gentlemen. Is this a significant point that we’re at or do you feel there is a lot more to go in this process? And how would you describe the atmosphere in these talks? We heard that things were tense, that there were some insults on the first day. Summarize what has happened here over the last two days and what it means for the future. MR. MARKER: I can say that there is not a spot of blood on the carpets on the 38th floor. At one stage, I mentioned that I hoped it would be possible for the press to have been in the corridors because the laughter that came out of the room was almost raucous. The atmosphere was very good as the Secretary-General suggested. QUESTION: Laughing at each other or with each other? MR. MARKER: With each other. A bit of both actually. But it was a very constructive and very helpful meeting. I endorse what both the Foreign Ministers have said that there has been a significant advance. I have no doubt that a lot of difficulties still remain, but I believe that we have taken a very large step forward. One can really look with confidence towards a solution. S-G: I think what Ambassador Marker refused to share with you is that at one point he whispered to me that he was perhaps beginning to think of life after East Timor.

17 March 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Cambodia/Macedonia Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. Good afternoon. The guest at the briefing today is Olara Otunnu, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict. He returned yesterday from Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda and the Sudan. Welcome. Report on Khmer Rouge Leaders

The Secretary-General, this morning, transmitted to the Presidents of the General Assembly and the

19 March 1999 • 655 Security Council the report of three experts concerning the bringing to justice of the Khmer Rouge leaders of Cambodia for crimes committed between 1975 and 1979. We released to you last week a summary of the conclusions of this report, so I’ll say no more about them. In his letter of transmission, the SecretaryGeneral says that, in his view, the Khmer Rouge leaders charged with the most serious crimes should be brought to justice and tried before a tribunal which meets the international standards of justice, fairness and the process of law. The tribunal must be international in character, he affirmed. Impunity, he said, is unacceptable in the face of genocide and other crimes against humanity. The document, with the Secretary-General’s letters attached—identical letters to both Presidents— will be available shortly in all languages. . . . Talks between Greece and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Continue. Cyrus Vance, the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General, is continuing his efforts to help resolve the name issue between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The latest talks were held in New York yesterday, and the next round will be held in the beginning of May. There is a brief statement on that available in my Office. . . .

17 March 1999 Remarks by the Secretary-General Upon Leaving UN Headquarters

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Cambodia QUESTION: Could you tell us why you’ve decided to recommend an International Criminal Tribunal for Khmer Rouge atrocities? SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think that the report was very clear—first of all that they do not believe that the capacity in the country exists for such a trial to be conducted and if indeed we want to tackle impunity and make accountable those who commit crimes against humanity and genocide, we have to find some way of trying them. If the national court is not capable of doing it, we need to draw the logical conclusion and move on to the next step and I hope that others will see it that way. QUESTION: How do you expect to deal with Cambodia’s rejection so far of an International Criminal Tribunal? S-G: We are at the very early stage yet so let’s see what happens. QUESTION: There is also the possibility that China would be adamantly opposed to the creation

of an International Criminal Tribunal, how do you expect to overcome that obstacle? S-G: Let’s wait till the Council takes it up and how the discussions go—it is possible, on the other hand, it may not happen. QUESTION: Can we ask you quickly about North Korea? S-G: I’m very happy with the developments at the talks, thank you.

18 March 1999 Letter (EOSG); Rwanda Letter to the president of the Security Council, Qin Huasun, regarding setting up an independent inquiry into the UN’s role in Rwanda. Dear Mr. President, In view of the enormity of the genocide that occurred in Rwanda in 1994, questions continue to surround the actions of the United Nations immediately before and during the period of crisis. It is therefore my intention to set up an independent inquiry into the actions which the United Nations took at that time. The primary purpose of the independent inquiry would be to establish the facts and to draw conclusions as to the response of the Organization to the tragedy. The inquiry would be expected to interview any person having knowledge of the events in question, and would enjoy full access to United Nations records, including internal documents and cables. I would establish a time limit for its work, and issue the report or the inquiry as a United Nations document. The inquiry will be financed from existing resources. Before proceeding, I would be grateful for confirmation that the Security Council supports this important undertaking. I would therefore appreciate it if you could bring this letter to the attention of the members of the Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

19 March 1999 Libya to Proceed with Transfer of Two Lockerbie Accused to the Netherlands

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6935); Libya This afternoon, the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Ambassador Abuzed Omar Dorda, hand delivered to the SecretaryGeneral a letter from Omar Mustafa Muntasser, Secretary of the General People’s Committee of

656 • 19 March 1999

the People’s Bureau for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. As already announced by President Nelson Mandela in Tripoli this morning, the letter confirms the readiness of Libya to proceed with the transfer of the two accused to the Netherlands. The Secretary-General is greatly encouraged by this development and the necessary arrangements will now be initiated by the Secretariat. The Secretary-General has shared the letter with the Security Council. The Secretary-General would like to record his warm appreciation of the efforts made by President Mandela, as well as Crown Prince Abdullah and others in order to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion, in cooperation with the authorities of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

19 March 1999 Remarks by the Secretary-General Entering UN Headquarters

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Kosovo QUESTION: . . . I know you would like to see a peaceful settlement of the problems there. Is there anything you or the UN can do to help the situation in Kosovo? SECRETARY-GENERAL: Well, the Contact Group has the lead and I am in touch with the NATO Secretary-General and we are monitoring developments very closely and I would hope that the Serbs will reconsider their attitude and use the extra time given to come back with possibly a positive attitude. QUESTION: Any chance of the UN troops or peacekeepers going into the region, or any way for you to help? S-G: Not at this stage, really. The Contact Group is dealing with it and we are monitoring: the UN is not directly engaged. We have the humanitarian workers on the ground, in particular the UNHCR. We’re working with the refugees, helping them get shelter and food. Beyond that we have no military or political involvement on the ground. QUESTION: Are NATO air strikes imminent? S-G: It is difficult to say. It’s an issue for the Contact Group to decide. I cannot say if and when there will be any NATO strikes. QUESTION: Muammar Qadhafi announced that he would release the suspects. Would set a date. He’s going to write to you. S-G: I am going to wait for the letter. Not at this stage.

22 March 1999 Letter (UN archives); Kosovo Dear Secretary-General, I am pleased that we have been able to keep in close contact about the situation in Kosovo and I am now writing to you about some important recent developments. The Alliance followed last week’s Paris peace implementation talks very closely. While we were encouraged by the Kosovar Albanian delegation’s acceptance of the interim peace agreement, we much regret that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (FRY) has failed to sign it. We were also deeply concerned that immediately following the withdrawal of the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission on 20th March, Serb security forces began intensive operations in Kosovo. These actions are not only in flagrant violation of existing UN Security Council Resolutions and the October 1998 commitments to NATO, but have seriously undermined international efforts to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. Thousands of refugees are fleeing their homes in the face of brutal attacks using excessive and wholly disproportionate force. As we have made clear, NATO’s aim has been to halt the violence in order to avert a humanitarian catastrophe and to support the completion of negotiations on an interim political settlement. In the light, therefore, of these recent developments and following decisions by the North Atlantic Council of 30 January, I am about to complete consultations with Allies on the possibility of carrying out NATO air strikes against targets on FRY territory. I have also today been given authority to decide, subject to further consultations, on a broader range of air operations against targets in the FRY. We naturally hope that Ambassador Holbrooke’s current mission to Belgrade is successful but are now in a position to carry out air strikes at very short notice. They would be directed towards disrupting the violent attacks being committed by the FRY security forces and weakening their ability to cause a further humanitarian catastrophe, thereby supporting international efforts to secure FRY agreement to an interim political settlement. I will keep you informed about further developments. In the meantime, we have also been in close touch with other organisations active in the FRY concerning the evacuation of their personnel from the FRY. Yours Sincerely, Javier Solana

22 March 1999 • 657 22 March 1999 Talking Points of the Secretary-General’s Statement to the General Assembly on the Millennium Assembly

Presentation to the General Assembly (EOSG); Millennium Assembly Mr. President, I am very glad to join you for this third informal plenary to discuss next year’s Millennium Summit. As you requested, the Secretariat has prepared a paper which has been circulated. This paper comprises three elements: 1. It attempts to summarize the content of your discussions on this subject so far. 2. It gives some information on what the Secretariat is doing in this context. And 3. It also contains some information we have received about activities planned by non-governmental organizations. As you know, Mr. President, I regard the arrival of the new millennium as a moment of great symbolic importance. It gives us both the chance and the obligation to look hard at the tasks confronting us in the coming decades; and to consider carefully how we can best approach them. That is why I was delighted last December when the General Assembly decided that its 55th session, which begins in the year 2000, should be designated “the Millennium Assembly”, and that an integral part of it should be a “Millennium Summit”, bringing together Heads of State and Government from all over the world. But we all agree that the Millennium Summit and Assembly must not themselves be purely symbolic or ceremonial events. There are major challenges facing the United Nations. Many commentators see our Organization as being gradually marginalized. This is not my view, Mr. President. Nor do I believe it corresponds to either the interests or the desires of the world’s peoples. The next century will bring many global problems which need to be addressed in the forum of a global organization. The United Nations can and must identify those problems, and the means of addressing them. The Millennium Assembly and Summit offer us an ideal occasion to do so, if they are properly planned and prepared. Fixing the dates of the Summit is now an urgent matter, because Heads of State and Government need to organize their calendars. I understand, Mr. President, that you are consulting

with member States on possible dates, and I hope these can be finalized soon. I am also glad that we are here today to continue exploring themes and topics for the Assembly and Summit. My colleagues and I will listen carefully to your ideas. In accordance with your Resolution, I intend to come back to you with proposals, and I hope these will be ready by early May. Once the theme and topics are agreed, I shall be able to start work in earnest on the Report, which I hope to submit to you in March next year. You will recall that last year I told you of my intention to hold informal hearings held in different regions of the world. I am glad to report that preparations for these are now well in hand. They will take place during the spring and summer, and will take the form of interactive panels which should enable both member States and civil society to gain a better understanding of the challenges facing the United Nations in the 21st century, seen from the perspective of the regions. There are also several major intergovernmental conferences and other events planned between now and the Millennium Assembly. These too will undoubtedly make a very important contribution to its deliberations. Non-Governmental Organizations, I am glad to say, show every sign of taking the Millennium exercise very seriously. They are organizing themselves to convene a “Millennium Forum” in advance of the Millennium Assembly, which they plan to hold at UN Headquarters in May of next year. Many other activities are being planned by NGOs in connection with the millennium. A partial list can be found in the annex to the paper which I mentioned earlier. I hope that member States will approach this Assembly and Summit with the same vigour and enthusiasm, and so live up to the expectations of the world’s peoples. I particularly welcome the idea that a significant part of the Summit should have an interactive format. I look forward to working with you to make sure that this is not only an important but a dynamic and stimulating event, which will show the world that this Organization is ready for the 21st century. Mr. President, I am eager to hear the views of this Assembly, and will do my best to answer any questions that Members may wish to put to me. Thank you very much.

658 • 22 March 1999

22 March 1999 Remarks by the Secretary-General Upon Leaving the Trusteeship Council

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Kosovo I just wanted to know, with Holbrooke being in Belgrade now, if there’s any more diplomatic way to solve the crisis in Kosovo without violence? Well, at least an effort has been made, and I think that, when it comes to attempts to solve the issues or conflicts diplomatically, it’s never too late to try; one should try, up to the last minute. And each moment gained for peace and each moment that war is deferred, is a victory for peace. And I think that we should keep at it. It’s not just Mr. Holbrooke—there are other mediators, and this is a very determined effort to see if we can solve it diplomatically. And I hope that it succeeds.

23 March 1999 Letter (UN archives); private sector Internal note from Hans Corell of the UN legal office. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Relationship with the Private Sector

1. Following the Meeting of the Legal Advisers on 4 and 5 March 1999, I would like to bring to your attention our thoughts and concerns with respect to certain aspects of the—growing interaction with the private sector. It is our understanding that this matter will be considered by the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) at its upcoming meeting in Geneva to be held on 9 and 10 April 1999. Therefore, I think that you should be aware of this also in your capacity as Chairman of the ACC. 2. While we are aware that this is primarily a policy matter, we all agreed that there were serious legal implications involved. The positive rhetoric by intergovernmental decision-making organs and by the organizations’ Executive Heads seems to have been perceived as a green light for a broad and varied range of activities without the necessary administrative coordination or legal guidance. Moreover, we see a trend that “the private sector” has become interchangeable with commercial and business entities to the conceptual exclusion of non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, labour-unions, think-tanks and other such organizations and associations. 3. We have also detected mutually reinforcing trends associated with the growing relations with

the private sector. While the private sector is acquiring greater rights of participation and increasingly performing formerly exclusively public functions, the organizations of the United Nations system are themselves to a greater extent engaging in private and commercial activities. 4. With all due appreciation for the desirability of enhancing relations with the private sector, we noted that the Legal Advisers have a paramount obligation to seek to ensure that the activities of the organisations in this regard are carried out in a manner consistent with the organisations’ objectives and purposes as defined by their constitutive and legislative instruments. The Legal Advisers also seek to ensure respect for applicable Financial Regulations and Rules and for the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations. Furthermore, it is necessary to protect the status, privileges, immunities and interests of the organisations including but not limited to minimizing exposure to financial liability; ensuring proper use of names and emblems; preserving the inviolability of premises; and protecting intellectual property rights. We also recalled that there are limits to the nature and scope of activities in which intergovernmental organizations may be properly engaged. 5. A common concern among us was that we were sometimes seen as unhelpful and negative. We, therefore, came to the conclusion that we should emphasize to our organizations that our efforts “to keep some order in the house” are not meant to be an obstacle to better or closer relations with the private sector but rather as a guide towards proper relations with the private sector. Before any official policy is finalized, we thought that these specific issues should be addressed in depth and that the general guidance of the intergovernmental decision-making organs be obtained. With respect to the United Nations Secretariat, I note that the topic “Relationship with the Private Sector” is to be addressed by the Senior Management Group on 28 April 1999. I intend to revert to the Legal Advisers’ concerns on that occasion.

24 March 1999 Secretary-General Speaks to Security Council About Bombing Yugoslavia

Presentation to the Security Council (EOSG); Kosovo Text of the address by the Secretary-General to the Security Council regarding information from

25 March 1999 • 659 Javier Solana, the secretary-general of NATO, that NATO was beginning the bombing of Yugoslavia. Mr. President, I have been following very closely the events in Kosovo, and the efforts of the international community to bring about a political settlement. The Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Mr. Javier Solana, informed me yesterday that, he was ordering military action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. He telephoned me again today, five minutes after the action started. Mr. President, this is clearly a very grave situation. I have made my views clear in a statement to the press, which is also being distributed to members of the Council. I believe that statement speaks for itself. I would only add that, besides their grave implications for international peace and security, the events in Kosovo have brought acute suffering to the civilian population, large numbers of whom have been displaced from their homes. The United Nations has been doing what it can to relieve this suffering, and will now redouble its efforts. Needless to say, I look to the Council for support in these efforts, and indeed to the international community as a whole. Thank you very much.

Kosovo, that under the Charter the Security Council has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security—and this is explicitly acknowledged in the North Atlantic Treaty. Therefore, the Council should be involved in any decision to resort to the use of force.

24 March 1999 Letter (UN archives); waiver of immunity Letter from the Secretary-General regarding the request for immunity for Hans Corell, legal council of the UN, to provide information regarding the Lockerbie bombing.

24 March 1999

Pursuant to Section 20 of Article V of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 February 1946, I hereby waive the immunity from legal process of Mr. Hans Corell, the Legal Counsel of the United Nations, for the purpose of providing information, pertaining to the two persons referred to in Security Council resolution 1192 (1998), to the Investigative Judge in the Netherlands, who is in charge of the confirmation of their provisional arrest based on the Netherlands Extradition Act. This waiver is limited to providing information regarding the physical arrangements for the safe transfer of the two persons concerned from Libya direct to the Netherlands.

Secretary-General Deeply Regrets Yugoslav Rejection of Political Settlement

24 March 1999

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6938); Kosovo I speak to you at a grave moment for the international community. Throughout the last year, I have appealed on many occasions to the Yugoslav authorities and the Kosovo Albanians to seek peace over war, compromise over conflict. I deeply regret that, in spite of all the efforts made by the international community, the Yugoslav authorities have persisted in their rejection of a political settlement, which would have halted the bloodshed in Kosovo and secured an equitable peace for the population there. It is indeed tragic that diplomacy has failed, but there are times when the use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace. In helping maintain international peace and security, Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter assigns an important role to regional organizations. But as Secretary-General, I have many times pointed out, not just in relation to

Letter (UN archives); Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Dear Secretary-General, Following my letter of 23rd of March, and as I informed you in our conversation today, I am writing to confirm that NATO air operations against military targets in FRY were initiated this evening. I will continue to keep you informed of further developments. Yours sincerely, Javier Solana

25 March 1999 Letter (UN archives); Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Letter to Javier Solana, secretary-general of NATO. Dear Mr. Secretary General, Thank you for your letter dated 23 March 1999

660 • 25 March 1999

in which you informed me about your decision to authorise the launching of air operations against military targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). Following our telephone conversation earlier that day, I briefed the President of the Security Council on your decision and he immediately conveyed this information to the Members of the Council. I enclose the text of the statement which I made to the press shortly after the commencement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) operations. It seems to me that we are faced in Kosovo with two irreconcilable imperatives: the requirements of the Charter, and the grave and urgent nature of the situation on the ground. I can only hope that, in giving priority to the latter, NATO is not setting a precedent which in time to come will be cited by others with less worthy motives to justify unilateral intervention. I am grateful to you for keeping me in such close touch with NATO thinking and decisions as the tragic events in Kosovo have unfolded.

25 March 1999 Remarks by the Secretary-General Entering UN Headquarters

QUESTION: Do you see a role for yourself at this point? S-G: Not at this stage, the lead is elsewhere. The Contact Group is in the lead and at this stage I have no plans of getting immediately involved. Thank you.

26 March 1999 Remarks by the Secretary-General Entering UN Headquarters

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Kosovo QUESTION: How do you feel about the question of Kosovo? SECRETARY-GENERAL: The Council will be taking it up today, I think the resolution speaks very clearly for itself and we will have to wait and see how the Council acts on it. QUESTION: Has anyone asked the UN for any help in Yugoslavia as far as humanitarian aid or your assistance to try to end the situation? S-G: We are obviously quite concerned about the humanitarian situation and would hope that the situation would allow us to go back in and assist the needy, but we will have to wait for further developments and nobody has asked me for direct involvement.

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Kosovo QUESTION: You gave a very careful, almost walking a fine-line statement yesterday on Kosovo. Where do you think the emphasis should be placed on the fact that use of force was appropriate, how do you think we should read the emphasis? SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think my statement was very clear and I did state the principles that underline the use of force as far as the UN is concerned. I thought the statement was very clear. QUESTION: Have you heard of any casualties, have you been in touch with either side, have you spoken with the Serbians or with President Clinton? S-G: No, I will be speaking to SecretaryGeneral Solana later on this morning, and I will get a direct assessment from him. QUESTION: Is there anything that you personally can do to try to end the bombings, or that you believe the Security Council could or should do? S-G: Well, the Security Council is actively seized of the matter. As you know, they discussed it yesterday. QUESTION: But, they didn’t do anything. S-G: I hope they are going to continue to discuss it.

26 March 1999 Letter (EOSG); US arrears Letter to former US secretary of state George P. Shultz, with the following letter that was written by a number of former secretaries of state to the US Congress. Dear Mr. Shultz, I am writing to express my deep appreciation for the letter you and your fellow former Secretaries of State sent to Congressional leaders on 16 March 1999. It is a great source of encouragement to know of your commitment to the United Nations on this critically important issue. The United Nations has made significant progress in reform and it is my sincere conviction that it has retained the vitality to serve the interests of its Member States, including the United States. That vitality, however, will be lost if the financial crisis created by the failure of the United States to pay its arrears continues. I very much hope, therefore, that your letter will have the intended effect. Thank you very much for your friendship and support.

26 March 1999 • 661 * * * Emergency Coalition for U.S. Financial Support of the United Nations

March 16, 1999 The Honorable Dennis J. Hastert Speaker of the House The Honorable Richard A. Gephardt House Minority Leader The Honorable Trent Lott Senate Majority Leader U.S. Congress Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Thomas A. Daschle Senate Minority Leader Dear Congressional Leaders: As America’s financial debt to the United Nations persists, we are deeply concerned that our great nation is squandering its moral authority, leadership, and influence in the world. It’s simply unacceptable that the richest nation on earth is also the biggest debtor to the United Nations. We are writing to urge all Members of Congress to support full funding of the outstanding and current U.S. legal obligations to the United Nations and to alert Congress to the serious consequences if we fail to do so. U.S. leadership is at risk. Our ability to achieve vital foreign policy and security objectives is compromised. Our priceless reputation as the pre-eminent country committed to the rule of law is compromised. And, the critical work of the United Nations is threatened. As the former Secretaries of State, we know first hand the importance of the United Nations and its agencies in securing global peace, stability and prosperity. And we appreciate that now more than ever, the U.S. must lead in the community of nations to turn back threats to peace and freedom whether from war or hunger, terrorism or disease. We cannot lead if we ignore our basic international responsibilities. There are historic consequences to our continued failure to meet our obligations. The United States, one of the founding members of the United Nations, could lose its vote in the UN General Assembly. Important reforms have occurred at the United Nations, many at America’s urging: a no-growth budget from 1994-98 and an actual reduction of $123 million for 1998-99, creation of an office of an inspector general which has identified more than $80 million in savings, more than 1,000 positions cut, and other cost-saving measures. Payment of U.S. arrears is critical to continuing this reform. We urge you honor our international commit-

ments and pay America’s debt to the United Nations. Great nations pay their bills. Sincerely, The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger The Honorable Alexander M. Haig, Jr. The Honorable George P. Schultz The Honorable Cyrus R. Vance The Honorable James A. Baker, III The Honorable Lawrence S. Eagleburger The Honorable Warren (M.) Christopher

26 March 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Kosovo/Cambodia Excerpts from the noon briefing by the deputy spokesman for the Secretary-General, Manoel de Almeida e Silva. Kosovo

The Security Council held informal consultations on Kosovo this morning prior to going into a formal session to vote on a draft resolution sponsored by Russia, Belarus and India, which demanded “an immediate cessation of the use of force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.” The SecretaryGeneral was in attendance of the formal meeting. The vote, which happened a few moments ago, was three in favour—Russia, China and Namibia—and 12 votes against. The resolution was not adopted because it did not obtain the required number of votes. As you know, a majority of nine votes is required, including the votes of the five permanent members of the Council. Canada, Slovenia, the Netherlands, the United States and the Russian Federation spoke prior to the vote. After the vote, the United Kingdom, France, Argentina, Malaysia and Bahrain were scheduled to speak. After these Council members, other non-Council members are scheduled to speak. These are Ukraine, Belarus, Cuba, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and India. Kosovo—Humanitarian Situation

Also on Kosovo, the Secretary-General said today that he is “obviously quite concerned about the humanitarian situation” and hopes that the situation will swiftly allow the United Nations to go back in to Kosovo to provide humanitarian assistance to those in need. In Geneva, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Sadako Ogata, also expressed grave concern about the plight of civilians in Serbia’s Kosovo province, three days after

662 • 26 March 1999

most international observers and aid workers had left the area. High Commissioner Ogata demanded that all sides in the Kosovo conflict refrain from attacking civilians and warned that those guilty of atrocities will be held accountable by the international community. A “reduced international presence in Kosovo does not mean impunity”. She also urged Kosovo’s neighbours to keep their borders open to those wishing to flee the troubled province. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), meanwhile, also reported that there has been a trickle of refugees crossing from Kosovo to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia but no major exodus. One reason why so few people cross is that they are probably afraid of using the roads in Kosovo, which are full of military and police checkpoints. . . . Trial of Khmer Rouge Official

The Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Human Rights in Cambodia, Thomas Hammarberg, told the press today that the purpose of his meeting yesterday with the Prime Minister of Cambodia had been to clarify the official Cambodian position. He stressed that “There were no negotiations”. Before the meeting, the Prime Minister submitted a written clarification to the SecretaryGeneral, which said that Ta Mok would be tried in an existing domestic court. Whether other Khmer Rouge leaders would also be tried will be decided by the court’s prosecutor. This tribunal may seek the assistance of legal experts from foreign countries. This written clarification by the Cambodian Government is being issued as an official United Nations document, so it will be available very soon to you. Cambodian Refugee Camps in Thailand

Also on Cambodia, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports that the Cambodian refugee camps in Thailand are now empty. The last group of 705 Cambodians left Thailand on 24 March to return to Cambodia. Altogether, 50,000 refugees have returned, of whom 35,000 returned with the assistance of the United Nations through UNHCR. We have a briefing note with more details upstairs. . . . Questions and Answers

QUESTION: Given the statement about the humanitarian situation, has the United Nations received any formal request for humanitarian assistance for Kosovo?

DEPUTY SPOKESMAN: The United Nations was there with its humanitarian programmes, and the staff had to leave for security reasons. The intention is to go back as soon as security permits. That is what the Secretary-General said this morning. QUESTION: Do you foresee the SecretaryGeneral speaking again after the Council vote on the resolution, which basically frustrates a good deal of what the Secretary-General said the other night about a NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] intervention? DEPUTY SPOKESMAN: I don’t think there will be a statement. . . .

27 March 1999 Letter (UN archives); Yugoslavia Letter from the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. Dear Secretary General, I am writing to update you on developments concerning ongoing NATO operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. During the last few days, an increasing number of reports indicate that FRY security forces have taken advantage of the absence of international observers and media to commit serious human rights abuses and atrocities against the civilian population, and to plunder and destroy civilian infrastructure and dwellings. This has exacerbated the flow of refugees and IDPs, increased human suffering, and led to heightened tension and instability in the region. As a result, I have directed SACEUR to initiate a broader scope of operations to intensify action against FRY forces and compel them to desist from further attacks in Kosovo and to meet the demands of the international community. As I have repeatedly made clear, NATO military actions are intended to support the political aims of the international community. All Allies stand united in this action and in our determination to bring a halt to violence in Kosovo and to prevent further humanitarian catastrophe. I will continue to keep you informed of significant developments. Yours Sincerely, Javier Solana

30 March 1999 Letter (EOSG); Yugoslavia Letter to Qin Huasun, president of the Security Council, wtih a letter from Javier Solana, secre-

1 April 1999 • 663 tary-general of NATO, regarding the ongoing NATO operations in Yugoslavia.

1 April 1999

Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to convey the attached selfexplanatory letter dated 27 March 1999, which I have received over the weekend from the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). I should appreciate your bringing this communication from the Secretary-General of NATO to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Internal note to the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, from Alvaro de Soto of political affairs laying out some analysis and policy options on Kosovo, shortly after NATO bombing had begun.

30 March 1999 Secretary-General Outraged by Reports of “Ethnic Cleansing” by Serbian Forces in Kosovo

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6942); Kosovo I am profoundly outraged by reports of a vicious and systematic campaign of “ethnic cleansing” conducted by Serbian military and paramilitary forces in the province of Kosovo. Concern about what is happening there can only be heightened by the fact that all independent international observers, including even the International Committee of the Red Cross, have now been obliged to withdraw. Once again, a civilian population is being made to pay the price for an unresolved political dispute. Civilian populations must never come under indiscriminate and deliberate attack. Such actions are in flagrant violation of established humanitarian law. The United Nations is doing everything possible to alleviate the suffering of displaced persons and refugees who are fleeing Kosovo by the thousands every day. I have designated the High Commissioner for Refugees as the lead agency to coordinate all United Nations relief activities in the region. I appeal to all of Kosovo’s neighbours to give shelter and comfort to the helpless civilians who have been driven from their homes. Borders must be kept open. Safety and protection must be given to those in need. I call upon the international community to give immediate financial, material and logistical support to the authorities in all countries where the refugees are arriving, particularly in Albania, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and in the Republic of Montenegro (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). Any solution to the conflict must allow these unfortunate people to return voluntarily to their homes in full security and dignity.

Letter (UN archives); Kosovo

NOTE TO MR. RIZA

Kosovo

1. Without wishing to usurp your prerogatives, there follows a hurried attempt to suggest some ideas with a view to laying down a policy framework for handling the Kosovo crisis from a political perspective. 2. Early in 1998 DPA suggested that the way out of the looming crisis was to draw up a road map of measures and terms and conditions at the end of which Milosevic could see his reintegration into the international framework including the OSCE, the UN and the IFIs. As we saw it, for historical as well as legal reasons Kosovo was fundamentally different from Bosnia, and hence Milosevic needed to be lured out of his policy of repression essentially by persuasion and incentives. DPA made clear that we did not advocate a role for the Secretary-General in attempting to broker such a road map because he had no control over the keys that needed to be turned to ensure that the international community’s side of the deal would be adhered to (admission to OSCE; settlement of the succession question; restoration of membership rights in UN; renewed access to IFIs). 3. As it turned out, the Contact Group and eventually OSCE and NATO took the lead in the management of the crisis, with the acquiescence of the Security Council. This acquiescence does not, by any stretch of interpretation, constitute a carte blanche by the Council to CG/OSCE/NATO. No mandate or terms of reference have been given to them. Neither the Council nor certainly the Secretary-General should feel compelled, legally, politically or morally, to go along with, let alone back each and every move they make. Furthermore, these actors followed an approach quite different from that which is outlined in paragraph 2 above. We should not second-guess them either. 4. The handling of the Kosovo crisis is likely to go down as one of the most egregious episodes of diplomatic bungling in modern history. It is not the purpose of this note to dissect this demonstrable affirmation right now; I would, however, use it

1 April 1999 • 663 tary-general of NATO, regarding the ongoing NATO operations in Yugoslavia.

1 April 1999

Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to convey the attached selfexplanatory letter dated 27 March 1999, which I have received over the weekend from the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). I should appreciate your bringing this communication from the Secretary-General of NATO to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Internal note to the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, from Alvaro de Soto of political affairs laying out some analysis and policy options on Kosovo, shortly after NATO bombing had begun.

30 March 1999 Secretary-General Outraged by Reports of “Ethnic Cleansing” by Serbian Forces in Kosovo

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6942); Kosovo I am profoundly outraged by reports of a vicious and systematic campaign of “ethnic cleansing” conducted by Serbian military and paramilitary forces in the province of Kosovo. Concern about what is happening there can only be heightened by the fact that all independent international observers, including even the International Committee of the Red Cross, have now been obliged to withdraw. Once again, a civilian population is being made to pay the price for an unresolved political dispute. Civilian populations must never come under indiscriminate and deliberate attack. Such actions are in flagrant violation of established humanitarian law. The United Nations is doing everything possible to alleviate the suffering of displaced persons and refugees who are fleeing Kosovo by the thousands every day. I have designated the High Commissioner for Refugees as the lead agency to coordinate all United Nations relief activities in the region. I appeal to all of Kosovo’s neighbours to give shelter and comfort to the helpless civilians who have been driven from their homes. Borders must be kept open. Safety and protection must be given to those in need. I call upon the international community to give immediate financial, material and logistical support to the authorities in all countries where the refugees are arriving, particularly in Albania, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and in the Republic of Montenegro (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). Any solution to the conflict must allow these unfortunate people to return voluntarily to their homes in full security and dignity.

Letter (UN archives); Kosovo

NOTE TO MR. RIZA

Kosovo

1. Without wishing to usurp your prerogatives, there follows a hurried attempt to suggest some ideas with a view to laying down a policy framework for handling the Kosovo crisis from a political perspective. 2. Early in 1998 DPA suggested that the way out of the looming crisis was to draw up a road map of measures and terms and conditions at the end of which Milosevic could see his reintegration into the international framework including the OSCE, the UN and the IFIs. As we saw it, for historical as well as legal reasons Kosovo was fundamentally different from Bosnia, and hence Milosevic needed to be lured out of his policy of repression essentially by persuasion and incentives. DPA made clear that we did not advocate a role for the Secretary-General in attempting to broker such a road map because he had no control over the keys that needed to be turned to ensure that the international community’s side of the deal would be adhered to (admission to OSCE; settlement of the succession question; restoration of membership rights in UN; renewed access to IFIs). 3. As it turned out, the Contact Group and eventually OSCE and NATO took the lead in the management of the crisis, with the acquiescence of the Security Council. This acquiescence does not, by any stretch of interpretation, constitute a carte blanche by the Council to CG/OSCE/NATO. No mandate or terms of reference have been given to them. Neither the Council nor certainly the Secretary-General should feel compelled, legally, politically or morally, to go along with, let alone back each and every move they make. Furthermore, these actors followed an approach quite different from that which is outlined in paragraph 2 above. We should not second-guess them either. 4. The handling of the Kosovo crisis is likely to go down as one of the most egregious episodes of diplomatic bungling in modern history. It is not the purpose of this note to dissect this demonstrable affirmation right now; I would, however, use it

664 • 1 April 1999

as a touchstone to make my first policy proposal which is that we should distance ourselves from the handling of the crisis by the actors who are in charge of it at this time. I am not suggesting that we take a stance against it; I am merely saying that we should not be associated with it. We do not have a dog in this fight: We are neither involved in policy formulation by CG/OSCE/NATO nor in its execution; the Secretary-General has expressed misgivings about the legality of the NATO decision to bomb the F.R.Y.; the bombing of the F.R.Y. has at the very least provided Milosevic with a pretext for the systematic ethnic cleansing currently under way. Milosevic’s behaviour is horrendous, but the West has made a mess of things and as a consequence should be allowed to shoulder its responsibilities. 5. One should never rule out any scenario, particularly in a rapidly evolving scenario. But at this time the likelihood of a revival of the Rambouillet “agreement” would appear to be slim. The same applies to the proposed deployment of NATO in Kosovo to ensure its implementation—at least on a consensual basis. I would not rate the prospects for a return of the OSCE “verifiers” very high either. These circumstances lead inevitably to consideration of whether there might be a return to the UN, and specifically to the Secretary-General. I do not rate the chances for that very high either, but the Secretary-General cannot rule out this possibility, and his behaviour should be sufficiently circumspect as to not make it more difficult for him to discharge such a responsibility should it come his way. 6. It follows from this premise that we should avoid falling into the trap of echoing the policies of CG/OSCE/NATO or their execution, and, since we are not in a position to independently judge where the truth of the situation on the ground lies, we should restrain our natural tendency to react to reports of episodic events emotionally and, in public pronouncements, eschew the vocabulary and particularly the epithets used by the actors-incharge. We should in particular be careful about references to “genocide”. Facile use of the term is a temptation into which the Secretary-General, who is in a key position given the Organization’s role in the development of international law, should not allow himself to fall. It is worth noting that none of three consecutive Special Rapporteurs of the Human Rights have referred to genocide in Bosnia, nor has the Prosecutor invoked it, at least in the open indictments. In Kosovo, the problem at this stage is that the facts

have to be established, and then the intent which is central to the definition in the genocide convention has to be proven. (It is interesting to note that the US reservations and understandings attached to its ratification of the convention state that the term “intent” means specific intent—i.e. more than merely acts—acts in response to a specific, explicit policy. They have also made it clear that acts in the course of armed conflict without such specific intent are not genocide.) 7. Having removed ourselves from the episodic, and restrained our public stance, we would be in a position to carve out a niche which, I suggest, should not be in the realm of the day-to-day. Rather, the UN (in the UN Secretary-General and Secretariat sense) should, at a time of high irrationality, become an island of rationality and vision. 8. I suggest that we seize the high ground as the architects of the aftermath, by setting ourselves the task of drawing up a blueprint or road map for a vision, beyond Kosovo, of a lasting solution, i.e. one that goes beyond the slapdash and shortterm—the kind of thing that was done by successive Special Representatives for the Former Yugoslavia Vance and Stoltenberg. Once we have such a blueprint or road map, the aspiration of our contribution should be essentially intellectual. I am not suggesting that we should then become its brokers. If a diplomatic role derives from it (not something necessarily desirable), we would take it from there. But we should avoid giving the impression that we would like to usurp or rival the role being played by others. 9. Policy action for the immediate is difficult to put together, particularly given that, characteristically, the would-be peacemakers are beginning to surface in droves. My purpose in this note is, as I said at the outset, to suggest a long-term policy framework which I hope will serve to guide us in facing the day-to-day challenge of being asked to react to a rapidly evolving and extremely complex situation.

1 April 1999 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Letter to Frederick J. T. Chiluba, president of Zambia, informing him of the appointment of a special envoy for the DRC peace process and asking him to meet with the Secretary-General. Excellency, I am writing to inform you that since our recent telephone conversations on the situation

1 April 1999 • 665 regarding the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), I have appointed a Special Envoy for the DRC Peace Process in the person of His Excellency Mr. Moustapha Niasse. A former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Senegal, Mr. Niasse brings to his mission an exceptional combination of experience, judgement, and personal integrity. He is keenly aware of the leading role that you have played personally in spearheading the peace effort for the Democratic Republic of the Congo on behalf of the Southern African Development Community. My Special Envoy has been asked, inter alia, to sound out African leaders on the role, if any, the United Nations could play in helping promote a negotiated settlement of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; to assess the prospects for broader political participation and national reconciliation through the internal democratic process; to ascertain the type of support countries outside Africa are prepared to extend in order to promote a peaceful settlement of the conflict; and to recommend practical measures that the United Nations could take to assist or complement the existing peace initiatives, the Lusaka process being first and foremost among them. Mr. Niasse, who will be assisted by my Representative for the Great Lakes Region, Mr. Berhanu Dinka, is expected to leave New York for Africa around 10 April. His first consultations will be with the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Union in Addis Ababa, and with you in Lusaka. It gives me great comfort to know that he will be able to draw on your wisdom, advice and guidance before he meets the parties to the conflict. Please, accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

for the DRC Peace Process. I have chosen for this mission His Excellency W. Moustapha Niasse, a former Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal. W. Niasse has been given a mandate to:

1 April 1999

Mr. Niasse has accepted to start his mission urgently, and is expected to leave New York about 10 April, after a week of consultations at United Nations Headquarters. He will be assisted by my Representative for the Great Lakes Region, Mr. Berhanu Dinka. In my letter of today’s date to the President of the Security Council in which I informed him of my decision to appoint a Special Envoy, I took the liberty of mentioning my consultations with you and with President Chiluba on the subject, and stressed that Mr. Niasse’s first stop in Africa will be in Addis Ababa for consultations with you. It gives me great comfort to know that Mr. Niasse can count on your support and on the benefit of your wisdom as he begins his challenging mission.

Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Letter to Salim Salim, secretary-general of the Organization of African Unity, announcing the Secretary-General’s appointment of a special envoy to the DRC peace process and laying out the terms of the mandate. Excellency, I am writing in connection with the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and our discussions on the subject of a Special Envoy of the United Nations. Recent consultations with a number of regional leaders, including President Frederick Chiluba, have convinced me that the time has come for me to appoint a Special Envoy

• further demonstrate to the leaders concerned my interest in and commitment to the regional efforts directed at restoring peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; • assess progress made in the Lusaka process, and ascertain the positions of the parties towards a peaceful settlement of the conflict; • identify the main obstacles to signing the cease-fire agreement; • have a wide range of contacts with Congolese political and civil leaders with the aim of making an assessment of the prospects for broader political participation and national reconciliation through the internal democratic process and an inclusive political dispensation; • sound out African leaders on the role, if any, the United Nations, and especially the Security Council and myself, could play in promoting a negotiated settlement; if so, what should be the form and substance of that role; • ascertain the type of support of countries outside Africa are prepared to extend in order to promote a peaceful settlement of the conflict, and whether they are ready to support materially and financially, through a Trust Fund or otherwise, a distinct United Nations role in peacemaking for the Democratic Republic of Congo; and • report to me on his mission, and submit recommendations on practical measures that the United Nations, the Security Council and myself could take to assist or complement the existing peace initiatives.

666 • 1 April 1999

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

2 April 1999 Letter (UN archives); Kosovo Internal note to S. Iqbal Riza, the SecretaryGeneral’s chief of staff, from Alvaro de Soto of political affairs summarizing proposals on Kosovo for the Secretary-General’s attention. NOTE TO MR. RIZA

Kosovo—Working Group

1. As requested, we had a first meeting today in my conference room. Mr Knutsson and Mr Mousavizadeh (EOSG), Mr Griffith (OCHA), Mr Pelletier and Ms Shitakha (DPKO), and Mr Matsuka (DPA) were in attendance. 2. I summarised yesterday’s meeting. We had a first discussion pending the Secretary General’s decision on the recommendations emerging from yesterday’s meeting. The following options were generally agreed on: (a) The Secretary-General could propose that if military action (by all sides) were to cease (whether as a Papal “pause”—term to be avoided—or otherwise), a UN humanitarian assessment mission should be allowed to enter Kosovo in order to assess needs. Such a mission could be used as the thin end of the wedge of the establishment of an independent international presence. (b) The Secretary-General (personally or through Mr Vieira de Mello’s presentation at the Security Council on Monday) could highlight the allegations of serious human rights violations in Kosovo and urge the F.R.Y. to provide full cooperation with the mission that Mrs Robinson has asked to go to the region—presumably headed by the Special Rapporteur, Mr Dienstbier—in order to verify the allegations independently. (c) An in-depth, regionally approached reflection on long-term solutions in the aftermath of the crisis should be taken up, possibly including, inter alia, Messrs Carrington, Owen, Stoltenberg and Vance. Participants believed that it was quite reasonable for the Secretary General to seek advice of this kind, and didn’t see any problem—to the contrary—in it becoming known that he was doing so. These are people who have dedicated years to thinking about the “big picture” in the Balkans, seeking durable solutions. Very few people are doing that these days.

5 April 1999 Letter (EOSG, S/1999/378); Libya Letter to the president of the Security Council, Alain Dejammet, regarding the arrival in the Netherlands of the two Lockerbie bombing suspects. The original letter was written in French. This letter constitutes the report to be submitted pursuant to paragraph 8 of Security Council resolution 1192 (1998). On 27 August 1998, the Security Council adopted resolution 1192 (1998), in which it welcomed the initiative for the trial of the two persons charged with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 before a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands, as contained in the letter dated 24 August 1998 from the Acting Permanent Representatives of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the United States of America and its attachments, and the willingness of the Government of the Netherlands to cooperate in the implementation of the initiative. In that resolution, the Security Council called upon the Government of the Netherlands and the Government of the United Kingdom to take such steps as were necessary, including the conclusion of arrangements with a view to enabling the court sitting in the Netherlands to exercise jurisdiction in respect of the trial of the two persons charged with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. As has already been reported, that request has already been met. On 18 September 1998, the Government of the Netherlands and the Government of the United Kingdom signed an agreement concerning a trial in the Netherlands before a Scottish court, and subsequently they enacted the necessary legislation to give effect to the agreement. I should like to express my deep appreciation to both Governments for their willingness, in the interest of finding a constructive resolution to the matter at hand, to take this unprecedented step enabling a national court of one country to conduct a trial in another country. By resolution 1192 (1998), the Council further requested the Secretary-General, after consultation with the Government of the Netherlands, to assist the Libyan Government with the physical arrangements for the safe transfer of the two accused from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya direct to the Netherlands. I am pleased to inform the Security Council that, as requested in the resolution, all the necessary assistance has been provided to the Libyan Government and that today, 5 April 1999, the two

5 April 1999 • 667 accused have safely arrived in the Netherlands on board a United Nations aircraft. During the flight the two accused were accompanied by my representative, Mr. Hans Corell, the Legal Counsel, who has been in charge of the operation. After the aircraft landed at 9.45 a.m., New York time, at Valkenburg airport in the Netherlands, the two accused were detained by the Dutch authorities, as provided for in paragraph 7 of Security Council resolution 1192 (1998), pending their transfer for the purpose of trial before the Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. I am also pleased to report to the Security Council that I have been informed by the French authorities through a letter dated 13 October 1998 from the Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations that in regard to the requests in the letter from the French authorities dated 20 December 1991 (A/46/825-S/23306), in reporting to the Council under paragraph 8 of Security Council resolution 1192 (1998), I might indicate that the conditions set forth in resolution 1192 (1998) had been met, without prejudice to the other requests concerning the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. Today’s development would not have been possible without the demonstration of goodwill on the part of all the parties concerned and without their commitment to resolving all the issues related to the implementation of Security Council resolution 1192 (1998) in a satisfactory and mutually acceptable manner. As has already been reported informally to the members of the Security Council, given the complex and sensitive nature of the arrangements foreseen in resolution 1192 (1998), issues of both a political and legal nature were raised by the Libyan Government regarding the implementation of the resolution. Those issues needed to be clarified to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned in order to achieve understanding on the implementation of the resolution. Legal issues as well as practical arrangements related to the implementation of the resolution were discussed in October and November 1998 between the United Nations Legal Counsel, Mr. Hans Corell, and a Libyan legal team, headed by Mr. Kamel Hassan Maghur. They were resolved to the satisfaction of all those concerned, with the assistance of the Governments of France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. I should like to express my appreciation to the Libyan legal team and to the States concerned for the constructive manner in which they addressed the complex issues before them.

With a view to achieving progress in resolving some of the sensitive political issues of concern to the Libyan Government, on 5 December 1998, I travelled to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and had fruitful and constructive discussions with the Leader of the Revolution, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, and senior Libyan officials. Following my visit, I sought the assistance of the Governments of South Africa and Saudi Arabia, with which I have been constantly in close touch to coordinate our joint efforts in search of a fair solution to the pending issues. I should like, therefore, to express my appreciation to the Government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and all the other parties concerned for their willingness to demonstrate sufficient flexibility in arriving at a mutually acceptable solution. I should like, in particular, to express gratitude to the Governments of Saudi Arabia and South Africa for their efforts and assistance. Paragraph 8 of Security Council resolution 1192 (1998) provides, inter alia, that if the Secretary-General reports to the Council that the two accused have arrived in the Netherlands for the purpose of trial before the Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands and that the Libyan Government has satisfied the French judicial authorities with regard to the bombing of UTA 772, the measures set forth in Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) shall be suspended immediately. As noted above, these requirements of the resolution have been met. Paragraph 8 of resolution 1192 (1998) also reaffirms paragraph 16 of Security Council resolution 883 (1993), which provides that the SecretaryGeneral is requested to report, within 90 days of the date of the suspension of the aforementioned measures, on compliance by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with the remaining provisions of Security Council resolutions 731 (1992) and 748 (1992) so that the measures might be lifted immediately if the Secretary-General reports that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has fully complied with those provisions. Therefore, following the suspension of the measures referred to above, I shall proceed as expeditiously as possible with the preparation of this report. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has already provided extensive information and the necessary assurances on this matter, including to the Security Council. Finally, let me also express the hope that the spirit of cooperation now established, will be maintained in future and that the start of the trial

668 • 5 April 1999

will mark the beginning of a process leading to the normalization of relations among all parties concerned for the benefit of the international community as a whole. Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.

5 April 1999 Statement to the Security Council on the Situation in Kosovo

Presentation to the Security Council (EOSG); Kosovo Mr. President, The gravity of the situation in Kosovo is so self-evident that I do not need to dwell on it. We all are aware of the humanitarian catastrophe, with nearly a third of all Kosovars so far having been expelled from Kosovo, with additional vast numbers still in Kosovo forcibly driven from their homes by Serb security forces. We are also acutely conscious that this humanitarian crisis, together with the resultant military action by NATO, has serious political and security repercussions—repercussions which extend far into the region. As Members know, the present role of the United Nations in Kosovo is to carry out a massive relief operation. UNHCR is in the lead, and Mr. Sérgio Vieira de Mello will give you details of where we stand in that effort. I should like to inform the Council members briefly of my contacts during the last week, and particularly over the weekend. I have reviewed the situation at high level, including Heads of State or Government, with the Governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Russian Federation, and the United States. I also spoke to representatives of the Vatican and of the World Council of Churches. The Foreign Minister of Iran telephoned me to convey the strong concerns of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, whose Contact Group will meet in Geneva on Wednesday. I also had several discussions with the NATO Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Solana and High Commissioner Ogata. My discussion with President Gligorov of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia merits particular attention. In forceful terms, he conveyed his fears of the impact that the presence of Kosovar refugees could have on the precarious internal situation in his country. He also stressed the inability of his Government to accept any more refugees, even

temporarily, unless it was assured that these refugees were en route to asylum in other countries. I urged him not to turn away these hapless and traumatized people who were desperately seeking refuge. I asked him to accept them even on a temporary basis until their future was settled. I assured him that the international community would share the burden his country was bearing, and I am gratified that this expectation has been confirmed by recent offers of asylum by several governments. President Gligorov had also conveyed the same fears to NATO Secretary-General Solana, appealing for assistance. Late on Friday night (the early hours of Saturday in Europe), I gratefully accepted, in consultation with Mrs. Ogata, Mr. Solana’s offer to make available personnel and resources of national contingents of the Alliance on the ground to support the humanitarian efforts of the United Nations. On Saturday, my Military Advisor, Liutenant-General Fraticelli, left for Skopje to help UNHCR in establishing the required coordination arrangements. The offer of NATO’s logistical resources, of course, will make an enormous contribution. The parameters of this assistance will consist of the management of the airlift operation, and with the offloading and storage of aid arriving by sea or air, and airlifting refugees to asylum destinations. In response to requests made by Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Alliance Member States will also provide logistical help in the setting up of refugee campsites. UN agencies will retain responsibility for the necessary coordination and onward distribution of assistance to beneficiaries. At the same time, Mrs. Robinson is taking urgent steps to strengthen our capacity to monitor the shocking violations of human rights of the Kosovar population by Serb security forces, although it is impossible at present to send observers into Kosovo. Mrs. Arbour also is doing her utmost to obtain information and monitor the situation so that the International Criminal Tribunal can carry out its vital task. I should also like to inform the Security Council of my intention to appoint a Special Envoy for the region, to monitor and report on developments and to assist me in my efforts. I shall make known the name of the Special Envoy after consultations with the Governments concerned. In conclusion, as we work towards a long-term solution, our immediate focus must be the agony of the expelled refugees and displaced persons. Yet

5 April 1999 • 669 again we face the abominable practice of “ethnic cleansing” only a few years after it transformed the demography of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Serbian authorities must halt such actions. The brutal persecution the refugees and displaced persons are suffering, the loss of their family members, their homes and even documentation of their identities, underline the urgency of their plight. The mounting numbers of refugees and displaced persons must be provided refuge in security, even on a transient basis, until a long-term solution is found. Clearly, the bordering countries which are bearing the brunt of this flood, especially the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, have severely limited resources and fear destabilization of their internal situations. They need immediate help, particularly in providing physical shelter for Kosovar refugees. Beyond that, it is incumbent on all countries to provide asylum for these unfortunate people until the international community ensures the security they need to return to rebuild their homes in Kosovo, whose rehabilitation will need major international assistance. Mr. President, The members of the Security Council are aware that I remain ready to respond to any decisions or guidance the Council may wish to provide. Thank you.

5 April 1999 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (EOSG, SG/SM/6944); Libya SECRETARY-GENERAL: I am pleased to announce that I have just spoken to Hans Corell, who has informed me of the safe arrival in the Netherlands of the two Libyan nationals accused of destroying Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, in Scotland, in 1988. I am relieved and gratified by this news. This development marks a vital step forward in what has been a long ordeal for all involved, especially the families of the victims, who have suffered an irreparable loss. I would like to thank all those who have worked to make this possible. I would like to express my personal appreciation to the Governments of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, and other leaders and Governments who have contributed decisively to the resolution of this case. I am particularly indebted to President Mandela of South Africa and to King Fahd and

Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia for their assistance and support. The Government of Italy provided critical help in arranging the transport of the suspects, and I am most grateful. I am confident that the two suspects will receive a fair trial by a Scottish court in the Netherlands. I am also looking forward to the earliest possible resumption of Libya’s normal relations with the rest of the international community. QUESTION: Does this mean that our United Nations sanctions have been suspended against Libya at this point? S-G: I will very shortly be submitting a report to the President of the Security Council, confirming that the two have arrived in the Netherlands and are in the hands of the Netherlands authorities, and the Council will act to suspend the sanctions immediately. QUESTION: Does the Council have to formally act, formally meet, to suspend them or not? S-G: I would suspect so. I would suspect the Council will have to act and I think, from my understanding, it would be more or less automatic. They will meet to act. QUESTION: Could you give us some idea of the ebb and flow of negotiations, and particularly why you were unable to get the two suspects out when you went to Libya in December? S-G: I think, first of all, this is an issue that has been going on for 10 years and lots of efforts have been made. By the time I went to Libya, I was in touch with quite a lot of the leaders in the region and I had very constructive and useful discussions with one leader, Qadhafi, which I reported to you in the press. We agreed to work together and I also indicated that, after my discussions with him, it became clear that President Mandela and the Government of Saudi Arabia could play a role, and I asked them to work with me on this. And so they have worked in support of my efforts, and I think we have to be aware that, in these sort of protracted issues, one doesn’t go in and expect a quick resolution, but you prepare it and work on it gradually. And I am happy that we are there now. QUESTION: Was that Qadhafi’s idea, that Saudi Arabia and South Africa should get involved? S-G: It was my idea. After I spoke to him, it became clear that they could be helpful, so two days after my visit to Libya, I met Crown Prince Abdullah and President Mandela in the United Arab Emirates and formally asked them to work with me in resolving this conflict. QUESTION (translated from French): In the course of the negotiations, did you give Qadhafi

670 • 5 April 1999

any assurances that the sanctions would be lifted after 90 days? S-G (translated from French): Obviously, a report will have to be submitted. If the Council is satisfied with the report, it will lift the sanctions. I need to consider certain things—there is the question of compensation, there is the question of terrorism, many things. But if, after 90 days at the most, the report is submitted, the Council will be in a position to lift the sanctions if it is satisfied. QUESTION (translated from French): That means that the report must be positive? S-G (translated from French): Indeed. QUESTION: I was simply wondering what sort of monitoring role the United Nations is going to have over the course of the trial’s proceedings. Will there be officials from the Legal Office, for example, for as long as the trial is in session? S-G: Well, there are provisions for international observers, and this is something that we will need to work out. There have been suggestions that there could be international observers from various organizations, from the Arab League, from the OAU, from NAM and all that. But we are going to coordinate that and make sure that there is an effective international presence during the trial, to monitor, and then of course that there is also some provision for international monitoring of the prison arrangements if the accused were to be convicted. QUESTION: To what degree is this transfer a landmark in international law? S-G: I think it is an important step forward if you consider the fact that we have been struggling with this for more than 10 years. I think we have to look at it in the context of what is happening in other arenas to notice how in the past year international law is developing. Here I am not only referring to the establishment of the Rome Statute, but also to what is happening in other important cases. We are moving forward. International law is actually developing in a manner that we perhaps would not have considered possible barely a year ago. QUESTION: Why is the Council going to wait for 90 days before lifting the sanctions? Why not lift them now? S-G: It is part of the resolution. It is all written in the resolution, and the resolution does require a report from the Secretary-General on certain aspects within 90 days of the arrival of the accused in the Netherlands before the sanctions are lifted. If we are able to submit that report before 90 days the Council will act. But it is a requirement under the resolution. The only thing the Council has to

do now is to suspend the sanctions, and the lifting comes up later. QUESTION: Two questions. First, the families of the victims have expressed concern that in the letter that you wrote to the Libyan Government you gave an assurance that the Libyan regime would not be implicated during the trial. They feel that this will not lead to tracing or finding the real culprits behind the bombing. I wondered if you could address that. Secondly, the President of the sanctions Committee had said that as soon as you sent a letter the sanctions would automatically be lifted. Was that your understanding as well? S-G: Let me start with your first question. I do not know what letters the families have seen, but I can assure you I have not sent any such letter with the kind of contents that you refer to. So I cannot comment on that. On the second question, as I indicated, I would expect the Council to act on the suspension of the sanctions, and I expect it to be fairly straightforward and almost automatic. QUESTION: The sanctions have now been in place for a little over seven years. Do you think it is the sanctions that are primarily responsible for the Libyans finally turning over the suspects? S-G: Let me say that I prefer to think it played a role. Of course they have lived with it for seven years, and I think apart from living with the sanctions for seven years, no country likes to be treated as an outcast and outside the society of nations, which, to some extent, when one is branded and sanctions are imposed, one is marked by that kind of thing. And I think Libya wanted to get back to the international community, Libya wanted to get on with its economic and social development. And Libya wanted to be able to deal freely with its neighbours and with the rest of the world. So I am gratified that we are there, and that is why I said at the end of my statement that I hoped that they would now rejoin fully the community of nations and play their role in it. QUESTION: On the 90-day report, can you give us more details of the scope of the 90-day report? I am not sure it’s in the resolution, but I take your word for it. You mentioned questions like terrorism, compensation—what is going to be in the 90day report, and what is it that Libya has to do beyond what it has done today? S-G: I think we need to indicate that it has to comment on Libya’s involvement or non-involvement with terrorism—the fact that Libya is no

5 April 1999 • 671 longer engaged in terrorism, and that compensation requirements, were the accused to be found guilty, will be honoured, and those kinds of things. And of course, this would entail a very special effort to put the report together. And this is why I cannot tell whether it will take me 15 days, a month or the full 90 days. QUESTION: Given the concerns that have been expressed that perhaps this trial could result in people who have been involved in certain actions being brought to justice, but not those who actually gave the orders, are you confident that this process will give the relatives justice? S-G: That is something I will leave to the judges; I will leave that to the court. I don’t want to second guess them or do their work. QUESTION (translated from French): I believe that among the arrangements is the fact that the United Nations observers will, so to speak, watch, observe the accused. How much time will there be? If it takes years to find them guilty, does that mean that there will be United Nations observers there for a long time? S-G (translated from French): Unfortunately, yes. In any case, they will be there for some time. Frankly, I cannot tell you if they will be there for a long time. I believe that they must be there long enough to assure the Libyan Government that we keep our promises. QUESTION (translated from French): How many of them will there be? S-G (translated from French): It has not yet been decided. I believe that we are a long way from that point, but it has not yet been decided. QUESTION: Can you give us some more details about the process—meaning the next step: your sense of when these suspects may actually be arraigned and a trial begun? S-G: I am not in a position to give you those kinds of details. Mr. Corell, who is coming back, may not even be in a position to do it. But there are certain things which have to happen. We may be better—we had better wait until he comes back. Right now he is in the Netherlands, talking with the authorities there. The Scottish legal team is also there. And of course it will take a while to set up the trial and to prepare the trial. He may have better information for you, and I would prefer not to be drawn in on that. QUESTION: May I ask if it’s true, however, that under Scottish law the trial cannot be televised? S-G: That I am not aware of. QUESTION: Were there any hiccups in the last few days, or was it completely smooth sailing to

the handover today? Was there any last-minute hesitation by Libya? S-G: No, there was no hiccup as such. The only thing I will say is that Mr. Corell and my team—we had hoped to handle it as a very discreet operation, and as you know, and perhaps to the irritation of those of you in this room, we had held it very tightly, and very little information was coming out as to when and how we were going to get them out of Libya to the Netherlands. But of course, 48 hours or so, or 72 hours before the operation, we gathered that lots of Governments were being invited to go to Libya to monitor and observe the handover. So all our preparations and attempts at discretion and secrecy were out of the window. So of course my team was wondering what sort of reception they were going to get, what sort of a party they were going to be confronted by. But it went well; everything went very smoothly. There was no hitch, no second thoughts on the Libyan side. The only thing was, we found a crowd when we thought it was going to be very discreet. QUESTION: Could you just clarify something you said in relation to the 90-day report—excuse me if it’s my ignorance: what is the agreement visà-vis compensation? Has the Libyan Government ... S-G: There is no agreement vis-à-vis compensation. What one would want to know is that if there is a guilty verdict, that Government and the Libyan authorities will commit to honour—to pay the compensation. And of course, we don’t know what the compensation would be until after the trial. QUESTION: But you are still looking for that commitment at the moment? S-G: I think it is more or less there. But we will firm it up, yes. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, at a time when the United Nations is, certainly politically, on the sidelines in Kosovo, this is a real plus for the United Nations and your own efforts. How important would you say that your own efforts and the United Nations have been in achieving what has happened today? S-G: I think it was critical and obviously it is a small victory. But in the scheme of things, and given what is happening in Kosovo and around the world, I do not think there is much to laugh about today. QUESTION: I was just wondering; what was the first day that you were actually informed of the date of the handover? How long ago did you know that it was going to happen this morning?

672 • 5 April 1999

S-G: About two weeks ago. Question: Can you give us some details? Mr. Corell obviously went to Italy when, Friday? And then landed in Libya today, yesterday? I mean now that it is over. S-G: He managed to keep things private and reasonably discreet from you. If you ask him this question now, yes, he did leave on Friday for Italy and then flew down yesterday and left and brought the people into the Netherlands at 9:45 our time, 3:35 their time. QUESTION: Did the Italian Government provide the plane or was it a United Nations plane? S-G: The Italian Government assisted us. We put United Nations markings on it and so it was a United Nations flight. But the plane was put at our disposal by the Italian Government and we are very grateful for that.

7 April 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Kosovo Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. Good afternoon. We’ll start again with Kosovo. Crisis in Kosovo

The borders between Kosovo and Albania and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are closed. There were virtually no new arrivals at the third major exit point from Kosovo into neighbouring Montenegro. Overnight, the authorities of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia cleared a huge field containing tens of thousands of refugees along its border with Kosovo. In a situation of mass confusion, some of these refugees were transferred to new transit points a few kilometres away. Others were sent by aircraft to Turkey, and yet more were crowded into fleets of buses and reportedly driven towards Albania and Greece. Aid workers expressed tremendous concern over the fate of the ethnic Albanians who have been inside the Yugoslav border, to whom they had no access and about whom they had no information. They confirm that those who have been in sight from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia side of the border had been brought across the border, but those who are on the road behind a hill obstructing the view were now gone. The United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees (UNHCR) reported today that the situation of the refugees varied from region to region as the international aid effort moved into high gear. Water and sanitation remained a major concern. As the scale of the crisis continued to increase, a new United Nations inter-agency donor alert was launched. For planning purposes, the appeal— which runs through 30 June—estimated 650,000 refugees would probably need help, and the concerned agencies asked for a total of $138.4 million to meet their needs. In addition to coordinating with United Nations humanitarian agencies and non-governmental organizations, UNHCR was working closely with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), relying on its manpower and logistics, to operate a joint airlift cell in Geneva, prepare transit camp sites, transport relief aid, and evacuate refugees out of danger. The World Food Programme (WFP)—the United Nations agency responsible for getting food to the refugees—said it was appealing for 32,700 metric tonnes of emergency food rations and financial resources to cover the cost of delivering food to 650,000 people for the next three months. There is an especially critical need for humanitarian daily rations and other foods that do not require cooking facilities, the WFP said. The WFP said it has also increased truck convoys sending rations of high protein biscuits, wheat flour, vegetable oil, pulses and sugar to refugees in northern and southern Albania. It also said it was supplying wheat flour to commercial bakeries, which in turn produce bread for the refugees. The combined production of loaves per day is 27,000, with each loaf weighing 1.2 kilograms. The High Commissioner for Refugees, Sadako Ogata, flew to the region. Her first stop was Rome for an audience with Pope John Paul II and talks with Italian Government officials. Secretary-General’s First Day in Geneva

The Secretary-General began the first day of his visit to Geneva with a meeting with Lakhdar Brahimi, his Special Envoy for Afghanistan, who briefed him on his recent talks with representatives of the Taliban, the opposition and the Governments of Afghanistan’s neighbours. He then was briefed on the humanitarian situation in Kosovo by the Assistant High Commissioner for Refugees, Soren JessenPetersen, and the Operations Director of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Jean Daniel Tauxs.

7 April 1999 • 673 At mid-day, he addressed the annual meeting of the Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations main human rights body. The full text of his speech is available in my office. After that speech, he had a press encounter, at which he took questions on East Timor and Kosovo. A transcript is available in my office. He then met with Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who also briefed him on Kosovo. With her was the Special Rapporteur for the situation in the former Yugoslavia, Jiri Dienstbier, and her newly appointed personal representative for Kosovo, Michel Moussali, who leaves for the region tomorrow. At present, Mrs. Robinson has eight human rights monitors in Albania, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Montenegro and is training six more. . . . QUESTION: When we have a crisis of the dimension of Kosovo, the Secretary-General places a telephone call to the leader. Do you think that he will be doing that while in Europe to President Slobodan Milosevic, because we are talking about the dimension of the crisis and also the absence of the Secretary-General in this crisis. SPOKESMAN: Yes, you’re talking about the absence of the Secretary-General and I’ve been trying to make clear to you that he has no intention of jumping into a crisis where he doesn’t have a useful role to play. Right now, it is the Contact Group that. . . . QUESTION: . . . Why Fred? Under article 99, if there is a crisis of world dimension, his duty is to be part of it. SPOKESMAN: Yes, but under article 99, he’s to bring to the attention of the Council a threat to international peace and security. The Council is already seized of the matter. The Contact Group is taking the lead on the political side, and frankly, there’s a war going on. There are not the opportunities available as there were in Iraq, as many people tried to make a comparison a year ago February, when he intervened then. It’s not a comparable situation. He would like to hold himself in reserve if, at any time, there appears to be a useful role for him to play. Right now, he’s concentrating on the humanitarian side. . . .

7 April 1999 Secretary-General Calls for Renewed Commitment in New Century to Protect Rights of All

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6949); human rights

Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Commission on Human Rights, in Geneva. It is a special pleasure for me to join you for this century’s last session of the Commission on Human Rights. In any year, your work in combating violations of human rights and establishing norms to protect them makes history and helps save lives. This year, however, as we look to a new century of human rights—and, regrettably, of new threats to those rights—I salute your determination to ensure a firm foundation for the rights of future generations. As Secretary-General of the United Nations, I have made human rights a priority in every programme the United Nations launches and in every mission we embark upon. I have done so because the promotion and defence of human rights is at the heart of every aspect of our work and every article of our Charter. Above all, I believe human rights are at the core of our sacred bond with the peoples of the United Nations. When civilians are attacked and massacred because of their ethnicity, as in Kosovo, the world looks to the United Nations to speak up for them. When men, women and children are assaulted and their limbs hacked off, as in Sierra Leone, here again the world looks to the United Nations. When women and girls are denied their right to equality, as in Afghanistan, the world looks to the United Nations to take a stand. Perhaps more than any other aspect of our work, the struggle for human rights resonates with our global constituency, and is deeply relevant to the lives of those most in need—the tortured, the oppressed, the silenced, the victims of “ethnic cleansing” and injustice. If, in the face of such abuses, we do not speak up and speak out, if we do not act in defence of human rights and advocate their lasting universality, how can we answer that global constituency? Will we say that rights are relative, or that whatever happens within borders shall be of concern to an organization of sovereign States? No one that I know of can today defend that position. Collectively, we should say no. We will not, and we cannot accept a situation where people are brutalized behind national boundaries. For at the end of the twentieth century, one thing is clear: a United Nations that will not stand up for human rights is a United Nations that cannot stand up for itself. On the eve of a new millennium, we know

674 • 7 April 1999

where our mission for human rights begins and ends: with the individual and his or her universal and inalienable rights—to speak, to act, to grow, to learn and to live according to his or her own conscience. For every right we proclaim, hundreds of abuses are committed every day. For every voice whose freedom we secure, many more are still threatened. For every woman or girl whose right to equality we uphold, thousands more suffer from discrimination or violence. For every child whose right to education and a peaceful childhood we seek, far too many remain beyond our reach. Truly, our work is never done. The Commission on Human Rights can claim with pride to have been an architect of the international structure of rights that we have today. From this Commission came the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the binding treaties which, taken together, have created an international code of human rights. Whether it is the struggle for gender equality and the rights of women, or the elimination of racial discrimination, or protecting the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples, the Commission has been a pioneer in establishing norms and advancing justice. In the vital work of implementation, you have contributed greatly to promoting economic, social and cultural rights, and your work on the right to development has opened up new horizons in the field of human rights. Recognizing that human rights are interrelated, indivisible and interdependent, you have helped ensure that the implementation of social and economic rights goes hand in hand with political and civil rights. Through technical cooperation for human rights at the local, national and regional levels, you have helped bring human rights home to where they belong: in the lives of the weakest, most vulnerable of our world. And in the important work of implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child, whose tenth anniversary we will commemorate this year, you have reaffirmed the principle that human rights begin at birth. These are the accomplishments in which you can take great pride. If, as Eleanor Roosevelt said, human rights begin in small places, it is equally true that they must be supported, strengthened, renewed and implemented by great institutions such as the United Nations. Only thus can we be certain that the worldwide

web of human rights that we have created will secure the dignity and humanity of every man, woman and child. And yet, as this audience know only too well, gross and shocking violations of human rights continue daily around the world—offending the global conscience, outraging all people of good will and undermining our deepest sense of a shared humanity. If we cannot respond to such acts, if we cannot step in where the suffering is greatest, then the foundations that we lay elsewhere will crumble beneath the weight of these violations. The Commission on Human Rights has long recognized this reality. Upon entering the United Nations, developing countries in particular sought to enhance the Organization’s capacity to respond to gross violations of human rights. Since then, a vast array of working groups, Special Rapporteurs, representatives, envoys and experts on human rights have travelled the world over—planting the flag of human rights, extending the reach of your Commission and giving victims hope for a better, freer, less repressive future. The achievements of the last 50 years are rooted in the universal acceptance of those rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration, and in the equally universal abhorrence of practices for which there can be no excuse, in any culture, under any circumstance. Who in this hall—or anywhere in the world—would deny the wickedness of torture? Who would justify the unspeakable practice of “ethnic cleansing”? Who would defend slavery or stand in support of racial, sexual or religious discrimination? Who would advocate arbitrary or extra-judicial justice? You may think—“well, such people do exist”—but let us say with one voice: they will not prevail. Still, I believe it is not enough for us to be known by what we are against. The world needs to know who we are against, no less. In the age of human rights, the United Nations must have the courage to recognize that just as there are common aims, there are common enemies. We should leave no one in doubt that for the mass murderers, the “ethnic cleansers”, those guilty of gross and shocking violations of human rights, impunity is not acceptable. The United Nations will never be their refuge, its Charter never the source of comfort or justification. They are our enemies, regardless of race, religion or nation, and only in their defeat can we redeem the promise of this great Organization.

8 April 1999 • 675 This year, I have chosen to dwell not only on our common aims and shared accomplishments, but also on the magnitude of the human rights abuses we are committed to ending. I have, in particular, sought to draw your attention to the importance of combating the most outrageous violations in the field of human rights— the gross violations which in too many cases include summary executions, widespread forced displacement, massacres, and indiscriminate attacks on civilians. I have done so because this last Commission on Human Rights of the twentieth century is meeting under the dark cloud of the crime of genocide. Of all gross violations, genocide knows no parallel in human history. The tragic irony of this age of human rights—where greater numbers are enjoying human rights than perhaps ever in history—is that it has been repeatedly darkened by outbursts of indiscriminate violence and organized mass killings. In Cambodia, in the 1970s, up to 2 million people were killed by Pol Pot’s regime. And in this decade, from Bosnia to Rwanda, thousands upon thousands of human beings were massacred for belonging to the wrong ethnicity. Though we have no independent observers on the ground, the signs are that it may be happening, once again, once more, in Kosovo. Every time, though, the world says “never again”. And yet it happens. The vicious and systematic campaign of “ethnic cleansing” conducted by the Serbian authorities in Kosovo appears to have one aim: to expel or kill as many ethnic Albanians in Kosovo as possible, thereby denying a people of their most basic rights to life, liberty and security. The result is a humanitarian disaster throughout the entire region. We all deeply regret that the international community, despite months of diplomatic efforts, failed to prevent this disaster. What gives me hope—and should give every future “ethnic cleanser” and every State-backed architect of mass murder pause—is that a universal sense of outrage has been provoked. Emerging slowly, but I believe surely, is an international norm against the violent repression of minorities that will and must take precedence over concerns of State sovereignty. It is a principle that protects minorities—and majorities—from gross violations. And let me therefore be very clear: even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of peoples. As long as I am Secretary-

General, the United Nations as an institution will always place human beings at the centre of everything we do. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Whether a person belongs to the minority or the majority, that person’s human rights and fundamental freedoms are sacred. This developing international norm will pose fundamental challenges to the United Nations. Of this, there can be no doubt. But nor can there be any doubt that if we fail this challenge, if we allow the United Nations to become the refuge of “ethnic cleanser” or mass murderer, we will betray the very ideals that inspired the founding of the United Nations. This hope for humanity may have come too late for the desperate thousands who have been forcibly expelled from their homes in Kosovo, and for the hundreds, if not thousands, who have been murdered simply for who they are. But it will not have come too late for the United Nations, if it emboldens us to enter a new century with a renewed commitment to protecting the rights of every man, woman, child—regardless of ethnic, national or religious belonging.

8 April 1999 Letter (UN archives); Kosovo Internal note from S. Iqbal Riza, the SecretaryGeneral’s chief of staff, to Alvaro de Soto of political affairs expressing the Secretary-General’s desire for the Kosovo Working Group to meet on a daily basis. Kosovo

1. As indicated to you, the Secretary-General would like you to hold meetings of the Working Group daily, until further notice. 2. We already have discussed the membership of the Working Group and its guiding elements. The media is replete with reports and analyses, so a daily summary of events is not required. You may however, extract any special issues or trends that you consider merit the Secretary-General’s attention. 3. It is more important that the Working Group develop recommendations for possible alternative courses of action by the Secretary-General. Any proposals must be specific, politically realistic and practically feasible, indicating options with pros and cons. 4. The Secretary-General would prefer to make statements only when they are meaningful

676 • 8 April 1999

and could have an impact. While maintaining impartiality, he will not hesitate to take positions based on moral, human rights or humanitarian concerns, pointing to one of the parties involved where this is deserved and justified by sufficient evidence, including credible reports. (The Secretary-General’s statement to the Commission on Human Rights may be seen as an indicator.) 5. I would be grateful to receive a note not exceeding one page (except when substantively justified) after each daily meeting. Thank you.

9 April 1999 Welcoming Remarks at the ACC Retreat

Speech (UN archives); Administrative Coordinating Committee Speech to the ACC, which is made up of all the heads of the UN specialized agencies, funds, and programs. This meeting was particularly important because the Secretary-General was trying to gain support and cooperation in planning the Millennium Summit. Let me begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all of you for making the time to join the team here at Mont-Pèlerin. Your presence is a true expression of your commitment to making the United Nations system a more vital and effective tool for all the world’s nations and peoples. As you know, the General Assembly has accepted my proposal that its 55th Session, in the autumn of next year, should be designated as “The Millennium Assembly”, and should include a “Millennium Summit”. As my contribution to those deliberations, I have undertaken to prepare a report identifying key challenges which the United Nations will face in the decades ahead, and making proposals for an effective response. I see the Millennium as a major opportunity, not just for the UN Secretariat but for the whole United Nations system, to demonstrate its capacity to address the problems of the new century, and to mark out clearly the direction in which it needs to move. I believe that, in the global economy and society we are now entering, the need for an effective global organization—an effective family of global agencies—is greater than it has ever been. We together face an enormous responsibility. We shall not live up to it unless all of us—member states, agencies, funds and programmes—have a clear definition of our common task, and of the specific role that each of us has to play in it.

That is why I have invited you all to join me in this brainstorming exercise. Each of you, as executive head of an agency or fund or programme, has his or her own unique perspective. But I know you are also conscious, all of you, that you belong to the United Nations family. I am asking each of you, during this Retreat, to bring your unique perspective to bear on the problems we all face. Please think not only how you can advance the particular cause or activity in which you specialise—vital though it is—but also how the system as a whole needs to develop, if it is to give the peoples of the world the service they expect. The point of this Retreat is not to exchange information about what we are doing. We have other opportunities to do that. It is to share ideas about what we should be doing, and to focus on areas where we should be having a greater impact. To identify how the United Nations system as a whole can become bigger and better than the sum of its parts. Friends, I am looking forward to a really productive day tomorrow. I urge you all to get a good night’s sleep. See you at breakfast!

9 April 1999 Secretary-General Offers Conditions to End Hostilities in Kosovo

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/6952); Kosovo I am deeply distressed by the tragedy taking place in Kosovo and in the region, which must be brought to an end. The suffering of innocent civilians should not be further prolonged. In this spirit, I urgently call upon the Yugoslav authorities to undertake the following commitments: • first, to end immediately the campaign of intimidation and expulsion of the civilian population; • two, to cease all activities of military and paramilitary forces in Kosovo and to withdraw these forces; • three, to accept unconditionally the return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes; • four, to accept the deployment of an international military force to ensure a secure environment for the return of the refugees and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid; and • finally, to permit the international community to verify compliance with these undertakings. Upon the acceptance by the Yugoslav authorities of these conditions, I urge the leaders of the North Atlantic Alliance to suspend immediately

12 April 1999 • 677 the air bombardments upon the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Ultimately, the cessation of hostilities I propose is a prelude to a lasting political solution to the crisis, which can only be achieved through diplomacy. In this context, I would urge the resumption of talks on Kosovo among all parties concerned at the earliest possible moment.

9 April 1999 Senior Officials Meeting on East Timor Postponed to Allow for Final Preparation of Autonomy Proposal

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6953); East Timor The senior officials meeting on East Timor, which had been scheduled for 13 and 14 April, has been postponed to 21 April at the request of the Indonesian Government, which is finalizing the text of the autonomy proposal. The date for the meeting of the Secretary-General and the Foreign Ministers remains unchanged: 22 April. With regard to the killings that have taken place in the town of Liquica in the last few days, the Secretary-General has spoken to President Jorge Sampaio of Portugal and the Personal Representative of the Secretary-General, Jamsheed Marker, has been in touch with both Foreign Ministers, Jaime Gama of Portugal and Ali Alatas of Indonesia. The United Nations has also been in touch with church leaders and other East Timorese figures. The Indonesian Government has responded positively to the suggestion by the United Nations that an impartial inquiry be undertaken to establish the facts surrounding the killings. In New York, at 6 p.m. on 9 April, Mr. Marker will meet with Jose Ramos- Horta, Vice President of the National Council of Timorese Resistance and the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize co-winner.

9 April 1999 Letter (EOSG, S/1999/402); Kosovo Letter to the president of the Security Council, Alain Dejammet, transmitting a statement concerning Kosovo. I am transmitting herewith the text of a statement which I made today concerning Kosovo. I have also transmitted this text to His Excellency Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and to His Excellency Mr. Javier Solana, Secretary-General of NATO, and requested their cooperation.

I should be grateful if you would draw the text to the attention of members of the Security Council. Statement of the Secretary-General

I am deeply distressed by the humanitarian tragedy taking place in Kosovo and in the region, which must be brought to an end. The suffering of innocent civilians should not be further prolonged. In this spirit, I urgently call upon the Yugoslav authorities to undertake the following commitments: • to end immediately the campaign of intimidation and expulsion of the civilian population; • to cease all activities of military and paramilitary forces in Kosovo and to withdraw these forces; • to accept unconditionally the return of all refugees and displaced persons to their homes; • to accept the deployment of an international military force to ensure a secure environment for the return of refugees and the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid; and • to permit the international community to verify compliance with the undertakings above. Upon the acceptance by the Yugoslav authorities of the above conditions, I urge the leaders of the North Atlantic Alliance to suspend immediately the air bombardments upon the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Ultimately, the cessation of hostilities I propose above is a prelude to a lasting political solution to the crisis, which can only be achieved through diplomacy. In this context, I would urge the resumption of talks on Kosovo among all parties concerned at the earliest possible moment.

12 April 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Kosovo Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. Good afternoon. Kosovo

The Secretary-General has accepted an invitation by the presidency of the Council of the European Union to attend a meeting in Brussels on Wednesday on the situation in Kosovo. It will be attended by 15 heads of State or government members of the Council.

678 • 12 April 1999

At a news conference today, following the meeting with the Spanish Prime Minister, the Secretary-General confirmed he had written to President Milosevic, conveying the contents of the five-point statement he issued last Friday in Geneva. The Secretary-General said he had not heard back yet from the Yugoslav leader. When asked if it would be useful for him to meet with President Milosevic, the Secretary-General said his good offices were always available in any situation where he could be helpful. The Secretary-General also said his proposal was an attempt to put an end to the suffering in the region, and that he hoped Milosevic will respond. Meanwhile, refugee flows from Kosovo to the neighbouring areas, as well as the evacuation of refugees outside the immediate region, continued. There were nearly 4,300 new arrivals crossing one of the main border crossings at Morini into Albania, Saturday and Sunday. During the same period, around 3,600 arrived in Montenegro and 300 in The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). Also over the weekend, around 3,200 refugees were evacuated from FYROM by air to Germany, Norway, Poland and Turkey, bringing the total moved out of FYROM by air to nearly 8,000. The refugees arriving in Albania from the villages west of Pristina said they were told to leave by the Serbian security forces. They were allowed to take their vehicles with them and, though they had to pass through many checkpoints, no violence was used against them during their journey. As with previous groups, their identification papers and car number plates were taken away, but medical agencies working with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) at the border reported the refugees were in relatively good physical condition on arrival. Today, the refugee outflow was slower, with a group of 29 and another group of 75 reported crossing into Kukes, Albania, and there had been no new arrivals reported on the FYROM side as of late Monday afternoon. The border situation remained unclear. Both borders appeared to be closed on the Yugoslav side, and opened sporadically only when groups came through. The estimated total number of refugees in Albania is now over 309,500. Of this figure, the UNHCR estimates that no more than 80,000 remain in the Kukes area, as the Albanian authorities continue to move refugees out of Kukes to other parts of the country, with the help of aid agencies.

With several cases of measles having been confirmed among refugee children in Kukes, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), with the support of non-governmental agencies, will launch a vaccination campaign starting tomorrow. The UNHCR reported that the food situation for refugees in the Kukes area is improving, with humanitarian rations and other supplies arriving on trucks and on helicopters made available to the UNHCR and other agencies by various governments, for ferrying supplies from Tirana to the north of the country. World Food Programme Executive Director Catherine Bertini is currently conducting an assessment of the food situation facing the refugees in Albania. Today, she is meeting with local government authorities, relief workers and donors. Tomorrow, she will be travelling to Kukes to witness first hand the refugee-feeding operations there. In Montenegro, the border town of Rozaje is increasingly packed with displaced people. Over 14,000 new arrivals are staying there, placing a severe strain on accommodation facilities and raising concerns about sanitation. Industrial sites providing temporary shelter are full to capacity. ACC Statement on Kosovo

Friday, in Geneva, the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), the highest level coordination body in the United Nations system, protested the brutal treatment of Kosovar civilians for which there is a substantial and mounting body of evidence. In the statement, the ACC members said they were profoundly disturbed by the humanitarian and human rights tragedy unfolding in Kosovo and were deeply concerned by the massive displacement of people within Kosovo and deportations beyond its borders. The complete text of the statement is available on the racks. Secretary-General in Spain

Before leaving Geneva for Madrid yesterday, the Secretary-General met with Sadako Ogata, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who briefed him on her recent visit to the Kosovo region. In Madrid today, the Secretary-General met with the Prime Minster of Spain, Jose María Aznar, with whom he discussed Kosovo, Iraq and other issues. At a press conference afterward, the Prime Minister expressed support for the SecretaryGeneral’s initiative on Kosovo, taken on Friday. A

13 April 1999 • 679 summary of that press conference will be available in my Office in the course of the afternoon. . . . Question-and-Answer Session

QUESTION: Is the Secretary-General waiting for an endorsement of his statement on Kosovo by the members of the Security Council? Will he meet with President Milosevic then? SPOKESMAN: This is an initiative he has taken on his own, but I would emphasize that he has had consultations with virtually all the concerned governments. It is his initiative, but I think he feels he is taking it with the support of everyone concerned. He has sent a letter to President Milosevic, but he has not responded, so that is perhaps the one exception. QUESTION: Has any element of the United Nations side confirmed the discovery of mass burial grounds? SPOKESMAN: In Kosovo? QUESTION: Yes. SPOKESMAN: No, we would not have any means to confirm that apart from some onsite inspection, but we are not in Kosovo, so we cannot do that. QUESTION: What about the whereabouts of Michel Moussali [the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Rwanda]? SPOKESMAN: He was supposed to go to the region. We have to check for you whether he actually left, but I think he was supposed to go either over last weekend or early this week. QUESTION: Following Ms. Albright’s comments today in Brussels, what is the UNHCR doing about Albanians starving inside Kosovo? SPOKESMAN: The UNHCR is in the lead, trying to coordinate the humanitarian effort. The most recent reports indicate that they are gradually getting on top of the problem. Initially, going back a week or so or more, international agencies were overwhelmed by the huge number of refugees. I do not know what the remaining feeding problem might be. In my report, I indicated that a substantial amount of food has been coming in for the refugees. I did not hear her statement. QUESTION: She was talking about the Albanians inside Kosovo. SPOKESMAN: We can’t get inside Kosovo; I’m not sure that any aid agencies can get inside Kosovo. We don’t know what is happening there. Anything is possible. QUESTION: What are you trying to do? SPOKESMAN: We can’t get in. We can’t get in. I’m sorry.

12 April 1999 Secretary-General Deeply Regrets Taliban Leadership Decision Not to Resume Negotiations

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6956); Taliban The Secretary-General deeply regrets that the Taliban leadership decided, over the weekend, that they would not resume the negotiations which had started in Ashkabad, Turkmenistan, under United Nations auspices. The Secretary-General is concerned that this development will lead to the intensification of fighting between the Taliban and the United Front, thus inflicting more suffering on the people of Afghanistan and more destruction in an already devastated country. The United Nations will resume consultations with the two sides, as well as with other Afghans, interested Member States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to explore the scope for agreement on confidence-building measures which might help to contain the current level of fighting, and might hopefully draw the two sides back to peaceful discussion.

13 April 1999 Letter (UN archives); Tony Blair/Kosovo Faxed message from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff in New York, S. Iqbal Riza, to the SecretaryGeneral’s assistant, Elisabeth Lindenmayer, while traveling in Europe with the Secretary-General. To: Elisabeth Lindenmayer Secretary-General’s Party Madrid From: S. Iqbal Riza Chef de Cabinet EOSG New York Subject: Various Matters Please brief Secretary-General on the following: UK Prime Minister

1. UK Mission this afternoon transmitted a request from London for Secretary-General’s meeting with Prime Minister Blair in Brussels tomorrow, “preferably in the Charlemagne Building”. If you can let us have a response this evening, we shall inform the Mission here, otherwise you might wish to advise the British directly in London or through their Madrid Embassy with information to us.

680 • 13 April 1999 FRY

2. I phoned the PR of Australia and informed her that the Secretary-General had spoken to Mr. Sommaruga about the two Australians (from CARE) held in Belgrade. She was most grateful and will inform the Foreign Minister. The Australian Ambassador in Belgrade had been informed that one of the two would be tried by a Military Court for espionage. The Australians are doing whatever they can to prevent this. OCHA has proposed a letter from SG to the Foreign Minister of FRY (draft for approval attached). (SG should be informed that the individual is a former military officer, who apparently kept notes in military style even on his humanitarian tasks. This may have led FRY to suspect espionage.) Italy

3. Ambassador Fulci has a personal message from his President for the Secretary-General conveying his deep appreciation for SG’s efforts in Kosovo. The Ambassador is insistent that he deliver this message on SG’s arrival at the airport since he (Fulci) will be leaving New York the same evening. Would SG wish to receive him either at the airport or at the residence? Nigeria

4. Yesterday, Ambassador Gambari conveyed a message from his President requesting SG to reach Abuja by mid-day on 28 May to participate in the ceremonies in the evening. I informed him that the commitments in Lund would prevent this and SG might not be able to reach Abuja before midnight. 5. Today the Ambassador phoned back with a personal message from the President almost pleading that the SG cut his commitments in Lund to be with the President for the ceremonies on his last day in office. Secretary-General’s guidance awaited. Security Council Retreat

6. The Princeton University arrangements are not working out for reasons not detailed here. We have the option of holding the retreat on the weekend of 5–6 June at the Merrill Lynch Conference Centre in Princeton, which is adequate but without any character. Ruggie and I strongly feel that the locale and ambiance make a great difference, and of course would prefer Pocantico, which is still being held for us for 18–19 June. Please ask SG whether, while not relinquishing the dates of 4–5 June, we might sound Council Members informally on the feasibility of 18–19 June (Friday–Saturday) in

Pocantico so that he could leave as scheduled for St. Petersburg on Sunday, 20 June. Envoy in Skopje

7. Attached are draft terms of reference for SG’s approval. The designation “Personal Envoy” seems the most suitable (as against “Special Representative”, “Personal Representative” etc.). Petrovsky in Washington

8. Director UNIC Washington has referred to us a request she received from Petrovsky asking her to arrange meetings in Washington with Berger, Talbott, Pickering et al. Apparently, these are meant to review matters relating to the Conference on Disarmament at UNOG. He has visited Washington before for such meetings. The difference is that now we have a USG for Disarmament Affairs. SG’s guidance requested. Best regards.

14 April 1999 Letter (UN archives); World Trade Organization Letter from the director-general of the World Trade Organziation, Renato Ruggiero. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, It was a great pleasure to participate in the ACC and in the Retreat which followed at Mont Pélerin. I found our discussions highly interesting and enjoyed them very much. The discussions in the Retreat have shown that we can do a lot together in building the new architecture which reflects the reality of a multipolar world and the emergence of new developing-country powers. In my last public address, which I sent to you under separate cover, to the Institut des Hautes Etudes Internationales in Geneva, I referred to the need of a new forum for the management of the complex issues we are facing and indicated that the Millennium Summit could be the appropriate occasion to respond to the challenges before us with the same vision and imagination that inspired the post-war architects fifty years ago. I am very pleased that the United Nations and the WTO have strengthened their cooperation and would like to take this opportunity, before leaving my tenure of office, to thank you most warmly for your generous words in the ACC and above all for the support and friendship you gave me over all these years. With my best personal regards. Yours Sincerely, Renato Ruggiero

17 April 1999 • 681 16 April 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Kosovo/health Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. Kosovo

Good afternoon. Amid a resumption of the systematic expulsion of Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian population, following a brief lull, the Secretary-General has scheduled meetings throughout the day to discuss efforts to bring an end to the crisis with members of the Security Council here at Headquarters. As you recall, Council members yesterday endorsed the Secretary-General’s statement on the need to intensify efforts to find a political solution. . . . World Health Organization

The World Health Organization (WHO), in a news release issued today, said there has so far been no evidence of infectious disease outbreaks associated with the massive movement of refugees in recent weeks in Kosovo and neighbouring countries. While there is little information available on the health status of people still in Kosovo, the WHO warned that it is likely that the refugees now coming out are in worse condition than those who fled earlier, and may require increased attention and care. The WHO also said that there has been one confirmed case and other possible cases of measles. The WHO, in conjunction with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and all health-implementing partners, is, therefore, giving top priority to immunizing all children under five in the refugee population. . . . Question-and-Answer Session

QUESTION: Has the Secretary-General been consulted on the proposal for holding an emergency special session of the General Assembly on Kosovo? Does he have an opinion? What is the procedure for setting an agenda? SPOKESMAN: The Charter will permit the General Assembly to discuss, but not make recommendations on, an international security issue that the Security Council is seized of. There has been an exchange of letters between the SecretaryGeneral’s Office and the President’s Office on the subject of Kosovo. I don’t know that there was a particular consultation on this plan to call a special session, and I have nothing further to say on how the agenda is fixed and so on. I suggest you put

those questions to Jadranka Mihalic, the General Assembly President spokesman. QUESTION: Could you give more details on the Secretary-General’s meetings with various ambassadors on Kosovo? SPOKESMAN: The meetings haven’t taken place as yet, so I can’t tell you what has been said. The first is at 12:30 p.m. with Ambassador Lavrov of the Russian Federation. The Secretary-General’s primary concern is that the efforts to find a political solution be intensified. There is just too much suffering. It’s piling up every day, and the reason for his involvement, starting a week ago with the appeal that he made to the Yugoslav Government, was to accelerate the process. He has been in Europe for a week, and I think he would probably welcome their views to get a sense of what the thinking in New York is and then to discuss next steps. QUESTION: Has he made any attempts, in recent hours, to contact the authorities in Belgrade? SPOKESMAN: Not that I’m aware. And as of this morning, we still have no response from the Yugoslav Government to his appeal that he sent to them in writing last weekend. QUESTION: Is it foreseeable that an official endorsement of the Secretary-General’s initiative could come out of these consultations? SPOKESMAN: No, I think that this is really just his getting back in touch with the Council members starting with these consultations today. One of the things he’ll be discussing with the Council President is whether and when to brief the Council as a whole on his European visit and his efforts on Kosovo. So, I think it’s really a continuation of the process. I don’t anticipate at this time that something specific as you mentioned will come out of it. QUESTION: Has there been any call for the Secretary-General to meet with the Yugoslav Ambassador? SPOKESMAN: Not that I’m aware.

17 April 1999 Secretary-General Calls for Immediate End to Escalation of Violence in East Timor

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6961); East Timor The Secretary-General has received a series of very disturbing reports that a large number of prointegration militia members entered Dili this morning and resorted to widespread violence and caused an undetermined number of casualties and damage to property.

682 • 17 April 1999

The Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General, Ambassador Jamsheed Marker, is in contact with the Indonesian authorities with a view to ascertaining the facts and being informed of measures taken by the Indonesian Government. The Secretary-General strongly deplores these new acts of violence and regrets this apparent inability of the Indonesian authorities to control the violence by the militias and to protect the civilian population. He calls for an immediate end to this escalation of violence by all sides. He considers essential the immediate establishment of a “Peace and Stability Commission”.

19 April 1999 Talking Points of the Secretary-General on Kosovo to the Security Council

Presentation to the Security Council (EOSG); Kosovo As members of the Security Council are aware, as part of my efforts to contribute to a peaceful solution of the crisis in Kosovo, on 9 April I issued a statement urging the Yugoslav authorities to undertake five commitments, and stating that upon their acceptance of those conditions I would urge the leaders of the North Atlantic Alliance to suspend immediately the air bombardments upon the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I would like to reiterate the commitments I sought, since I believe that they remain valid: • to end immediately the campaign of intimidation and expulsion of the civilian population; • to cease al activities of military and paramilitary forces in Kosovo and to withdraw these forces; • to accept unconditionally the return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes; • to accept the deployment of an international military force to ensure a secure environment for the return of the refugees and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid; and • finally, to permit the international community to verify compliance with these undertakings. Ultimately, the cessation of hostilities I proposed is a prelude to a lasting political solution to the crisis, which can only be achieved through diplomacy. In this context, I urged the resumption of talks on Kosovo among all parties concerned at the earliest possible moment. Since then I have intensified my consultations with a large number of actors involved in the situation in Kosovo. I have spoken directly with, inter

alia, the Heads of State/Government of France, Greece, Germany, Italy, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, and the Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Russia and the United States, as well as the Secretary-General of NATO. I was also invited to attend the meeting of the European Council on Kosovo in Brussels on 14 April, where I had the opportunity to exchange views with the Heads of State and Government who attended the meeting. My objective in attending the EU meeting was to listen to the members, to hear their views on the nature of a UN role, and to discuss ways to achieve a political solution. To summarize the views which were expressed by EU members: • they supported my statement of 9 April; • they stressed their demand for full acceptance by the Yugoslav authorities for an immediate halt to the use of force, withdrawal of all military and special police as well as irregular units and deployment of an international security force and the return of all refugees and displaced persons. Their immediate implementation would permit a suspension of military action by NATO and would pave the way for a political solution; • they will propose that these principles be adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII; • the EU had agreed upon the main elements of an interim arrangement for Kosovo to be established directly after the end of the conflict: • establishment of an international administration, • creation of a police force that reflects the composition of the population of Kosovo, • holding of free and fair elections, • deployment of international security forces that will guarantee protection for the whole population of Kosovo. My purpose today, apart from briefing you on my activities, is to try to promote consensus in the Security Council so that our undivided energies can be directed to the urgent task at hand. Experience has shown that progress is only possible when the international community is united. The yardstick by which the success—or failure— of our efforts in Kosovo will be judged is in my view clear: whether or not the refugees and internally displaced can swiftly return to their homes, whether or not the inhabitants of Kosovo can live in conditions of peace and security with full respect for the civil and political rights of all, and

23 April 1999 • 683 whether a political solution can be found which brings stability to that unhappy place. The situation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and in the neighbouring countries causes increasing concern and in my view, may rapidly deteriorate with unpredictable consequences. Albania, FYROM and Montenegro are overwhelmed with the refugee crisis which jeopardises their internal stability and security. Of particular concern is the situation in northern Albania where the presence and activities of the KLA might jeopardise the security of Kosovo refugees and could create a situation not unlike the one in eastern Zaire during the Rwandan crisis. The plight of the civilian population inside Kosovo, who might face starvation in the coming weeks, causes the gravest concern. UNHCR and its partners are doing whatever possible to cope with the refugee crisis in the region. UNHCR is facing a great challenge under extremely difficult and unexpected conditions. It is important in this regard for all to support the essentially civilian character of their effort. However, the most successful humanitarian efforts cannot substitute for a political solution. Unless such a solution is found, the international community will face increasing challenges as a result of the crisis. I urge the Members of the Security Council to seek a common stance on this issue in order to bring about a lasting settlement of the crisis as the Council has been able to do on other occasions in the past. From my discussions, I believe that there is broad consensus that the United Nations should play a significant role in the search for a diplomatic solution aimed at ensuring lasting peace and stability in the region. I also feel bound, both morally and by virtue of my role as Secretary-General, to do whatever I can to promote such a solution. To this end, I have it in mind to appoint diplomatic envoys to facilitate the peace process. I shall of course inform the Council once I have completed my consultations. Mr. President, I am ready to respond to any points that members of the Council may wish to raise. But you may first wish to give the floor to Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator Mr. Martin Griffiths for an update on the humanitarian situation in and around Kosovo.

secretary-general for public information, Shashi Tharoor, regarding a media strategy for Kosovo. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Media Strategy for Kosovo

The Communications Group met today to discuss a media strategy for Kosovo. In addition to the regular participants, representatives of UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, UNFPA, OCHA, DPA and others were present. In the discussion, Stephen Lewis proposed that you assume more visible leadership of the UN humanitarian effort. His argument is that this is a massive humanitarian crisis, with implications for the entire UN system. Specifically, he suggested that you hold weekly or bi-weekly conference calls with Mrs. Ogata, Ms. Bellamy and Ms. Bertini and then inform the media afterwards. Members of the Communications Group generally supported this proposal. In deciding whether to do this, you may wish to consider whether it would be advisable for you to assume a high profile on the humanitarian front, at a time when you are trying to engage in a discreet diplomatic process. Another consideration is whether taking such a visible leadership role on this crisis would seem to suggest lesser concern on your part about other humanitarian crises in which the UN is involved. I would be grateful for your guidance.

21 April 1999 Secretary-General Welcomes Signing of Agreement on Ending Violence in East Timor

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6962); East Timor The Secretary-General welcomes the announcement of the signing of an agreement in East Timor designed to end the violence and establish peace and stability in the Territory. The Secretary-General is confident that the implementation of such an agreement, both in spirit and on the ground, will be of paramount importance to the negotiations under his auspices and the overall peace process in which he is engaged.

23 April 1999 20 April 1999 Letter (UN archives); Kosovo Internal note marked priority from the under-

Secretary-General Says Agreement Reached on East Timor

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6968); East Timor

684 • 23 April 1999

Text of the remarks made by the Secretary-General at a UN headquarters press conference announcing that an agreement had been reached on East Timor. I am pleased to inform you that, after a very productive and successful round of meetings in which a lot of ground was covered, we have an agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the Republic of Portugal on the question of East Timor. The agreement has been finalized and will be signed, together with its annex, in New York on 5 May. There are two additional documents, which were presented to the delegations for the first time this week. These cover the security arrangements for the peaceful implementation of the popular consultation in East Timor, and the modalities for this consultation. Foreign Minister Alatas has indicated that, while his side has no substantive difficulty with either document, he would have to obtain the approval of his authorities before these can be signed. I look forward to concluding this historic process on the fifth of May, when all these agreements will be signed. I am grateful for the customary spirit of cooperation and statesmanship displayed by the two ministers, which has enabled us to make such progress. I welcome the reaffirmation by the Indonesian Government that it will effectively carry out its responsibility for law and order and the protection of civilians. I should also underline the responsibility of all the parties who signed an agreement this week to end the violence in East Timor to fulfil their obligations without delay. Peace and stability are vital in East Timor. I will be happy to take a question or two and then leave you with the ministers.

28 April 1999 Letter (UN archives); media guidelines Internal memo to all heads of departments of the UN. To: All Heads of Departments From: The Secretary-General Subject: UN Secretariat Relations with Media 1. Please find attached guidelines on United Nations Secretariat relations with the media. They have been revised in light of the discussion in the Senior Management Group on 31 March. 2. I would be grateful if you would bear these guidelines in mind in your dealings with the

media. Please note in particular bullet point three of paragraph 6, which lists the number of officials authorized to speak on sensitive issues. If you have not already done so, you may wish to designate staff in your Departments as appropriate. Thank you. UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT RELATIONS WITH THE MEDIA

The Policy

1. The United Nations is committed to being open and transparent in its dealings with the press. It is in our interest to work with the media quickly and honestly, and to develop a coherent communications strategy based on those same principles. We should not only react to events but, where appropriate, project the Organization’s point of view on important international developments. However, we must sometimes keep confidences—not to mislead or conceal, but to protect a diplomatic process. Our media policy must therefore balance the need to be open and the need to respect confidentiality. Speaking to the Press

2. The principal voice of the Organization is the Secretary-General. He speaks to the media frequently, at Headquarters and when travelling. 3. Media policy is an integral component of the broader communications and public information work of the Organization, headed by the Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information. The Director of Communications in the Office of the Secretary-General is responsible for coordinating the development of a communications strategy that would help project to the world’s media a coherent and consistent message for the Organization. 4. The Secretary-General’s Spokesman and his staff speak to journalists on the SecretaryGeneral’s behalf throughout the day. The Spokesman gets his guidance directly from the Secretary-General and senior members of his staff. As the Spokesman’s staff cannot be expert in all subjects, they seek the assistance of UN specialists—either to provide them with information that they can pass on to the press or to speak directly to the journalists themselves. 5. As a matter of principle, every member of the Secretariat may speak to the press, within limits: • speak only within your area of competence and responsibility; • provide facts, not opinions or comment;

28 April 1999 • 685 • leave sensitive issues to officials who are specifically authorized to speak on them (see paragraph 6 below). Sensitive Issues

6. The number of officials speaking on sensitive issues is necessarily limited to: • the Spokesman, on the basis of guidance; • designated members of the SecretaryGeneral’s staff and Heads of Department, within their areas of competence; • staff authorized by their Heads of Department, on the basis of guidance; and—Directors of UNICs, on the basis of guidance from Headquarters. 7. For those speaking on sensitive issues, knowing the journalist’s particular interest in a story can be useful. Such information can usually be provided by the Director of Communications or the Spokesman. 8. No staff member should presume or pretend to speak for the Secretary-General or characterize his views without his explicit consent. Sharing Information

9. For the United Nations to communicate effectively with the outside world, it needs to do the same internally. Senior officials should share information with those under their supervision and should keep each other informed of their media activities. Ground Rules

10. All UN officials should normally speak to journalists on the record—that is, for attribution. Sometimes, though, officials specifically authorized to address sensitive issues can give a journalist a deeper understanding of an issue by speaking on background. However, it is very important that the journalist know on which of the following bases the conversation is being conducted: On the record: “everything I say can be attributed to me by name” Not for attribution (on background): “don’t attribute this to me by name, but rather to a UN official” On deep background: “use my ideas but not my words; don’t attribute to anyone” 11. Keeping the Secretary-General’s Spokesman informed of important background briefings will help provide an indication of the issues that the media is interested in. 12. It is unwise, and may sometimes be unethical, to tell one journalist what another is working

on, or to suggest that one journalist discuss a pending story with another. 13. Officials should not feel that they have to answer every question, in particular any hypothetical ones.

28 April 1999 Letter (UN archives); peacebuilding Letter to Terje Rød-Larsen of the Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science in Oslo, Norway. Dear Mr. Rød-Larsen, Thank you for providing me with a copy of the final report from the July 1998 “Forum on the Special Representative of the Secretary-General: Shaping the UN’s role in peace implementation”. As you know, I consider strengthening the ability of my Special Representatives to contribute to the building of sustainable peace to be of the utmost importance. I welcome the efforts made by Fafo in this regard. You can rest assured that the final report of the Forum will be treated with the seriousness that is due to it within the Secretariat. I understand that it is being discussed by a number of different Departments and that it will be placed on the agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Executive Committee on Peace and Security. I am grateful to Fafo, and to you personally, for this very constructive contribution to our collective effort to strengthen our delivery of peacebuilding activities.

28 April 1999 Press release statement (OSSG); Kosovo This statement was sent to the president of the Security Council, Alain Dejammet, with a cover letter in French asking him to distribute the statement to the members of the Security Council. I’ve heard fresh, reliable reports of the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including from Cornelio Sommaruga, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, who recently visited there. The civilian death toll is rising, as is the number of displaced. There is increasing devastation to the country’s infrastructure, and huge damage to the nation’s economy. For example, Mr. Sommaruga told me that the destruction of the three bridges in Novi Sad also cut off the fresh water supply to half of that city’s population of 90,000 people.

686 • 28 April 1999

Since the beginning of the conflict, we’ve all been consumed with the tragedy of the Kosovo Albanians. But as the conflict escalates, we see its negative impact spreading through the sub-region, claiming victims throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The human cost of the violence is unacceptably high. Each day’s delay in the search for a political solution means more deaths, more displacement and more destruction. Once again, innocent civilians are paying the price for unresolved political conflict. We must be bold and imaginative in the search for a lasting political solution, which cannot be won on the battlefield.

29 April 1999 Secretary-General Expresses Great Satisfaction over ICJ Advisory Opinion on Immunity Issue of Human Rights

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6974); diplomatic immunity Text of the statement by the Secretary-General on the Advisory Opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the case concerning Param Cumaraswamy on the Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights. The Secretary-General expresses great satisfaction with the Advisory Opinion which has emphasized the importance of respect for the privileges and immunities of United Nations agents who are called upon to perform tasks for the Organization worldwide. The Opinion ensures that those called upon to perform those tasks will be protected in the performance of their mandate. The Secretary-General hopes that the difference between the Government of Malaysia and the Organization will now be settled in accordance with the Opinion. Summary of the Advisory Opinion by the ICJ: • The ICJ emphasized the “pivotal role” of the Secretary-General in assessing whether agents of the United Nations, including experts on mission, are acting within the scope of their functions and that the Secretary-General discharged that responsibility and correctly found that Mr. Cumaraswamy was entitled to immunity in respect of the words spoken by him and published in International Commercial Litigation. • The ICJ then turned to the legal obligations

of Malaysia when informed of the SecretaryGeneral’s decision. The ICJ held that such a finding by the Secretary-General “creates a presumption of immunity which can only be set aside for the most compelling reasons and is thus to be given the greatest weight by national courts”. The ICJ thus found that the Government of Malaysia breached its obligations under the Convention by not informing the national courts of the finding made by the Secretary-General and because the Government did not transmit those written findings to the courts. • The ICJ also held that national courts are under an obligation to deal expeditiously with issues of immunity and held that the Malaysian courts did not do this “thereby nullifying the existence of immunity”. As courts are organs of the State, the ICJ concluded that Malaysia did not act in accordance with its obligations under international law. • The ICJ held the Mr. Cumaraswamy must be held financially harmless from any costs imposed upon him by the Malaysian Courts, in particular taxed costs. • The ICJ held that its opinion is decisive under Section 30 of the Convention as it is the mechanism to settle differences between the Organization and a State and that Malaysia thus must communicate the Opinion to its courts in order that Malaysia’s legal obligations can be respected and so that Mr. Cumaraswamy’s immunity can be respected.

30 April 1999 Letter (UN archives); postwar security Internal note to the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, from the under-secretary-general of political affairs, Kieran Prendergast. Included is a handwritten note by the SecretaryGeneral. NOTE TO MR. RIZA

Draft Terms of Reference for Working on Post-War Security Framework

1. Thank you for your note of 23 April about Mr. de Soto’s note on “The Threshold Crossed”. You will recall that I raised this issue in much more general terms at last week’s Senior Management Group, and suggested the need for a working group. I now attach draft terms of reference for a working group on the Post-War Security Framework for the approval of the Secretary-

4 May 1999 • 687 General. Attached to the terms of reference is a list of proposed participants. 2. I hope that these terms of reference, which were prepared by Mr. de Soto at my request, obviate the need for a separate summary of the main points and proposals of his note since they are based on these same points and proposals. 3. I realize that the fourth operative point within the terms of reference, which is based on paragraph 8 of Mr. de Soto’s note, may not meet with your support. However, I share Mr. de Soto’s view that the Secretary-General should take a proactive role on this issue. We need to come up with positive ideas: otherwise, the risk is that we are left looking as if we are carping. I believe this can be done without the Secretary-General over-stepping the boundaries established by the Charter. Obviously, any public statement on this issue would require the most careful consideration. But that is part of the point and value of bringing together experienced heads from within the Secretariat and from outside. Bold and forward-looking. You may wish to associate a research centre with the study. Approved. —K.A., 6/5

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Working Group on the Post-War Security Framework

1. A small working group, to be made up of representatives of the Secretariat and selected experts from outside the UN system, will be convened under the chairmanship of DPA to consider the implications for the Charter and for the post war security system of NATO’s decision to launch air strikes against the FRY. 2. The working group will report to the Secretary-General and will: • consider this development in the light of previous military interventions with implications for the authority of the Security Council, including but not limited to Zaire (1996–1997); CongoBrazzaville (1997); Guinea-Bissau (1998); Lesotho (1998); the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1998–1999); peace enforcement by ECOMOG, under the leadership of Nigeria, in Liberia (1997) and Sierra Leone (1998–1999); and military enforcement of the “no-fly” zones in Iraq (1998–1999) to protect the Kurdish and Shiite populations; • assess the consequences for the evolution of

the international security framework as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (drafted at the end of the Second World War, when the emphasis was on interstate rather than intrastate conflict); • formulate recommendations to the SecretaryGeneral as to how he should address the policy implications for the Charter and the United Nations’ multilateral authority; • consider how the Secretary-General might harness this trend and push for its regulation and containment (for example by making a major public statement). Proposed list of participants: Mr. Kieran Prendergast (Chair, DPA) Secretariat: Mr. Joachim Hater (DPKO), Mr. John Ruggie (EOSG), Mr. Alvaro de Soto (DPA), Mr. Shashi Tharoor (EOSG), Mr. Ralph Zacklin (OLA), Mr. Edward Mortimer (EOSG) Outside experts: Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi (SESG), Mr. Tom Franck (NYU), Mr. David Malone (IPA), Sir Brian Urquhart Notetaker: DPA

4 May 1999 Remarks by the Secretary-General Outside Security Council Chambers

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Kosovo SECRETARY-GENERAL: I have just briefed the Council after my visits to Germany and the Russian Federation and discussed with them the points of convergence in our search for a way for a political solution. I also discussed with them my intention to appoint the envoys by this week, latest by Thursday so that they can focus fully on the search for a political solution to identify and exploit any little avenue, and to work very effectively with the Russian envoy Chernomyrdin, and the Russian Federation that is playing a very, very, active role in search for a solution. I also shared with the Council my decision to send a humanitarian assessment mission to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, beginning with Kosovo. The Under-SecretaryGeneral for Humanitarian Affairs, on my instructions, has written to the Yugoslav Ambassador, requesting the agreement for the team to go in. If the team is able to go in, it will give us a leg up, we will be able to assess the situation on the ground, determine the magnitude of the problem and what we need to do to prepare the ground for the

4 May 1999 • 687 General. Attached to the terms of reference is a list of proposed participants. 2. I hope that these terms of reference, which were prepared by Mr. de Soto at my request, obviate the need for a separate summary of the main points and proposals of his note since they are based on these same points and proposals. 3. I realize that the fourth operative point within the terms of reference, which is based on paragraph 8 of Mr. de Soto’s note, may not meet with your support. However, I share Mr. de Soto’s view that the Secretary-General should take a proactive role on this issue. We need to come up with positive ideas: otherwise, the risk is that we are left looking as if we are carping. I believe this can be done without the Secretary-General over-stepping the boundaries established by the Charter. Obviously, any public statement on this issue would require the most careful consideration. But that is part of the point and value of bringing together experienced heads from within the Secretariat and from outside. Bold and forward-looking. You may wish to associate a research centre with the study. Approved. —K.A., 6/5

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Working Group on the Post-War Security Framework

1. A small working group, to be made up of representatives of the Secretariat and selected experts from outside the UN system, will be convened under the chairmanship of DPA to consider the implications for the Charter and for the post war security system of NATO’s decision to launch air strikes against the FRY. 2. The working group will report to the Secretary-General and will: • consider this development in the light of previous military interventions with implications for the authority of the Security Council, including but not limited to Zaire (1996–1997); CongoBrazzaville (1997); Guinea-Bissau (1998); Lesotho (1998); the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1998–1999); peace enforcement by ECOMOG, under the leadership of Nigeria, in Liberia (1997) and Sierra Leone (1998–1999); and military enforcement of the “no-fly” zones in Iraq (1998–1999) to protect the Kurdish and Shiite populations; • assess the consequences for the evolution of

the international security framework as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (drafted at the end of the Second World War, when the emphasis was on interstate rather than intrastate conflict); • formulate recommendations to the SecretaryGeneral as to how he should address the policy implications for the Charter and the United Nations’ multilateral authority; • consider how the Secretary-General might harness this trend and push for its regulation and containment (for example by making a major public statement). Proposed list of participants: Mr. Kieran Prendergast (Chair, DPA) Secretariat: Mr. Joachim Hater (DPKO), Mr. John Ruggie (EOSG), Mr. Alvaro de Soto (DPA), Mr. Shashi Tharoor (EOSG), Mr. Ralph Zacklin (OLA), Mr. Edward Mortimer (EOSG) Outside experts: Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi (SESG), Mr. Tom Franck (NYU), Mr. David Malone (IPA), Sir Brian Urquhart Notetaker: DPA

4 May 1999 Remarks by the Secretary-General Outside Security Council Chambers

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Kosovo SECRETARY-GENERAL: I have just briefed the Council after my visits to Germany and the Russian Federation and discussed with them the points of convergence in our search for a way for a political solution. I also discussed with them my intention to appoint the envoys by this week, latest by Thursday so that they can focus fully on the search for a political solution to identify and exploit any little avenue, and to work very effectively with the Russian envoy Chernomyrdin, and the Russian Federation that is playing a very, very, active role in search for a solution. I also shared with the Council my decision to send a humanitarian assessment mission to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, beginning with Kosovo. The Under-SecretaryGeneral for Humanitarian Affairs, on my instructions, has written to the Yugoslav Ambassador, requesting the agreement for the team to go in. If the team is able to go in, it will give us a leg up, we will be able to assess the situation on the ground, determine the magnitude of the problem and what we need to do to prepare the ground for the

688 • 4 May 1999

refugees to go back to Kosovo if and when we have an agreement, not if, when we have an agreement, when the situation arises that permits them to go back home—a very, very useful exchange of views with the Council members and I am grateful that they listened and also raised some very interesting points. I’ll take your questions. QUESTION: Secretary-General you say points of convergence, what are those? S-G: I was afraid that you would ask—I shouldn’t have used that term. Let me say that I have been talking to lots of people, lots of leaders around the world and, as you know, I just came from Moscow and Berlin. My sense is that on the basic issues the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces, militia and police—there is general agreement. On the question of return of refugees their political and human rights respected and protected to be able to return in a secure environment was also agreed, but of course that would require a deployment of international military air force and this is also generally agreed, but the question is how do we get there—there is still discussion going on as to the composition, nature and strength of the force—discussions still going on as to withdrawal of the Serbian forces totally, could some stay on, what numbers, this is where the discussions are still going on. But on the major points of withdrawal of Serbian forces and militia return of the refugees in secure environment assured by a presence of international force—I think we all agree that I discussed this also in Moscow, but the modalities of how we get there—how we get Belgrade to some of these . . . these are some of the areas we are discussing. QUESTION: . . . talks today with Mr. Chernomyrdin—did he give you any assurances that Belgrade is going to be receptive to any kind of . . . S-G: I don’t think he is in a position to give me assurances that Belgrade would do this at this stage, but he did indicate that some progress is being made and obviously you have to accept that there are certain things that I discussed with Mr. Chernomyrdin, with President Yeltsin, and the leaders whom I speak to but I can not discuss publicly with you, not at this stage anyway, and if I did, tomorrow they would only talk to me about the weather, their grandchildren and their holidays. QUESTION: Are you more optimistic today after your meeting with Mr. Chernomyrdin than you were yesterday? S-G: It’s only 24 hours between yesterday and today and as I indicated yesterday, we have quite a

bit of work to do and quite a bit of ground to cover before we can talk in terms of we have a deal. QUESTION: . . . some convergence between this Chernomyrdin and the President of the United States? S-G: I have answered that question. QUESTION: Are you really talking about a convergence of views on international military force and did that include the Russians? S-G: The Russians would like to participate in an international force on the ground, yes I did discuss it. If there is going to be a force, the force has to be credible to be able to assure the security of the refugees otherwise they will not return. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, what happens now—do you wait for Chernomyrdin to go to Belgrade and get an answer from Milosevic or do you do something in parallel particularly on the constitution of that force and what number of Serbian forces will stay in Kosovo? S-G: The negotiations and the discussions are still going on. I don’t know what we’ll come up with—the alliance of then [sic] demands and Milosevic’s is holding to a certain position—the idea is to get a movement on these things, and of course, the Russian Envoy and the Russian Government are being very active. We have agreed, I agreed with President Yeltsin and with Mr. Chernomyrdin today that we at the United Nations will work very closely with them, we will pull our efforts to find a solution and that when my Envoys are appointed they will be available and able to assist in the search for a political solution. What is also important—everyone I spoke to—all the leaders—have agreed that the UN has a role to play and particularly the Security Council and all of us to be able to find a solution and move forward. QUESTION: Do you get a sense that the Russians acknowledge that this force has to be more than just lightly armed, more than civilian, that it really has to have the weight and the armament that NATO is talking about. S-G: I have no doubt that the Russian Government and the Russian authorities and the Russian mediator understands the imperatives of what we are dealing with and the situation. QUESTION: You were talking about the humanitarian team that you are sending to Yugoslavia— you are going to appoint the team to assess the humanitarian situation and you put the point on Kosovo—how about the humanitarian situation in Yugoslavia as the result of devastating bombing of NATO?

4 May 1999 • 689 S-G: I probably wasn’t clear enough—you didn’t hear me—I think it was very clear to everybody but I will repeat it again that I am sending a humanitarian mission to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and they will begin their work in Kosovo—that is what I said and that is what I repeat and I think is very clear. I haven’t got a response to them yet, but I hope they will accept because it is important for us to go in there and get an assessment of what would be the magnitude of the problem, what would be needed to be done and how we can set up our planning to help these people who have been displaced—the refugees and the tragedy—let’s not forget that the winter will be coming very shortly and we don’t have much time to plan and prepare. QUESTION: What about Washington, is Washington accepting—accepting the role of the UN now? S-G: Yes, they do accept the role of the UN— everybody accepts the role of the UN and I think that it is crucial, it is important and I am gratified that everybody now sees the role of the UN. QUESTION: Who are the candidates for being named as your Envoy? S-G: I think the names have been around for quite a time—I have a feeling that you know them and you can tell me QUESTION: What role would they have, what exactly would you envision them . . . S-G: In the course of the week when I submit my proposals to the Council—the terms of reference, the bios of the people concerned would be available and you would also have them—just be a little patient. QUESTION: What is the size of the assessment team that you intend to send in to assess the humanitarian situation—do you expect there to be some sort of pause or lull in NATO’s military campaign in order to guarantee your team’s safety on the ground in Kosovo? S-G: I have not asked for a pause nor a lull, as some of you may know, the Greek humanitarian agencies and yours have been operating in Kosovo—they were the first to go in—they are operating in Kosovo—they will be joined by the Russian Federation and the Swiss—and the three countries will do a joint humanitarian operation in Kosovo. You have asked a question—we will do a joint humanitarian operation in Kosovo—they obviously worked it out with the Yugoslav authorities and with NATO to be able to go in and out and do their work. I would hope that a similar arrangement will be made for the humanitarian team that is going

in to assess what needs to be done for hundreds of thousands of people who are suffering and who soon may need to go back. We don’t have much time— you said it’s only summer yet but one has to also make a judgment of what can be done in Kosovo when they return. Otherwise we need to take decisions about winterizing the camps and I really hope that we may be able to do something more than that.

4 May 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Kosovo Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. Kosovo Crisis

As you know, the Secretary-General has scheduled a number of meetings on Kosovo today. At 11 a.m., he met with Knut Vollebaek, the Foreign Minister of Norway, who is the current chair of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Their discussions focused exclusively on Kosovo, the diplomatic contacts currently under way, and they pledged to work closely together on plans for possible future international action in the region. The Secretary-General is scheduled to meet now with Viktor Chernomyrdin, Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s Special Envoy. I think he is a bit delayed, but expected shortly, and we understand from the Russian Mission that he may speak to you on the way out of his meeting with the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General then has a 3 p.m. appointment with the Reverend Jesse Jackson—who was in Belgrade over the weekend and who was instrumental in the release of the three American soldiers—and then at 4 p.m. with Sadako Ogata, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Following these meetings, at 4:30 p.m., he will brief the Security Council on his recent mission in Germany and the Russian Federation, and discussions on ways to end the Kosovo crisis. He said he will be available to speak to you at the stakeout microphone following his briefing. Now for the daily wrap-up of United Nationsrelated developments regarding Kosovo. On the ground today, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) staff reported that the refugee situation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia remained critical. The overcrowding of existing camps worsened as several thousands continued to pour into the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

690 • 4 May 1999

By midday today, a train arrived with 3,000 refugees from Kosovo, and they were taken to Blace in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The UNHCR reported that among the passengers were men who had been badly beaten. Over the next few days, the UNHCR said, refugees will have to be transferred by buses to Albania, where the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is helping with the construction of new tented camps. The UNHCR appealed for the transfer to be voluntary and that their being bussed to Albania will not influence their eligibility for humanitarian evacuation. Hundreds had crossed into Albania by midday. The refugees speak of sporadic atrocities and large-scale harassment. The UNHCR reports cases of what it described as almost gratuitous violence against fleeing civilians. A group of hysterical children crossed the border after their parents had been detained at the frontier post because their papers were allegedly not in order. Refugees from Djakova said some families had been deliberately split up. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), meanwhile, said poor farmers hosting Kosovar refugees in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania urgently need agricultural aid to continue farming activities and to maintain food production. The FAO launched an appeal to donor governments for $5.5 million for emergency aid to Albania and $3.5 million to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. According to recent FAO assessment missions, around 12,000 rural families in Albania and more than 8,000 families in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are providing food and shelter to refugees driven out of Kosovo. The Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) issued its 1999 Economic Survey today in Geneva and said the Kosovo crisis has added to the already unfavourable environment for many transition economies in the region. The Commission says that the war-related economic damage already incurred is quite substantial. Neighbouring countries—Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia—have lost important markets, as well as traditional suppliers in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Commission goes on to say that transport links to and from the south-eastern part of Europe have been severely damaged: navigation along the

Danube has been paralysed by the destruction of bridges in Novi Sad, and all traffic through the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (ground, rail and air) has been brought to a halt. The negative consequences are especially severe for the trade flows between Western Europe (the main trading partner) and the countries locked in the Balkan region, in particular, Bulgaria, Romania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. To prevent an already serious situation from getting worse, there is an urgent need for Western Europe and other members of the NATO alliance to provide south-east European transition economies with emergency support, especially for sustaining their balance of payments, the Commission recommended. The Commission also spells out an urgent need to consider how to approach the issues of post-conflict reconstruction. Yves Berthelot, the Commission’s Executive Secretary, likened the type of assistance required to an international “Marshall Plan”. East Timor Talks

The talks on East Timor resumed this morning at the senior officials level. Ambassador Jamsheed Marker, Personal Representative of the SecretaryGeneral for East Timor, started a meeting at 11 a.m. with the Portuguese delegation, led by Ambassador Fernando Neves. At 3 p.m., he will meet with the Indonesian delegation, led by Ambassador Makarim Wibisono, and at 3:45 p.m. he will hold a trilateral meeting with both delegations. The ministerial-level meetings will be tomorrow. The Secretary-General will hold bilateral meetings with the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, Ali Alatas, and the Foreign Minister of Portugal, Jaime Gama. We do not have the exact time for these meetings, nor for the signing ceremony of the agreements. However, it looks like the meetings will be in the morning, and the signing will happen mid-afternoon tomorrow. As soon as we have the final programme for tomorrow, we will let you know. . . . QUESTION: Why is the Secretary-General meeting with Mr. Chernomyrdin today and what is he going to explain to the Secretary-General? SPOKESMAN: It’s a follow-up to his meetings in Moscow, and I believe that the Russian Special Envoy will be briefing the Secretary-General on his recent meetings in Washington, D.C., as well as meetings he had in Europe, including Belgrade, after the two of them last met in Moscow. So it’s basically staying in touch, keeping each other abreast of developments.

6 May 1999 • 691 QUESTION: Will the Secretary-General be commenting on his Special Envoys at the stakeout later today? SPOKESMAN: Those consultations are continuing today, that is, his consultations with various governments in connection with the naming of these two Special Envoys. I said yesterday that it was likely that he would make an announcement today, but he told me this morning the consultations were continuing, and there is a good chance of a further delay until possibly later in the week. So we’ll just have to wait for this process to come to an end. I don’t expect an announcement today; I don’t rule it out, but I don’t expect it. QUESTION: How many Albanians are left in Kosovo? SPOKESMAN: I don’t think anyone knows. That calculation, or the numbers that you see, are based on assumption of the former population minus those who have come out. But it’s always more complicated than it seems, and so I think those numbers are at best estimates. So I don’t think, frankly, we have a firm idea how many are still in Kosovo. QUESTION: Can you figure out or can you find out? SPOKESMAN: I don’t think until outside experts can physically go inside Kosovo and count that we’ll know with any certainty. QUESTION: Why are the consultations regarding the Special Envoys to the Balkans taking longer than anticipated? SPOKESMAN: It’s just that these things sometimes take longer than you want, but they are a necessary part of the process, and we do expect it will come to an end in a matter of a few days, if not before.

5 May 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Kosovo/East Timor Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. Kosovo Crisis

As you all know, the Secretary-General announced last night his intention to send a needs assessment mission to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia beginning in Kosovo. As of about 11:30 this morning, there had been no response from the Yugoslav authorities to the proposal, which was conveyed in a letter to the Yugoslav Ambassador here yesterday afternoon. This morning, the High Commissioner for

Refugees, Sadako Ogata, briefed the Security Council on the plight of refugees in the Balkans, where she says, “ethnic cleansing and mass forced expulsions are yielding their tragic results faster than we can respond—faster than anybody’s response”. . . . East Timor Talks

The ministerial-level talks on East Timor started this morning with a meeting between the SecretaryGeneral and the Foreign Minister of Portugal, Jaime Gama. The Secretary-General then met with the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, Ali Alatas. At 11 a.m., the two delegations, led by the Foreign Ministers, met with the United Nations team headed by the Secretary-General. As scheduled, the Secretary-General left after some 30 minutes and his Personal Representative for East Timor, Ambassador Jamsheed Marker, continued the meeting. The signing of the agreements—and there are three—will be at 3:45 p.m. and that will take place in the Secretary-General’s conference room. The event will be covered by United Nations Television and you will be able to watch it on inhouse Channel 3. Following that ceremony, the Secretary-General and the Foreign Ministers will come here to Room S-226 for a press briefing. . . .

6 May 1999 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG, SG/SM/6980); East Timor SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I notice we have a full room this afternoon, and I wonder why. This is a historic moment. I am delighted to tell you that we have just signed the three agreements on East Timor, as you saw, between the Republic of Indonesia and the Republic of Portugal. There is a basic agreement and two supplementary ones: one covering the security arrangements for the peaceful implementation of the popular consultation and the other the modalities for this consultation. As they have done throughout the negotiations, my good friends Ali Alatas and Jaime Gama have shown an exemplary spirit of cooperation and statesmanship. I am very grateful to both of them, as I believe the whole international community should be, and in particular the people of East Timor itself. We are now moving immediately on the next phase. The United Nations staff are already on their way to the region to begin preparing for the

692 • 6 May 1999

popular consultation. All of us are determined to ensure that it is free, fair and thorough. If we are to fulfil that pledge, the United Nations must be able to work freely and in an atmosphere of security. Security in East Timor is the responsibility of the Indonesian Government. I welcome the assurances given by President Habibie that his Government will fulfil effectively its responsibility for law and order and the protection of all civilians. I am gravely concerned about the recent increase in violence in East Timor. I strongly urge all elements and political tendencies in East Timor to refrain from any resort to force and to cooperate with the United Nations in fulfilling its vital tasks. I cannot stress too strongly that the success of the process on which we have embarked depends on the ability of the United Nations to conduct its work in an atmosphere of calm and security. I hope and trust that the United Nations will receive the full cooperation of all concerned. I should like once again to thank the two Foreign Ministers, and through them their Governments, for the excellent and constructive role they have played in bringing this long, drawnout negotiation to such a promising conclusion. It is my earnest hope that today’s signatures will open a new and more peaceful chapter in the history of this troubled territory. MR. ALATAS: I would like simply to echo your words, Mr. Secretary-General, and stress the importance of today. Now that we have signed the three agreements on East Timor, I think we can move forward towards the solution of a longstanding question—a question that has already brought a lot of sorrow and suffering to the East Timorese people, but which we hope, by 8 August, will move towards a solution, one way or another, at which time we will be offering the East Timorese people a choice: whether to have a special status within the Indonesian Republic, with wide-ranging autonomy, or whether they would not accept such a proposition, in which case we would take the necessary constitutional steps to go our separate ways in an honourable and peaceful way. So, in one way or another we hope to settle the problem by that time. This agreement opens the door towards that solution. We are looking forward to working very closely with the United Nations in the implementation of these agreements. As you rightly said, Mr. Secretary-General, an advance team is already there and will be shortly followed by the rest of the team, which will be there doing

the necessary things in preparation for the consultation process. Once again, Mr. Secretary-General, I would like to record my Government’s gratitude and deep appreciation to you and to the admirable team that has assisted you throughout these negotiations. I think it is indeed appropriate for me to say that without your intervention, without your assistance, Mr. Secretary-General, we would not have reached this stage at this point in our negotiations. Therefore, once again, Mr. Secretary-General, thank you very much for all your efforts. MR. GAMA: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary-General and Ambassador Jamsheed Marker and his collaborators for the work that has been done and which puts an end to long negotiations that started in 1983. I had at that time the opportunity to begin negotiations on this specific issue of East Timor with the then SecretaryGeneral Javier Pérez de Cuéllar and the former Indonesian Foreign Minister Mochtar. We are now reaching a conclusion, and these agreements are very important ones because they express solid principles. First, that the East Timorese question can only be settled by a free and fair ballot of the East Timorese. Secondly, that this ballot will be conducted by the United Nations. Thirdly, that from now on the United Nations, through an appropriate mission, will be present in East Timor. I would emphasize all this by citing what a Timorese leader, the symbol of the Timorese people, Mr. Xanana Gusmão, said about today. He said that this means that the way is open for an international mechanism that will put an end to an illegitimate situation of 23-and-a-half years in the territory of East Timor. This is a turning point, a very important one. I will in a very special manner address my Indonesian colleague and say that all of us are now committed to having this agreement be the law and to abide by the spirit and the letter of what we have agreed. I would also thank the international community for the support it is giving to this United Nations mission, participating in and contributing to this consultation mechanism. On behalf of the Portuguese Government I hereby give the Secretary-General the first contribution for the consultation, a cheque for $10 million [the Minister for Foreign Affairs handed the SecretaryGeneral a check]. S-G (translated from Portuguese): Thank you very much. (Spoken in English) Jamsheed, join us.

6 May 1999 • 693 I think you all know chief negotiator Jamsheed. He has done a great job. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General and gentlemen, on behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association it is a pleasure to have you here for such a ceremony. Why, in your opinion, has the issue been resolved so peacefully? S-G: Let me say that obviously, as you can see, we are all smiles today. We are all very happy that we brought the process this far and, as you say, in a very peaceful manner. But we have an important and crucial phase that we are embarking on as of today, and I hope that we will achieve this second phase in the same constructive manner with little or no violence, and that the people of East Timor will have the opportunity to express themselves freely, openly and fairly in this ballot. QUESTION: I have a question for Mr. Alatas. Although we did not have the opportunity to read the entire text of the agreement, according to your words it establishes that you are going to endeavour to disarm all of the parties. Can you now say to all of us, and give your word and your Government’s, that you are prepared to do more than “endeavour to”—that you actually guarantee that your Government will thoroughly, completely and in a timely fashion disarm all civilian factions no matter which side they are on? And I would like Minister Gama’s reaction to that and also the views of the Secretary-General. MR. ALATAS: Well, we have agreed that we should take the necessary steps in order to achieve disarmament, apart from what we have already been achieving now, and that is the laying down of arms and the cessation of hostilities. That has been achieved. The achievement of disarmament, however, requires some further steps, some further efforts or endeavours, and that is precisely the spirit and the letter of what we have agreed. In other words, we are all agreed that we should move and achieve disarmament, but we are realistic enough to know that several steps still need to be taken, several efforts or endeavours still need to be taken in order to achieve disarmament. And it is certainly the desire and the determination of my Government to do so. But as I explained to you, outside, before I came in this morning, disarmament requires the cooperation of all groups. It is not only the disarmament of the pro-integrationist group; it is also the disarmament of the pro-independence group, including the Falintil, and that requires some doing.

Mr. Gama: It is an essential point of this agreement, of the principles we have agreed to, and now it will be essential if the United Nations is to carry out its mission that a security environment be respected, that freedoms will be achieved in the Territory. Because a free consultation cannot take place in an environment of pressure, intimidation, fear or killings. We will strictly abide by what we have signed. The United Nations will too. And we hope that all the negative situations that have lasted up until now will no longer exist, [in order to promote] the credibility of the United Nations goal. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, could you give us some details on this memorandum that you will be giving to the Indonesian and the Portuguese sides concerning the United Nations requirements for a free and fair ballot, this disarming of the militias, the freedom to hold rallies, meetings, etc. S-G: The memorandum really tries to set out the sort of things that need to be done for the right climate to be created for us to be able to carry out the ballot in an atmosphere of security and peacefully. It also sets out certain suggestions and demands that will need to be met for us to be able to carry out our work. It is nothing more and it is nothing less. QUESTION: The specific terms? S-G: It’s a long list, and I prefer not to list them all. QUESTION: Two United States Senators have just introduced a bill in Washington to cut off all military aid to Indonesia because of Indonesia’s sponsorship of the death squads in East Timor right now. This is a question to each of you, but beginning with the Secretary-General. First, how can you say that Indonesia will be in charge of the security when it has been the perpetrator of the violence in East Timor for 23 years and killed about 200,000 Timorese? And secondly, what is going to be done about keeping the Indonesian military away from the Timorese when they are voting? And how many United Nations personnel will be brought in to protect the Timorese from the Indonesian military? S-G: First of all, let me be quite clear here. I think we have been engaged in this kind of operation and peacekeeping operations for a long time. We are also witnessing a situation even today, in Kosovo. In each of these situations, in each operation that we get engaged in, whether it is elections in Namibia or elsewhere, we deal with the authorities. We deal with those in control. We deal with

694 • 6 May 1999

those who are responsible for the territories. If we do not deal with the Indonesian authorities and ask them to exercise their responsibility for law and order, whom do you suggest we turn to do that? Can the United Nations send in a force to do that at this stage without the agreement of the Indonesian authorities? We have to be realistic. QUESTION: [inaudible]. MR. MARKER: We are in the process of working that out now. We have carried out a number of exercises. It is a matter of getting in the personnel, getting them in time. It is a logistic problem of horrendous proportions, and we are working at it very hard, hoping that we will be able to succeed and eventually provide some sort of manual for a situation of this nature. But it is not possible for me to give any figures right now. QUESTION: I would like to go back and try to clarify some of these disarmament issues. Are you saying that Indonesia is solely responsible for the disarmament? Or is there any United Nations role? Also, once you collect these weapons, what is going to happen to them? Are they going to be stored, or can you destroy them? It seems odd that it would be the responsibility of only the Indonesian Government. Is there a United Nations role? MR. MARKER: The United Nations will be assisting and working with the authorities on this exercise. We anticipate having sufficiently trained personnel to do that. We do not at the moment have any plans for collecting the arms and stockpiling them or anything like that. We are more concerned with the maintenance of law and order. If arms are not used, as I understand it, they are not quite the menace that they could be otherwise. The most important thing, as the Secretary-General and the two Ministers have said, is the creation of a situation of calm, and we would rather work towards that through persuasion, through talks, through meetings, through the commission, and set that climate. I am convinced that the people of East Timor have had enough of conflict. I am convinced that under the Secretary-General a United Nations presence there will provide a calming effect and assurances, and certainly an assurance of impartiality, which goes a long way towards removing suspicions, if not healing tensions. S-G: But I think we need to stress the fact that the maintenance of law and order is the responsibility of the Indonesian Government. I have discussed this also with President Habibie, and the Government has given us its word that it will do its utmost to ensure that we have law and order. The

United Nations presence will monitor, it will help, it will assist, but we are not going to be responsible for that. Secondly, you have to understand that when you talk of disarmament, you seem to be discussing it as a very easy process. It is one of the most difficult exercises to undertake in any situation, and so we should talk about these issues with a sense of realism, what is possible, what can be done. We are going to press for a secure environment, and the Government has indicated that it will work with us. QUESTION: Have you received any commitments or any indications already from nations that they would be willing to participate in a force, and if so, would any of those nations also be carrying any sort of light arms of their own just in case the violence does in fact continue? S-G: We have had indications from Governments that they would want to participate, that they would want to send electoral observers, and at some point we will need some police monitors. United Nations police monitors normally do not carry weapons, and I do not think you have talked about allowing them to carry weapons. We would apply the United Nations standards. QUESTION: Returning to the question of Indonesia being in charge of law and order, isn’t that in contradiction with the decisions of the United Nations concerning the occupation of East Timor? I understand it is an act of realism, but, still, isn’t that an act of faith rather than realism? S-G: Let’s open things up: what would you suggest we do? I will be clear: I am open to suggestions. What do you suggest we should do to take care of the problem you have raised if we do not approach it in the manner we have suggested? I am open to suggestions. What is your idea? QUESTION: We can start by freeing Xanana, of course. S-G: That is an issue we have discussed, and I am sure that will come in time, I hope sooner rather than later. QUESTION: Since the Habibie Government might not be there even next year, what will happen if a newly elected Assembly does not agree with the reformulation of Mr. Habibie [inaudible]. Secondly, in East Timor there are 13 districts. What will happen if some districts are heavily prointegration and some heavily anti-integration? That would pose a tremendous possibility of [inaudible]. MR. GAMA: To answer the first question, as you know, international agreements are binding

6 May 1999 • 695 not on Governments, but on States, and for that reason any future Government in Indonesia is going to abide by this agreement. Secondly, the balloting being conducted in a universal manner means that the results of the ballot are not necessarily going to show the results in each polling station, but in general, and so you cannot have that destabilizing effect. QUESTION: The names of a few countries willing to provide monitors or some sort of support have been raised: United States, United Kingdom, Philippines, Australia, Japan. Have those countries made commitments, or are they merely giving indications that they will provide support or police monitors or some sort of assistance to this operation? MR. MARKER: We have so far had one cheque for $10 million, so that is already a start, and Australia has made commitments as well as a contribution. We have had assurances of contributions from other countries as well. QUESTION: [inaudible] the United States [inaudible]? MR. MARKER: We are working on it, because they have their own procedures, but I hope, with the Secretary-General’s permission, to go to Washington at some stage, talk to some people and ask them to put their money where their mouths used to be and get some concrete— which I am sure I will get. Knowing the feeling and knowing the views, I am confident that we will be able to raise—because, talking seriously now, there has been so much concern expressed over the issue of East Timor. There are no two views on it, there are no two views on the fact that the United Nations should proceed with this exercise. So I do not anticipate—one of the things we have to do is to make our own assessments, and without finding out exactly what the costing is, it is unfair to approach donors without being more specific, and we are working on that. Mr. Alatas: I just wanted to explain about the countries that were mentioned. Those were, of course, the suggestions made by our President for the Secretary-General to contemplate asking them to help in the effort. But, of course, it goes without saying that this does not in any way put the Secretary-General in a position where he cannot exercise his flexibility. It is up to the SecretaryGeneral which countries he would like to ask for assistance or for cooperation in the operation. We in Indonesia would agree with that, but these are just some suggestions.

If I understand correctly, this is the last question, so therefore may I just conclude by saying a few words personally to my old friend Ambassador Jamsheed Marker and thanking him especially for what he has done. Without his patience, without his vast skills in negotiation, but especially without his empathy for both sides and their arguments, we would not have come as far as we have come. I would also like to say a special word to Ambassador Jamsheed Marker. MR. GAMA: I renew my thanks to the United Nations team—I recognize in this room Mr. Samuel and Mr. Vendrell. Ambassador Marker was an excellent chief negotiator and created all the conditions for getting this diplomatic accommodation. I also wish to thank the Secretary-General for the impulse he gave himself, abiding by principle regarding the dossier of East Timor. Without his commitment, without his endorsement of a clear task for the United Nations in the world today, we could not have concluded the agreement we have just signed.

6 May 1999 Secretary-General Welcomes Statement by Foreign Ministers on Kosovo

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6982); Kosovo The Secretary-General welcomes the statement by the Chairman on the conclusion of the meeting of the G8 Foreign Ministers at the Petersberg, in Germany, today, adopting general principles on the political solution to the Kosovo crisis. He is pleased in particular at the decision to prepare elements of a United Nations Security Council resolution, to draw up a road map on further concrete steps towards a political solution to the crisis and to involve other members of the Council in this effort. The Secretary-General believes this is an important step in the direction he advocated when he spoke earlier this week in the Council and appealed to the members to find the unity necessary to achieve the required political solution. The Secretary-General reiterates his willingness to extend full cooperation in the effort to rebuild a consensus on this question and in this connection expects to announce the appointment of his special envoys shortly.

6 May 1999 Letter (EOSG); Kosovo

696 • 6 May 1999

Letter sent to members of NATO regarding the cooperation of NATO with the UNHCR during the crisis in Kosovo. Excellency, As you know, Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have kindly offered their support to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), who is coordinating the international community’s response to the acute humanitarian crisis caused by the massive exodus of refugees from Kosovo. The nature and scope of the working relationship between NATO and UNHCR have been the subject of close consultations at the most senior level of our two Organizations. I am writing to you now to clarify the relationship as defined in those consultations. Throughout our contacts, it has been recognized, as a general principle underlying the support provided by NATO Member States, that UNHCR retains the leading role in responding to humanitarian aspects of the Kosovo refugee crisis. I am glad to say the assistance offered by Member States of NATO relates precisely to those areas in which UNHCR most urgently needs outside help to enable it to cope with the crisis. Specifically, the States have indicated that they are ready to undertake the following tasks to assist UNHCR in its efforts: • Logistics (airlift coordination support) • Shelter (refugee camp construction including water and sanitation) • Transportation of refugees and relief supplies • Road repairs/maintenance. They have also offered to undertake such other tasks, within its existing means and capabilities in the area, as UNHCR might identify. In addition, the States have been advised that it would be of great value to UNHCR and other humanitarian bodies, in their continuing efforts to plan in advance for any further large-scale exodus of refugees, if they were to make available any relevant information they have on internal displacement and/or population movements inside Kosovo. For my part, I would like to express my gratitude for the support being extended by NATO Member States in response to these sudden and overwhelming humanitarian needs. Without such assistance, UNHCR would clearly have faced an impossible task. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

7 May 1999 Letter (UN archives); Yugoslavia Letter to the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. Included is a handwritten note by the Secretary-General. Dear Mr. Solana, Further to my letter of 5 May, this is to inform you that yesterday the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) confirmed in writing his Government’s acceptance of my initiative to launch an urgent inter-agency needs assessment mission. Given this positive response, I am dispatching a four-person advance team to Belgrade, which is scheduled to arrive by road from Zagreb on Monday, 10 May. This team will work out with the FRY authorities the modalities and itinerary for the main mission, which is expected to commence its work on about 15–16 May, for between ten to fourteen days. These details will be made available immediately to NATO. The intention is that the mission will commence its work in Kosovo. I should therefore be most grateful if you could inform me of the senior official in Brussels whom you will designate as the NATO contact point for the mission. This will enable the immediate initiation of consultations by Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, who will lead the mission to FRY. He will keep NATO fully informed of the mission’s plans. I am sure I can count on your understanding and support in this endeavour. Yours sincerely, With warmest personal regards, Kofi.

7 May 1999 Remarks by the Secretary-General Outside the Security Council Chambers

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Kosovo SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. Last night I sent a letter to the Council indicating I shall appoint former Prime Minister Carl Bildt of Sweden and Mr. Eduard Kukan the Foreign Minister of Slovakia as my envoys to work with me in search for peace in the Balkans and above all to work very effectively and actively on implementation of any such agreement that will be obtained. We will have lots of work to do, lots of planning and I would expect

7 May 1999 • 697 them to begin immediately working full time on these issues. QUESTION: Why do you need two envoys? S-G: It is a big problem, it is a big complex problem which requires a strong team. Both are very experienced men, very good negotiators. I think Mr. Bildt, as you know, has had considerable experience in the Balkans, he is a strong political leader, and Kukan, whom some of you may remember in his days here as Ambassador, is a very good negotiator also and a good international lawyer with a very good understanding of the region and the issues in the region. I think the two will make a wonderful team. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, about a month and a half ago everyone was asking about the relevance of the United Nations. How does it feel today that you’re back in the centre stage? S-G: I think I will leave it for them to answer the questions themselves. I think the developments are clear. I think we have probably had to conclude that the UN is indispensable and whether we like it or not on certain global issues this is the only organization, and sooner or later we have to turn to it and hopefully in the future we will do sooner rather than later. QUESTION: You mentioned just a little earlier that you are not ruling out the possibility of going to Belgrade on one hand and in the neighbourhood of Kosovo on the other. Are you actively talking about this with the parties concerned . . . ? S-G: Let me say that we are dealing with a very delicate operation and there are certain things that I do and plan, and people I talk to that you should understand I cannot always share immediately with you or sometime in the future. If I were to share everything I do or discuss with others I think pretty soon they will only be talking to me about their grandchildren and their holidays. So some things I cannot tell you immediately, but at the appropriate time I will share this with you. QUESTION: Will the envoys in any way divide a role and in that case what role will Mr. Bildt have? S-G: They will work as a team and they will not divide their role. QUESTION: . . . Mr. Bildt’s strong character . . . ? S-G: You want me to give him a score card? I think I’ve told you that he’s a great leader, he’s dynamic, he’s independent, he has tremendous experience in the Balkans. He’s been through what we are discussing today, and I think that experience, that leadership quality, will be very much needed in this case. QUESTION: [inaudible].

S-G: Dr. Vranitsky pulled out of the race. He decided he didn’t want to continue to be considered and decided to step down and also, as you know, I took time talking to all the Member States concerned, because the stakes are high for the governments involved, for them the stakes are high for the UN too. And so it was essential for me to get cooperation of all concerned so that the envoys will have full support and unimpeded access to all the governments and be able to do their work. But former Chancellor Vranitsky is an outstanding political leader, somebody I respect very much and is a good friend. Unfortunately he decided not to pursue. . . QUESTION: [inaudible]. S-G: I don’t know if it took a long time to name Mr. Bildt or not, or if the timing of naming the envoys or launching the envoys should have been sooner rather than later. I consider this time perfect for them to begin their work. QUESTION: What will be their first step, to work with Russians or . . . ? S-G: The first step is for them to sit with me, discuss their programme and their future and decide where we go from here and how they are going to pool their efforts with the Russians. Obviously we have to cooperate with the Russians, they are playing a very effective role, very constructive role and I had very good discussions with them in Moscow and then of course earlier this week here with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. So we will pool our efforts, we will intensify the search for a diplomatic solution because winter may seem far off, but it’s not that far off and we need to try to do whatever we can, if possible, to get the refugees back. QUESTION: [inaudible]. S-G: I think Sergio de Mello [UN humanitarian coordinator] will be speaking to you about that if he hasn’t done so already. He is going to lead the team and he will tell you a bit more about it. Thank you very much.

7 May 1999 Secretary-General Shocked by NATO Bombing of Civilian Buildings in Yugoslavia

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6986); North Atlantic Treaty Organization The Secretary-General was shocked and distressed to learn that North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) air strikes apparently hit civilian buildings in Yugoslavia on Friday, including a hospital in Nis and the Embassy of the People’s Republic

698 • 7 May 1999

of China in Belgrade, with attendant loss of life and many injured. He reiterates his conviction that an urgent political solution must be found to the present crisis in the region.

11 May 1999 Secretary-General Commemorates Israel’s 50 Years in the UN

Speech (OSSG, SG/SM/6990); Israel Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at a dinner held to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Israel’s membership in the UN, at UN headquarters. It is an honour and a pleasure to join you tonight for this celebration. To all the people of Israel, and to Jewish people around the world for whom this is also an anniversary to remember, I say: “congratulations” from your friends in the international community. Every United Nations Member State has a story to tell, a moving chronicle of the road to independence and statehood. Israel’s tale is especially poignant. Its yearning was ancient; its agony was profound; and its success was an inspiration to all peoples. The longing of the Jewish people to find a safe haven among the family of nations runs deep. David Ben Gurion once spoke of “the human dust” that had gathered from all corners of the earth and been converted into a sovereign State that occupied an “honourable place in the family of nations”. No United Nations Secretary-General can forget that the Organization was born out of the fight against fascism and intolerance. Our Charter was drafted as the world was learning the full horror of the Holocaust. When Israel joined the United Nations 50 years ago today, it was a moment of redemption and, not least, a reminder of the United Nations’ cardinal mission of dignity, human rights and peace. Since then the history of Israel and the history of the United Nations have been closely entwined, as reflected in numerous resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. At times, it pains me to say, United Nations decisions sparked intense anger both inside and outside Israel. At one point even you, Ambassador Eban, wrote that “The world seemed to belong to our foes.” These are the well-known signposts of the United Nations-Israel relationship. But there is another Israel at the United Nations, an Israel little

known to the general public or even to many delegates. It is the Israel that protects the global environment by lending others its expertise in solar energy and desert ecology. It is the Israel that fights drug trafficking by training law enforcement officials; the Israel that spreads democracy by participating in election-monitoring operations; the Israel that brings emergency aid to people in need, including, as we speak, in Kosovo. This Israel could do much more for the United Nations were it not for a significant obstacle: its status as the only Member State that is not a member of a regional group, which is the basis for participation in many United Nations bodies and activities. I said last year in Israel that this anomaly should be rectified, and I hope it will be soon. In any event, I shall keep encouraging all concerned to find a solution. In less than a week, Israelis will go to the polls. Whatever the outcome, an urgent task remains priority number one: courageous decision-making for peace—peace with justice for all, so that the aspirations of one side are not achieved at the expense of the rights of the other. The peace process has languished for far too long. Fear has poisoned relations for far too long. Daily indignities have eaten away at families, and at society as a whole. We can no longer be satisfied with saving the hard work for later, and with passing on to future generations our unmet aspirations for peace. The generation of today should know peace, and be able to bequeath to its sons and daughters, not the dream of peace, but peace itself. Two weeks ago, I visited the New Synagogue of Berlin, which had been damaged on Kristallnacht, destroyed by bombing during the war and recently rebuilt after standing untouched for decades. While walking through the restoration, I could hear the voices of children playing in the Jewish school next door. As I listened to those sounds, my thoughts turned to the miracle of rebirth and renewal. Israel’s admission to the United Nations was one such example. The United Nations today is renewing itself to meet the challenges of a new century. We have been together for 50 years, but in many respects this fruitful partnership is only beginning to show how much it can do: for Israelis, for the Middle East, for the common good around the world.

13 May 1999 • 699 I look forward to working even more closely with all of you as we move ahead. Thank you, congratulations on this milestone, and l’chaim!

11 May 1999 Letter (UN archives); Yugoslavia Letter from the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. Dear Secretary General, Thank you for your letter dated 7 May 1999 regarding the inter-agency needs assessment mission and advance team to be sent by the United Nations to the FRY. You have my full support for this very important initiative. I have accordingly had my staff establish close contact with yours for the fullest possible cooperation between our organisations in this matter. I understand that useful consultations between our staffs took place over the weekend and are ongoing. I am grateful for your offer to keep NATO fully informed of the mission’s plans. NATO will need as precise and timely information as possible. In particular, in order to ensure adequate coordination of our various operations NATO would appreciate notification of the UN team’s moves at least 48 hours in advance. As already communicated to your office on 7 May, I have designated NATO Assistant Secretary General for Security Investment, Logistics and Civil Emergency Planning, Mr. Oivind Baekken, as the senior official with whom Under-SecretaryGeneral Mr. Vieira de Mello is welcome to liaise on this issue. I wish the UN team a successful mission. Yours sincerely,

13 May 1999 Letter (EOSG, S/1999/559); Iraq Letter to the president of the Security Council, Denis Dangue Réwaka. Following is a letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iraq and the revised part seven of the distribution plan (S/1999/559) mentioned here. Further to my letter dated 11 December 1998 (S/1999/1152), regarding the approval of the distribution plan submitted by the Government of Iraq for the purchase and distribution of humanitarian supplies during the new period specified in paragraph 1 of Security council resolution 1210 (1998) of 24 November 1998, I have the honour to inform

you and, through you, the members of the Security Council, that, pursuant to paragraph 8 (a) (ii) of Council resolution 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, the Government of Iraq has now submitted to me a revised part seven of the distribution plan, concerning telecommunications. The revised requirements have been submitted following a joint technical review by United Nations experts and the relevant technical ministries of the Government of Iraq, referred to in the letter dated 29 May 1998 from the Executive Director of the Iraq Programme, to the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations (S/1998/446, annex I). The Government of Iraq was informed today that I have approved the revised part seven of the distribution plan, on the understanding that its implementation would be governed by resolutions 926 (1995) and 1210 (1998) and the memorandum of understanding concluded on 20 May 1996 between the United Nations Secretariat and the Government of Iraq, and would be without prejudice to the procedures followed by the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990). A copy of the list of supplies and goods in the revised annex VII to the distribution plan will be made available to the Security Council Committee. The list has been scrutinized by experts of the United Nations Special Commission, who concluded that, on the basis of the limited information given in the annexes, no prohibited items could be identified. They will keep the matter under review and provide further assessment in the light of additional information that may become available. The revised part seven of the executive summary of the distribution plan, concerning telecommunications, and the latter conveying my acceptance are attached. Note Verbale Dated 1 April 1999 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iraq Addressed to the Office of the United Nations Programme in Iraq

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iraq presents its compliments to the Office of the United Nations Programme in Iraq and has the honour to transmit to it herewith a diskette containing the amended annexes to the distribution plan for the communications sector, which were prepared in coordination with Mr. Akif Harb Nasir, the Iraq Programme’s envoy to the country. The Ministry requests the Office to forward the diskette to New York as quickly as possible for approval. The Ministry takes this opportunity to convey

700 • 13 May 1999

to the Office the assurances of its highest consideration. PART SEVEN/TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Executive Summary

1. The telecommunication sector is considered as the infrastructure to Iraq infrastructure. It has a vital role to play in the improvement of food distribution, medicine, water and sanitation, electricity, and the rest of the humanitarian program sectors. Before 1991 the telephone density in the country was 5.6 telephones per 100 inhabitants. In 1999 this density has decreased to 3.3 due to damaged exchanges, shortage of spares and increase in the population. World telephone density average is 10%. 2. Since the implementation of the MOU, nothing has been provided to purchase any equipment or spare parts. This is the first time the issue of the telecommunication sector is being addressed. In fact since 1991 no new or additional equipment was received to support the deteriorating network, nor were parts received to make essential network repairs. The full set of measurement test equipment needed for maintenance is not available to keep the network operating to the required international standards. 3. The present state of telecommunication systems throughout Iraq is extremely poor. Apart from the wider social considerations, there are negative consequences for the efficient procurement and distribution of humanitarian supplies. The difficulties experienced by the Ministries involved in implementing the MOU when communicating with their suppliers have contributed to delays in ensuring timely submission of applications and subsequently in the delivery of supplies to Iraq. In the health sector, poor communications between warehouses and hospitals have contributed to delays in the collection of supplies by health facilities. The absence of adequate data links has also hindered the timely passing on of accurate information on requirements. With regard to the electricity sector, this has affected the coordination of operation between the source, the transmission stations and substations. 4. A recent UN mission (August 1998) to Iraq by experts delegated from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has concluded that the entire telecommunication infrastructure is deteriorating to such an extent that the quality of service is beyond comprehension. The rate of unsuccessful calls has risen dramatically in recent years and the quality of transmission channels is so

bad that it constitutes a major problem for even the transmission of faxes. At present, the transfer of computer files (data transfer) is almost impossible via the public telephone network and affects directly UN observation activities and reporting. The mission, further, concluded that the rehabilitation and modernization of the telecommunication network is a huge development project. It would require an investment of US$1 billion or more and its implementation could take between 7 and 10 years. This of course falls outside the SCR 986 program. However, the ITU mission has identified the High Priority Telecommunications Requirements that have direct bearing on the Program and are the subject of this section. Further to these projects, the mission included several other potential telecommunication development projects, which could be considered in the future according to the availability of financial resources. The High Priority requirements included eight projects for various parts of Iraq at an approximate cost of US$123 million. 5. In order to ensure a more effective implementation of a distribution plan and enhance utilization of commodities imported, communication equipment is required. The requirements presented in the current distribution plan are those identified by ITU mission referred to in item 5 below and has the following objective: Replacement of damaged or obsolete equipment and introduction of some new equipment that will improve communications in areas of activities of the humanitarian program in Baghdad and other few selected areas. This will directly have positive impact on the improvement of the procurement and distribution system of humanitarian supplies. 6. The plan addresses few specific projects in Baghdad where most of the humanitarian program activities are taking place and where about 20% of the Iraqi population live. Further, it addresses the international communications, the microwave link between Baghdad and Basrah, mobile and data network. These are: First, replacement of the analogue Baghdad Junction Network (BJN) with digital network Annex (A). The BJN is an inter-exchange transmission links (both cable & microwave) which was seriously damaged during the war. This damage resulted in the reduction of 68% of operational channels between exchanges, making those remaining connections insufficient to maintain the minimum proper performance. BJN connects the 22 switching centers in Baghdad through old transmission systems. These systems are the main caus-

14 May 1999 • 701 es of bad quality services in Baghdad. By replacing all analogue transmission lines by digital ones, one would guarantee an immediate improvement in the quality of services for all sectors benefiting from telecommunications. This would not be particularly expensive and would be in the range of $15 million. It is estimated that the replacement of the transmission lines could be made operational within six to eight months from opening the Letter of Credit. The direct beneficiaries of this project are all those involved in the humanitarian program, including 34 hospitals and 98 drug distribution points. Other beneficiaries are food distribution points including 6 ration centers, 124 ration branches, 9400 food agents and 5323 wheat flour agents, Annex (B) and Annex (C). Second, replacement of the international communication facilities (Earth station, international exchange and the analogue microwave link between them) due to unreliable international communications which Iraq continues to experience difficulties in establishing and maintaining external contacts with potential producers and suppliers of humanitarian items under the MOU. Many foreign operators connecting to Iraq are also complaining of their frustrations over accessing and successfully concluding telephone calls from their countries to Iraq. Third, replacement of four old crossbar exchanges (Karbala, Diwaniya, Nasiriyah and Basrah) and of the obsolete analogue microwave link between Baghdad and Basrah with a digital link and extend it to the port of Um Qasr, the entry point of the main portion of humanitarian commodities under the MOU. This portion will be bigger soon because the Ministry of Health is requesting the supply of medical items through this entry. This microwave link will pass seven governorates whose total population is more than (7) million and considered as the rust [sic] populated region in Iraq. Reliable and easy communications between Baghdad and the concerned governorates and Urn Qasr is extremely important for efficient coordination and management in the process of the supply and distribution of food and medicine. Some of the direct beneficiaries of this project are those involved in the humanitarian program in the area covered by it including (76) hospitals, food distribution points which includes (7) ration centers, (148) ration branches, (9895) food agents and (5213) wheat flour agents. Fourth, replacement of three exchanges in Baghdad that were completely damaged during the war. One of these exchanges, Bab Al Muadham, is a key exchange for the implementation of the pro-

gram because it is an exchange through which the Ministry of Health and Kimadia communicate with the rest of the country. Kimadia, the State run company plays a major role in the supply and distribution of medicines. Medical items are distributed from the main warehouses in Baghdad to warehouses in the governorates, and thereafter supplied to the 132 Hospitals, 1500 primary Health Care Centers, 52 Private Hospitals and all the pharmacies. Many warehouses and hospitals are equipped with computers which are not connected together to set up a data network. Fifth, introduction of small mobile telecommunication network for (25000) subscribers in Baghdad. The aim for such network is to provide quick and reliable telecommunication services through out the city of Baghdad and nearby areas along the main roads. Such project will largely bypass the saturation encountered in the most exchanges and the lack or very poor network conditions in many areas of Baghdad. The project will solve the communication problem faced by every essential and important location related to humanitarian distribution services within the MOU framework in addition to more than (10) United Nations humanitarian agencies operating in Iraq. Sixth, introduction of data network to allow connection of computers in all warehouses and Ministries and other parties involved in the oil for food program. 7. The installation of telecommunication projects requires high level of expertise. Before 1991, the staff of ITPC used to carry out all the installation of telecomm equipment with minor supervision from the suppliers. The same staff was able to put the majority of the remaining systems immediately after the war into operation. The plan envisages the utmost use of local resources for the installation and commissioning of the projects, to minimize expenditures. Whilst the establishment of telecommunication projects requires a very high level of investment, this all risks to be lost unless those projects are adequately maintained. In order to maintain these projects properly, planned on-job training is required. It goes without saying that the new equipment to be purchased is of new technical generation. This will require training in the manufacturer premises.

14 May 1999 Secretary-General Addresses High-Level Meeting on Balkans

Speech (OSSG, SG/SM/6992); Kosovo

702 • 14 May 1999

Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the High-Level Meeting on the crisis in the Balkans, held at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. First, I would like to introduce my Special Envoys for the Balkans, Mr. Carl Bildt and Mr. Eduard Kukan. Let me continue by thanking you for joining us today for this important meeting. Today, we must focus, frankly and constructively, on how we together—the United Nations system, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and you, our partners in the non-governmental organization (NGO) community—can enhance and improve our response to the humanitarian crisis in the Balkans. Before I share with you the conclusions of the working meeting of the United Nations system on Kosovo yesterday, I wish to make clear the root of the crisis before us. Before there was a humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo, there was a human rights catastrophe. Before there was a human rights catastrophe in Kosovo, there was a political catastrophe: the deliberate, systematic and violent disenfranchisement of the Kosovar Albanian people. In Kosovo, the world is looking to us to manage the humanitarian consequences of crimes against humanity: let us never forget this fact, as we seek to alleviate the suffering of civilians throughout the former Yugoslavia and the region at large. At our meeting yesterday, there was a broad sense that the refugee crisis, serious as it is, may only be the tip of the iceberg. The stability of the neighbouring countries is threatened, their infrastructure has been taxed, and the development process has been set back considerably. The magnitude and depth of the Kosovo crisis transcends the ability and scope of any one United Nations agency or organization. We must all act as one—united and coordinated—if we are to manage this crisis successfully. To ensure that our efforts will achieve this end, I have decided to appoint Martin Griffiths as Regional Coordinator for United Nations Assistance in the Balkans. I am pleased to say that my decision was welcomed by all the participants. His responsibilities will include ensuring effective linkages between different sectors of assistance; coordinating the overall United Nations system operational response to the crisis; identifying gaps in assistance and ensuring they are covered; and looking ahead to ensure that we are prepared not only for

the immediate needs, but for medium-term developments. He will be based in Skopje, and I am also pleased to say that other United Nations agencies are also considering basing their operations out of Skopje. An immediate concern is winterization of the camps. This is necessary whether we find a speedy political solution or not. It is my hope that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) efforts in this area will be complemented by its partners in the NGO community whose experience is invaluable. The issue of citizenship and property rights of the refugees and internally displaced persons was also highlighted as one of the major issues of return, given the systematic attempt not only to evict the ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, but to render them stateless, as well. UNHCR’s registration efforts are central to our success in reversing this policy. The meeting also discussed in depth the longer-term developmental and reconstruction challenges posed by the crisis in Kosovo. It is clear that the United Nations development agencies, the Bretton Woods institutions and NGOs must pool their efforts to offer the kind of advanced planning needed to lift the region out of its present dismal state. Any rehabilitation plan has to focus on the long term, at least five years, and should strive towards integration of the regional economies into the European markets. Finally, yesterday, we received a fresh briefing from Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the human rights roots and consequences of the crisis. Critical to the United Nations human rights response will be the documentation of the crimes against humanity and abuses of human rights in and around Kosovo; the effort to lay the foundation for future peace in present-day tolerance, freedom and pluralism; and the increase in human rights capacity-building throughout the region. Let me also brief you on the political developments and prospects. Yesterday, we were joined at the humanitarian meeting by my two Special Envoys for the Balkans, Mr. Carl Bildt and Mr. Eduard Kukan. They will seek out links with the other efforts underway in this crisis, including those of the Contact Group, the G-8 countries, and Mr. Chernomyrdin, the Special Envoy of President Yeltsin. I am in close contact with all the heads of State and government involved, and with other leading players, including NATO SecretaryGeneral Solana. There is general agreement that all

15 May 1999 • 703 diplomatic efforts must be carried out within the framework of the statement issued by the G-8 last week in Bonn. My two Envoys, Mr. Bildt and Mr. Kukan, are not intended to supplant any of these efforts, but rather to facilitate them. The overall goal is to try to work out an approach that could receive the support of the Security Council. It is clear that any future international civilian presence in Kosovo will need to concern itself with human rights, humanitarian demands, reconstruction, institution-building and police matters. Whatever emerges, we would hope to see an integrated operation, with efficient military-civilian coordination. We must not repeat the mistakes of Bosnia. It is equally clear that an international military force which is credible and will be able to show force in order not to use it is the condition for the safe, unconditional and complete return of every man, woman and child expelled from Kosovo. Only with such a force on the ground can we expect the Kosovars to return to their homes, in safety, dignity and peace. Finally and perhaps most critically at this time are the efforts to protect and assist the civilian population in Kosovo, which numbers over half a million civilians unable to reach safety, incapable of defending themselves, and utterly deprived of their most basic rights to life, liberty and security. I was, therefore, very pleased to note the strong support for my humanitarian assessment mission which will depart for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on Saturday. They have a delicate and difficult task ahead of them, but I am confident that if they receive the support of all sides, they will be able to give us a fresh and frank report on the humanitarian consequences of the crisis in Kosovo, and throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. All of us who are engaged in the effort to provide relief and refuge to the victims of the war, and to return them to their homes, have already learned many lessons in this short time. It is my hope that this meeting will prove a testing ground for those lessons, so that we all may leave with new ideas for how to make our efforts on behalf of the victims of the conflict more coherent and more effective.

15 May 1999 Ultimate Crime is to Miss Chance for Peace and Condemn People to Misery of War

Speech (OSSG, SG/SM/6995); peace

Text of the Secretary-General’s speech to the Appeal for Peace Conference, at The Hague. My dear friends and fellow workers for peace, thank you for that wonderful welcome! I cannot tell you how heartening it is to see you all here this morning. I don’t mean just your sheer numbers— though that is impressive enough. I mean knowing how many different countries and continents you come from, and what a great variety of movements you represent. I mean the thought that so many people in so many places, and in so many different ways, are devoting themselves to the cause of peace. Not just casting a vote every four or five years. Not just giving a few dollars now and then—or guilders, or even euros! Not just signing the odd petition when someone pushes it under your nose. But really working, day in, day out, to make things change. The United Nations, as you know, is an association of States. Some unkind people have even called it a trade union of governments. But, I have always believed it needs to be much more than that, if it is to make any real difference in the world. Not for nothing did our founders begin the Charter of the United Nations with the words “We, the Peoples”. They knew that States exist to serve peoples, and not the other way round. At that moment, the world was just emerging from a war in which over 50 million people had died; in which whole countries had been laid waste; in which great cities had been reduced to mile upon mile of smouldering rubble. Our founders knew that people all over the world were looking to them to make sure that such a nightmare would never be repeated. It was that hope, that expectation, which they captured so unforgettably, in words that echo down to us across the decades: “determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. My friends, I cannot pronounce those words before you this morning without a feeling of deep frustration. We all know how far, far short of fulfilling that great expectation we still are. Forgive me if I think first of all my fellow Africans, who are feeling the scourge of war today, even as we speak. The genocide in Rwanda and the subsequent conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have at least received worldwide publicity, even if far too little effective international action. But other wars, hardly less murderous, have been almost completely ignored. For instance: In Congo-Brazzaville, a conflict that has gone almost

704 • 15 May 1999

unnoticed by the world has claimed thousands of lives; in the first four months of this year alone, the renewal of civil war in Angola has displaced 780,000 people, bringing to some 1.5 million the number who have been driven from their homes; the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, where human wave attacks have produced thousands of battlefield casualties and deaths, has displaced over 550,000 people; some 440,000 refugees have poured out of Sierra Leone into Guinea and Liberia during an eight-year conflict, characterized by brutality, rape and murder—and a further 310,000 people are displaced within Sierra Leone; in the Sudan, since 1983, Africa’s longest running civil war has caused nearly 2 million deaths. In Africa as a whole, there are now some 4 million refugees, and probably at least 10 million internally displaced persons. Africa has the largest share of conflict today. But, no part of the world is immune. This morning, our minds focus especially on what is happening here in Europe. At the end of this century, the scourge of war has returned, with a vengeance, to the continent which produced two world wars in the first half of the century. During this decade, we have witnessed, in the former Yugoslavia, scenes which Europe thought it had left behind forever in 1945. And in the last two months, in Kosovo, those scenes have reached a ghastly climax: villages burnt; families driven from their homes at gunpoint; men separated from their families and taken away—many of them, it seems, massacred in cold blood; whole cities and tracts of countryside emptied of their population; people herded into train cars; roads clogged with refugees; tent cities springing up overnight in what had been barren borderlands, and filled with thousand upon thousand of uprooted, bewildered people. Who among us, seeing or hearing of these things, has not burned with indignation? Who among us has not felt that something must be done to stop it—something swift, forceful and effective? And yet, who among us is not also troubled by the implications for world order, and for the United Nations itself? While supporting and encouraging all those who worked for a peaceful solution in Kosovo, I recognized publicly—as long ago as last June— that there might come a moment when force would have to be used. And I voiced the hope then that, if that moment did come, the Security Council would shoulder its heavy burden of responsibility. It would serve no purpose now to discuss whose fault it was that that did not happen. No doubt each

of us could and should have done more than we did. What matters now is that peace be restored as soon as possible. There must be a political solution based on the rule of law, and on justice and safety for the victims. Last week’s statement of the Group of Eight was an important step in the right direction. I reaffirm my support for that declaration. My own envoys, Carl Bildt and Eduard Kukan, are working hard with others to secure a political settlement of the crisis, and to plan—and press hard for—its implementation. But, what I want to say to you now, my dear friends, is this: Don’t despair. Don’t be discouraged. Above all, don’t give up. No one ever promised it would be easy to rid the world of the scourge of war, which is so deeply rooted in human history—perhaps, even in human nature. No one ever said there would be no setbacks. No one ever promised us that the road would always be clear, or that those sincerely committed to peace would not sometimes be deeply divided. We all want peace. We all want justice. No one wants to choose between the two. All of us feel instinctively that they must go together. Is not injustice one of the main causes of conflict and war? Can there be true and lasting peace without justice? In a broad sense, I am sure there cannot. If people’s just grievances are constantly denied or ignored, sooner or later their anger will boil over into violence. We all know that. But don’t we also know that sometimes to insist on perfect justice is to insist on perpetuating conflict? Don’t we all admire the choice that the new South Africa has made, in settling for truth and reconciliation rather than absolute justice? What hope of peace would there be if we insisted on full justice for every wrong done to indigenous peoples all over the world, in 500 years of colonialism? In truth, we can never really make amends to the dead. All the dead can ask of us is that we do our utmost to spare the living, and those yet unborn, from repeating their ordeal. Yes, we must insist on ending the culture of impunity. We must, and we will, give our full support to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, based here in this city, which has a legal obligation to prosecute all those responsible for crimes against humanity. And we must push ahead with the creation of the permanent International Criminal Court. Let me acknowledge once again the magnificent contribution made by voluntary groups from all over the world, many of whom are represented in this hall today, in getting the Statute of the Court adopted in Rome last year.

17 May 1999 • 705 Let me also welcome the campaign launched by Amnesty International, the International Federation for the Rights of Man, and Human Rights Watch, calling for United Nations Member States to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court. We do all these things for the sake of the future, not the past. We do them to secure peace, not to perpetuate war. The conflicts still raging in Africa, in Europe, and elsewhere must not discourage us. It is not true that we are getting nowhere. Many conflicts have been ended. Many others have been prevented, because disputes were settled peacefully. Precisely for that reason we do not think about them—we may not even have heard of them. I commend to you especially today a new book published by the United Nations and available for the first time at this Conference: Peaceful Resolution of Major International Disputes. In it, you will find guidelines for negotiations, derived from real case studies of very serious disputes, which could have done terrible damage to world peace—but did not. Those disputes—the border dispute between Russia and China, and the arguments over nuclear arsenals between the United States and the Soviet Union—were successfully and peacefully resolved. So you see, my friends, it can be done. Disputes can be resolved peacefully. Wars can be ended. Even better, they can be prevented. It takes wisdom and statesmanship on the part of political leaders. It takes patient and skilful diplomacy. But, perhaps most important of all, it requires a deep change in civil society—the development of a culture in which statesmen and diplomats alike know what is expected of them. They have to know that, in the eyes of their fellow citizens, the ultimate crime is not to give away some real or imaginary national interest. The ultimate crime is to miss the chance for peace, and so condemn your people to the unutterable misery of war. My friends, it is you—and people like you, all over the world—who are slowly bringing about that deep and essential change. Let me thank you once again, and say: Please keep it up!

17 May 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Kosovo Excerpts from the noon briefing by the deputy spokesman for the Secretary-General, Manoel de Almeida e Silva.

Secretary-General

Good afternoon. The Secretary-General, this morning, went to the Peace Palace in The Hague to address a conference commemorating the Centennial of the First International Peace Conference of 1899, and the adoption, two months later, of an International Convention creating the Permanent Court of Arbitration. . . . At a press encounter afterwards, the SecretaryGeneral was asked if he had a message for the Yugoslav leadership. “I would appeal to them”, he responded, “to think of their people, to think of the destruction that is going on, and to be open to a settlement, so that we can see the end of the bombing, we can see an end to the destruction in the region, and that we can begin planning for peace and planning for the [return of] refugees before winter comes.” . . . Kosovo

As you know, the Secretary-General announced his intention to visit Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in order to gain a personal sense of the plight of the people there and the conditions under which they are being housed, as well as the immense burden that both asylum countries are bearing. I can tell you, today, that the SecretaryGeneral is scheduled to visit the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on Wednesday and Albania the following day. Today, the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Balkans, Eduard Kukan, is here at United Nations Headquarters. He will meet with the Deputy Secretary-General, other senior officials and Council members. In the region, the Secretary-General’s needs assessment mission to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including Kosovo, led by Sergio Vieira de Mello, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, arrived in Belgrade yesterday. . . . On the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia side of the border, the UNHCR reported that one train arrived this morning, but that only 10 people got off. Up to 1,500 passengers on the train were taken back into Kosovo. The UNHCR said it doesn’t know why this was being done. Those who got off the train said they saw thousands of others waiting to board the packed train along the way. Over the weekend, arrivals from Kosovo’s Vitina area estimated that at least 40,000 were in the area surrounded by Serbian forces, and that

706 • 17 May 1999

they were unable to leave. Food shortages were reported. One woman told the UNHCR that Albanians were only allowed to buy bread and only if it was available. Generally, Albanians were not allowed to go on the streets, she said. There were also alarming reports of three places in Urosevac—a factory, a school and a barn—where the Serbian military kept weapons and where civilians were allegedly held as human shields. The reports could not be confirmed independently. More details on that are available in the UNHCR update in our Office upstairs.

while we both are familiar with the subject, we are handicapped in preparing the note requested by the Secretary-General, as we do not have the relevant files with us. You may, therefore, wish to request OLA and DPKO (and perhaps with some input from EOSG) to prepare the note and send it to the team in Sweden. Thank you.

18 May 1999 Secretary-General, Security Council Must Be Cornerstone of Efforts to Promote International Peace in Next Century

18 May 1999

Speech (OSSG, SG/SM/6997); peace

Letter (UN archives); international humanitarian law

Speech delivered by the Secretary-General on the occasion of the centennial of the first International Peace Conference, at The Hague.

Internal note to the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, from Lamin Sise marked urgent and copied to Bernard Miyet, Hans Corell, and Hedi Annabi in the Secretariat. NOTE TO MR. RIZA

Guidelines on International Humanitarian Law

1. The Secretary-General today expressed serious concern regarding the delay in finalizing the guidelines on International Humanitarian Law (IHL) applicable to United Nations Forces. He specifically requested that a note be prepared and sent to him urgently explaining the following; points: a. Why has it taken nearly four years for the Secretariat to complete preparation of the guidelines, especially in the light of the fact that no new IHL rules were being introduced? b. What is the precise difficulty between DPKO and OLA that hampered the conclusion of the guidelines? c. If indeed it was this inter-departmental problem which hindered the conclusion of the guidelines, why was this fact not brought to his attention? 2. The Secretary-General’s concerns were triggered today by an encounter be had with Mr. Sommaruga (ICRC), who also addressed the opening ceremonies of the centennial International Peace Conference here in the Hague. I briefly indicated some of the difficulties to the SecretaryGeneral but because of time constraint, I could not go into further details. I also discussed the matter with Mr. Corell over dinner tonight. However,

I am privileged to join you today for a historic commemoration. We meet at a time of war to reflect on the price of peace. We meet to pay tribute to visionary men and women who sought to make the twentieth century more peaceful than the preceding one. We meet to honour the power of hope over human experience. It is, however, not only hope, but fear, too, that has brought us together today—fear of repeating this century’s horrors of war and genocide, horrors that no member of The Hague Conference of 1899 could have ever imagined. We know that their cause—today, a hundred years later—is only more relevant, more necessary, more urgent. We know this because we are meeting in the shadow of a war that recalls the very worst of our century—crimes against humanity, mass killings, and the wholesale expulsion of an entire people simply for who they are. It is hard—in the presence of such terrors—not to lose faith in humanity altogether. After all that this century has endured, if Europe at its end can still witness the crimes of Kosovo, can we be justified in speaking at all of human progress? How can we say that conferences such as The Hague have pulled us back from the brink of disaster, when the abyss is revealed before us on our television screens every hour of every day? Today, I wish to offer an answer that may give some hope for the future, but also reveal how far we are from realizing the vision of those we honour today. When they gathered in this city 100 years ago, their purpose was not to end a war, but to prevent a future one. They were pioneers of conflict pre-

18 May 1999 • 707 vention. Seeking to elaborate instruments for the pacific settlement of crises, the prevention of wars and the codification of rules of warfare, they aimed to introduce basic principles of humanity into the most inhuman aspect of existence. All their efforts were inspired, in the words of the Preamble, by the “desire to diminish the evils of war, so far as military requirements permit”. These words may well capture the achievement and the limitations of The Hague Conferences. Failing chiefly in the area of restriction of armaments, they were successful with respect to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. In defining the nature of arbitration and in codifying the rules of arbitral procedure, they resulted in many cases of successful international arbitration. They gave birth to the idea of a permanent international court which led to the establishment of the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1922, predecessor of the International Court of Justice. In a larger sense, the spirit and ideas behind The Hague Conference prepared the ground for the creation of the United Nations itself. A legal regime of international peace and security was institutionalized through the Charter of the United Nations, obligating signatory States to a wide range of limitations on the use of force. What is clear not only from the state of international law—but also from the reality of conflict today—is that this is a dynamic effort requiring ceaseless determination on the part of all those who seek peaceful coexistence among nations. Since 1996, we have seen the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the entry into force of the Landmines Convention, and, above all, the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court, in my view, represents the greatest recent single act of progress for justice, human rights and the rule of law. The adoption of the Statute was a giant step towards universalizing the fight against impunity to include every country, every leader, and every militia guilty of crimes against our common humanity. However, the rule of law in relations between States cannot be limited to lawmaking alone. Respect for international legal obligations is an indispensable core of the system we seek. That is why a renewal of the effectiveness and relevance of the Security Council must become a cornerstone of our efforts to promote international peace and security in the next century.

Since the end of the cold war, the world has witnessed important instances in which the Council rose to the challenge and legitimized both peacekeeping operations and the use of force when they were just and necessary. Central America and the reversal of the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait are prime examples of the Security Council playing the role envisioned for it by its founders. However, more recently, there has been a regrettable tendency for the Security Council not to be involved in efforts to maintain international peace and security. The case of Kosovo has cast into sharp relief the fact that Member States and regional organizations sometimes take enforcement action without Security Council authorization. A parallel trend has been the flouting of international sanctions imposed by the Security Council by individual Member States, and even regional organizations. In addition, States have failed to cooperate with the Security Council in a variety of areas, from disarmament and non-proliferation to cooperation with the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and with United Nations investigative human rights missions. Of course, national interest has a great and permanent role to play in the occasional choice of States to choose alternatives to collective security. In addition, the proliferation of regional and subregional arrangements, the preference for socalled “coalitions of the willing”, the increasingly divergent views within the Council, and the emergence of the single super-Power and new regional Powers have all contributed to the present situation. What has been most worrying, in my view, has been the inability of States to reconcile national interests when skilful and visionary diplomacy would make unity possible. National interest is a permanent feature of international relations and of the life and work of the Security Council. But as the world has changed in profound ways since the end of the cold war, I believe our conceptions of national interest have failed to follow suit, and it must change. A new, more broadly defined, more widely conceived definition of national interest in the new century would, I am convinced, induce States to find far-greater unity in the pursuit of such basic Charter values as democracy, pluralism, human rights and the rule of law. I say this not least because I believe we are presented with just such a case in Kosovo.

708 • 18 May 1999

As you will recall, my reaction to the decision of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to take enforcement action without seeking explicit Security Council authorization was twofold: I identified the Security Council as having the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. With equal emphasis, I also stated that it was the rejection of a political settlement by the Yugoslav authorities which made this action necessary, and that, indeed, there “are times when the use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace”. My regret then—and now—is that the Council was unable to unify these two equally compelling interests—and two equally compelling priorities— of the international community. For this much is clear: unless the Security Council is restored to its preeminent position as the sole source of legitimacy on the use of force, we are on a dangerous path to anarchy. But equally importantly, unless the Security Council can unite around the aim of confronting massive human rights violations and crimes against humanity on the scale of Kosovo, then we will betray the very ideals that inspired the founding of the United Nations. This is the core challenge of the Security Council and the United Nations as a whole in the next century: to unite behind the principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights conducted against an entire people cannot be allowed to stand. For in a world where globalization has limited the ability of States to control their economies, regulate their financial policies, and isolate themselves from environmental damage and human migration, the last right of States cannot and must not be the right to enslave, persecute or torture their own citizens. The choice, in other words, must not be between Council unity and inaction in the face of genocide—as in the case of Rwanda, on the one hand; or Council division, and regional action, as in the case of Kosovo, on the other. In both cases, the Member States of the United Nations should have been able to find common ground in upholding the principles of the Charter, and find unity in defence of our common humanity. On the eve of a new millennium, it is this United Nations we seek—responsive to a dynamic and changing world, respectful of the sovereignty of States, and resilient in its determination to advance the rights and freedoms of the peoples of the world.

19 May 1999 Secretary-General Welcomes Ceasefire Agreement in Sierra Leone

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/6998); Sierra Leone Text of a statement by the Secretary-General concerning the ceasefire agreement on Sierra Leone between President Kabbah and Foday Sankoh, the leader of the Revolutionary United Front. Yesterday, 18 May, President Kabbah of Sierra Leone and Corporal Foday Sankoh, leader of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), signed a ceasefire agreement in Lomé, Togo. The agreement commits both sides to observe a ceasefire from 24 May. On the following day, 25 May, the Government of Sierra Leone will commence discussions in Lomé with the RUF delegation on a possible peace agreement. The ceasefire agreement provides for guarantees of safe and unhindered humanitarian access to populations in need and the immediate release of all prisoners of war and non-combatants. The parties have also agreed to request the United Nations, subject to Security Council authorization, to deploy military observers as soon as possible to observe compliance with the agreement. I welcome the signing of the ceasefire agreement, which will help create an atmosphere conducive to the success of the peace talks to begin on 25 May. I call on the RUF, the Civil Defence Forces, the Government and the Economic Community of West African States’ Monitoring Observer Group (ECOMOG) to adhere strictly to its terms. I congratulate the signatories: President Gnassingbe Eyadema of Togo, Chairman of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), who hosted the talks; the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the United States Presidential Special Envoy for the Promotion of Democracy in Africa, who witnessed the signing; and the Organization of African Unity (OAU), whose representative also attended. My appreciation also goes to my Special Representative for Sierra Leone, Francis Okelo, and to the staff of the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL), who did so much behind the scenes to make the drafting and signing of the agreement possible. I now intend to initiate immediate measures to strengthen UNOMSIL to play its role in implementing the agreement. The Secretariat is sending a military assessment team to Sierra Leone to draw up plans for an expanded presence, which we would then submit to the Security Council for

19 May 1999 • 709 approval in the event of a lasting peace agreement between the Government and the RUF.

19 May 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Kosovo Excerpts from the noon briefing by the deputy spokesman for the Secretary-General, Manoel de Almeida e Silva. Secretary-General

The Secretary-General, as you know, is in Skopje, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. He arrived there this morning and I want to report, first, on his visit to the refugee camp known as Stenkovec, just outside Skopje. He spoke to refugees and answered a few questions from the press. He told the journalists that the Government had reassured him they would keep their borders open, and that they had 20,000 to 30,000 new places for additional refugees, should they arrive. “We hope that will not happen”, he said. From Stenkovec, he drove to the official border crossing from Kosovo at Blace, where nearly 2,500 refugees had crossed over yesterday, and another 1,500 today. He and his wife, Nane, who is also there, were able to have more leisurely exchanges with refugees. It was a calmer situation. They spoke to a 100-year-old woman and with the mother of a one-day-old child born in the woods yesterday. Talking about the movement of refugees into the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, we have information from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) that about 3,000 crossed in—the 1,500 I already mentioned, which came in their own vehicles, and another 1,500 refugees who arrived by train later in the day. The first activity of the Secretary-General in Skopje, this morning, was to meet Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski, who was accompanied by the Foreign Minister, the Defence Minister and the Interior Minister. They discussed current efforts to provide for the 228,000 refugees in the country, the economic and social impact of the crisis, and how the international community can help. He then met with representatives of United Nations agencies and non- governmental organizations (NGOs) operating in the country. He informed them that the Government had agreed to rent the former headquarters premises of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the for-

mer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, so that United Nations agencies could base themselves there, facilitating communication and cooperation. He acknowledged some criticism of United Nations performance and urged all to work together for maximum efficiency and effectiveness. The NGO representatives pledged to continue to follow the lead of the UNHCR and welcomed the appointment of Martin Griffiths to coordinate broader and longer-term planning. He is expected to have, in about five minutes, a press conference in Skopje. Secretary-General’s Special Envoys to Balkans

Here, closer to us, the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Balkans, Eduard Kukan, travelled to Washington, D.C., where he was scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to discuss the United Nations role in peace negotiations on the future of Kosovo. He has said he will also meet Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov on Thursday, in Moscow, as part of these consultations. The Secretary-General’s other Special Envoy for the Balkans, Carl Bildt, was in Europe, where he continued to establish and maintain contacts with all parties concerned as part of his mandate to facilitate a lasting political solution to the crisis. He was in Brussels today. . . . QUESTION: Regarding the extension of the mandate of the judge in Rwanda, since this judge has been elected . . . do we have any legal precedent here, where a judge has been elected and the SecretaryGeneral is asking that his mandate be extended? DEPUTY SPOKESMAN: The reason the SecretaryGeneral is requesting that is because his mandate expires on the twenty-fourth. However, two trials on which he sits would have to be started all the way from the beginning, if he were to be replaced by another judge, which would violate the rights of the accused to due process of law. Therefore, the Secretary-General has asked the Security Council, as the parent organ of the Tribunal, and the General Assembly, which is responsible for electing the judges, to allow Judge Aspergren to stay until the cases he sits on are completed. FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: If a judge dies in the process, what would happen? DEPUTY SPOKESMAN: Well, nobody has control over that. This is a controllable situation. . . .

19 May 1999 Press Conference in Skopje

Press conference (OSSG); Kosovo

710 • 19 May 1999

Let me say that this afternoon I’ve been able to visit the Stankovic refugee camp, and I went to Blace as well. And there, I heard horrible and heartbreaking stories of Kosovo, and that really drove home to me and to all my party the need to intensify the efforts to get a political solution. To see people uprooted, bewildered, not knowing where they’re going to sleep next, when they will go home, and what happens to them, is something that we all have to see to believe. I would also want to say that I had very constructive discussions with the President and the Prime Minister. We discussed the issue of whether the Albanians who are here are deportees or refugees. And I hope I’ve been able to put it to bed once and for all that they are deportees and they are refugees, and deserve the rights of refugees anywhere in the world. I was also very encouraged by the Government reaffirming to me that they have decided to keep the borders open, and that the borders will be open and that, given the 50,000 departures, there is room to receive additional refugees if they were to come. I hope that will not be necessary, but given the history of the past month or two, one cannot be certain. I also shared with the Government my intention to open a UN House here in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which would be the headquarters or centre of operations for all the UN agencies operating here and in this region. Let me introduce to you our new regional coordinator for the UN system’s assistance. Martin Griffiths, who has taken up his responsibilities. He will have regional responsibilities in southeastern Europe and he will try and identify gaps [inaudible; the Secretary-General also introduces Dennis McNamara of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees], and as you know, UNHCR is the lead agency of the UN’s efforts here. And I think some of you know both of them, but if you don’t know them, you’re going to get to know them and see a lot of them, and I’m sure they can count on your cooperation and support. I will now take your questions. QUESTION: Do you see the United Nations moving stronger in the role of diplomacy and bringing an end to this crisis [inaudible]? SECRETARY-GENERAL: Let me say that we have been very busy carrying on our humanitarian activities which has been essential and crucial, and I really thank the Government and the people of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for the assistance they have given to the refugees. I should say that now the efforts to seek a political

solution have intensified. I’m on the line a lot. I just spoke to (President Martti) Ahtisaari this afternoon. I’m in touch with Strobe (US UnderSecretary of State, Strobe Talbott), with the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of Germany, President Chirac, Madame Albright, and everyone. I think we are now moving forward in a coordinated manner to get a political solution, and everyone involved also agrees that it has come back to the UN, and the Security Council must play its role and give any presence on the ground the legitimacy that it requires. So we are moving forward. We are working very hard, in a coordinated manner. I know often I’ve been asked who is negotiating, who is doing what, who is up front, who is in the background. What is important is that we all pool our efforts to get the results, and as quickly as possible. The issue is too big for us to get into a competitive sort of thing. So the UN is going to play a role and I have made it clear that my good offices and the good offices of my two envoys, Carl Bildt, and Eduard Kukan, are also available, and we are coordinating with others. QUESTION: There’s been some concern about the participation of NATO troops in the humanitarian relief effort compromising its neutrality. Do you have any comment? S-G: Let me say that humanitarian activities are obviously a civilian operation, and there are rules to humanitarian activities and humanitarian assistance. We could not have done our work without the logistical support we got from national contingents. No one anticipated the flood of refugees that we got. We didn’t. NATO and those that planned the operations didn’t. I don’t think this Government did. And without the support and the organized skills the military brought to help set up camps, move the [inaudible], off-load the supplies from planes and ships, we could not have done it. But that having been said, I think it has to be clear that the lead agency is UNHCR, working with the NGOs, and they should be able to indicate what needs to be done, and in fact, we did exchange letters with the national contingents right from the beginning as to what was required and what the rules were. If there have been some problems, I hope that these are not insurmountable, and that we will get on with our work. Now we are more up to speed, we have brought in more and more people. We did have some difficulties at the beginning, and I know that some people have been rather unkind—and not UNHCR. But who would not have had difficulties in this situation? But we are tackling the situation as best as we can,

19 May 1999 • 711 and I think we’re doing better, and we are not going to have a quarrel with the troops who helped us initially, and who may still need to help us. QUESTION: You must be aware that, two months into this crisis, there were refugees coming across this border who were sitting in buses on the border, with no food, very little ventilation, for five or six hours, and they were treated in a way that a medical worker said to me would not be allowed for animals in western Europe. Is there nothing more that your officials can do to try and ease the situation of those refugees and to remind the Macedonian police that they should be treated like human beings? S-G: I just indicated to you that I had very good discussions with the Government and we agreed that the borders would remain open, they would give assistance to the refugees, they would work with us in ensuring that they get the support and the assistance they need. We have brought in additional people. And I hope the situation you described is a thing of the past, and that it’s not something that’s going to be repeated. Because you’re right, they are human beings. They suddenly find themselves uprooted. We have a human tragedy on our hands, and all of us, regardless of who we are, and where we come from, have to be sensitive to this condition, and show compassion and provide assistance wherever we can. But let me say one thing. We tend to believe that it is those who give money, those who send food and equipment who are really helping the refugees. In all the refugee situations that we have looked through, and I also worked for the High Commissioner for Refugees some years ago, it is the asylum countries that often make the biggest contribution. Yes, sometimes it’s difficult, sometimes they have to deal with their own people, and there is resistance. But they do make a major contribution, and I take your point. And as I said, I hope it’s a thing of the past. I was very encouraged by the discussions I had earlier today with the Prime Minister in the presence of the Defence Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of Interior, and they all gave me their assurance that the borders will be opened, will not be closed, but of course— and the President confirmed this—we do require other players, other countries, and the entire international community, and all of us, also to play our part to avoid the situation that you refer to, whether it’s on the other side of the border or on this side of the border. QUESTION (translated from French): [inaudible]. S-G: Je crois que nous sommes déjà au centre

des choses parce que si on doit passer par le Conseil de sécurité pour trouver une solution l’Organisation des Nations Unies est pleinement au centre. Comme je venais de dire nous sommes en contact avec tout le monde. Je crois que l’on doit pouvoir travailler ensemble pour trouver une solution aussi rapidement que possible. Et j’espère que [inaudible] mais sur le plan humanitaire je ne crois pas que 1’y ait beaucoup de compétition. Il y avait quelques accrochements mais je crois que l’on a surmonte ça . . . QUESTION: Do you think a NATO cease-fire would help the search for a solution? S-G: I am not in the loop as to NATO’s military plans and approach and tactics. What is clear is that several countries are asking for a pause, including the Russians and the Chinese. Obviously, Mr. Chernomyrdin is in Belgrade pursuing his discussions, and I hope that the next week or so will be critical. I think it is encouraging and healthy that people are talking and everyone is discussing how we come out of this. I think it is urgent, above all, for the people who have been uprooted. It is urgent that we find a solution very soon. As you can all imagine, winter is just around the corner—it seems as if it’s a long time away— and we need to take some important and critical decisions. You need to think of winterization, where do we do the winterization, this side of the border or the other side, and therefore, we are all actively trying to see what we can do to resolve some of these urgent and critical issues. QUESTION: Do you think it would help? S-G: I’ve answered your question. QUESTION: What role do you see the United Nations playing [inaudible] in Kosovo? S-G: We will continue to play the role we are playing here on the humanitarian front. If and when there is an agreement, with a pause or whatever, I would hope that the international community’s effort is not going to be limited to humanitarian assistance. I think apart from a military presence, I would like to see an international presence that gets engaged in reconstruction, in institutionbuilding, in handling the issues of refugees, returnees and displaced persons, and possibly, police monitoring and police training. QUESTION: [inaudible]. S-G: Let me say that, as to timing, as to when we’re going to get peace, I really cannot answer that question. I cannot answer that question because I don’t think we are in a position to make that kind of prediction. That peace will come tomorrow, next week, or the day after. What is

712 • 19 May 1999

important is that a serious effort is going on to find peace, the parties are engaged, and that is the beginning of serious negotiations. Mediators can do nothing until the parties engage seriously, and in a meaningful way, and I think that will to find a solution is there now. We all listen to the news and watch television. On the question of uniting for peace, the issue was raised earlier on in the United Nations, and several Member States discussed it. In fact, the President of the General Assembly was at The Hague with me yesterday, and we did touch on this issue briefly. But it was never pushed to a point where the General Assembly actually convened in the spirit of uniting for peace. Would it be done later? I’m not sure. I don’t think so. It is possible, but I don’t see any real push for that. And in the meantime, serious negotiations are moving forward, and as I said, with the Security Council being required to play its role. QUESTION: [inaudible]. S-G: Obviously, the G8 has come up with a declaration. They’re meeting, as we speak, in Bonn. I don’t know the outcome of that meeting. What is clear and what we must all understand is that what is going on is a discussion and ironingout of differences or details between [members of] the G8. Once that is done, President Milosevic will have to be confronted with whatever the outcome is. Until that happens, we will not have an idea of how he is going to react, or how soon we are going to get a peace agreement. But I would hope that he would think of his people, he would think of his country, he would think of the region, and be open to a solution, and to a peaceful settlement. QUESTION: [inaudible; reference to S-G at The Hague and his quote on anarchy]. S-G: Yes, I did predict anarchy, but I have to put it in context. I said that, if we do not find a way of restoring the primary role of the Security Council on issues of peace and security, and it becomes a free-for-all, where groups of countries or individual countries can cross borders that would lead to conflict, we are going to have anarchy in our world. I have always insisted that we must all accept the primacy of the role of law. It was in that context, it was a general statement, and I did make that statement at The Hague peace conference 100 anniversary celebration. And it’s interesting you remind me, 100 years ago, leaders came together hoping to avoid war to settle an existing dispute, but to come up with an approach that would avoid the situation we are living in. One hundred years later, here we are, discussing this. I

went to the Hague to celebrate a peace centennial, but we all toil in the shadow of war and in the darkness of what is happening.

25 May 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Kosovo Excerpts from the noon briefing by the deputy spokesman for the Secretary-General, Manoel de Almeida e Silva. Secretary General

Good afternoon. The Secretary-General began his official visit to Sweden this morning by addressing a donors’ conference on Central America called to address two themes: the unfinished political and human rights agendas of the peace process, and the reconstruction agenda following Hurricane Mitch. The high-level meeting in Stockholm was attended by the Presidents of Honduras and Nicaragua, delegates from all Central American countries, and representatives of donor countries and multilateral aid agencies. The Secretary-General called for the building of a new compact between the region and the international community so that the paths of peace and reconstruction could be brought more closely together. We have copies of his speech available in our Office both in English and in Spanish. In the margins of the Central America conference, the Secretary-General had the opportunity to meet with Brian Atwood, Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, and Charles Josselin, France’s Minister of International Development, to discuss the humanitarian response to Kosovo. Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson then hosted a working lunch for the Secretary-General and his delegation, which focused almost exclusively on Kosovo, although they also discussed a Swedish government initiative in support of action to prevent conflicts. . . . Meanwhile, the United Nations needs assessment mission returned to Belgrade several hours ago today. On Monday, the mission members had visited areas inside Montenegro, where, in addition to assessing the needs of the civilian population, they had talks with environmentalists on the impact of the bombings on national parks, flora and fauna. The two members who had been injured in a road accident earlier on in the mission were scheduled to be “medivaced” on Wednesday to the New York area. Sergio Vieira de Mello, the mission leader, will

26 May 1999 • 713 be giving a press conference in Belgrade tomorrow, Wednesday, at 6 p.m. local time. We hope to be able to have the sound feed here in New York of that press conference. If we do, we’ll let you know, of course. Mr. Vieira de Mello will be preparing a report for the Secretary-General and the Security Council, and he is expected to brief the Council early next week. United Nations Agencies in Kosovo

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) issued a report today on rape and abduction among Kosovar women refugees. Based on recent interviews conducted with women in camps around Tirana and Kukes, the report describes instances of repeated rape, beatings and other forms of torture. There are still no accurate estimates for the number of Kosovar women who have been raped. However, reports like this one indicate widespread sexual violence and raise the alarm that the women remaining in Kosovo are under great threat, according to the UNFPA. Kosovo Refugees

Refugees, meanwhile, are continuing to cross into Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. There were no immediate figures from Albania today, but 1,500 had been reported to have arrived in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Since last Friday, well over 20,000 Kosovar refugees have poured into the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, putting a new strain on the country’s reception capacity and signalling another massive wave of ethnic cleansing. Those arriving over the past few days included persons from Pristina and Urosevac areas, as well as displaced people who had moved to those cities over the past year from all over the province. On the Albania side, staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported a security incident at the border around 7:45 Monday evening, when two shots were fired across the border and came close to our colleagues at border point. This reinforced our resolve to keep moving refugees from the border areas to points south. Over the past month, 100,000 new refugees have arrived in Albania from Kosovo, bringing the total refugee population to around 438,000. Despite the fact that the UNHCR and the authorities have been moving refugees every day from the insecure northern region of Kukes to other parts of the country, there are still close to 100,000 refugees in that area. . . . QUESTION: Mr. Vieira de Mello—what day does he come back and will he be talking with Mr.

Annan in Europe before he comes back here to the Council? DEPUTY SPOKESMAN: As of now, it looks like they’ll be meeting in New York, and that should be very early next week, meaning they’ll both be back over the long weekend. . . .

26 May 1999 Secretary-General Praises the Work of the Civilian Humanitarian Staff in Response to Kosovo Crisis

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7006); Kosovo Following my visits to the refugee camps in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania, I wish to express my deep appreciation for the tireless work of the many civilian staff of United Nations agencies, the Red Cross movement, and non-governmental organizations, in mounting an immediate response to the humanitarian emergency caused by the Kosovo crisis. I also thank the military personnel of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance for their considerable support, without which we could not have coped. I have discussed with NATO SecretaryGeneral Solana the necessity of respecting the distinction between humanitarian action and military activities. If these lines are blurred, there is a grave risk of irreparable damage to the principle of impartiality of humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian work must be led and coordinated by civilians.

26 May 1999 Press Conference on Kosovo

Press conference (OSSG); Kosovo Press conference with the Secretary-General and Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov. Present with the Secretary-General were his two special envoys, Carl Bildt and Eduard Kukan. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Foreign Minister Ivanov and I have had very constructive talks on the search for peace in Kosovo—where we stand and what will be the next steps once we have a breakthrough on the peace front. We will be ready to take your questions. QUESTION: Are you any closer to an agreement on the withdrawal of forces and also the composition of the international force? S-G: I think we are working very hard. I would ask Minister Ivanov, maybe, to say a word on that.

714 • 26 May 1999

IGOR IVANOV (speaking through an interpreter): Now those issues are being discussed through various channels because there are many aspects on which we need to reach agreement. We cannot say that agreement has been reached, but we can say that we’re working very actively on those issues. . . [inaudible] which need to be resolved after that arrangement or that agreement has been struck. QUESTION (translated from Russian): The issue of Kosovo is being discussed on two channels. One, here in Stockholm, another within the G8 framework, is that correct? IVANOV: We proceed from the assumption that the tragedy in the Balkans encompasses and touches the entire European community. And all opportunities must be used in order to find a solution. We believe the United Nations is to play a pivotol role, both in searching for a way to resolve the conflict and in post-conflict rehabilitation. At the same time, if the G8 and other channels can yield practical results, they should be used. QUESTION: W. Ivanov, what will that plan that will be decided in Moscow tonight contain? IVANOV: I think it would be better to address this question to the people who are in Moscow now discussing this. QUESTION: Has your group been in touch with the group in Moscow today? S-G: You mean our group? QUESTIONER: Yes. S-G: I have spoken to both Mr. Ahtisaari and Strobe Talbot, [US] Deputy Secretary of State, this morning. And, as you can see, Mr. Ivanov is also here. So we are working in a coordinated way, not in competition, as the Minister said earlier. And so, those looking for competition are going to be disappointed. We are moving in the same direction, we are after the same objective, and we’re going to keep pooling our efforts. QUESTION: How much longer can Russia be involved in negotiations while NATO’s bombing goes on in Yugoslavia? IVANOV: Since March 24, Russia has been strongly pressing toward the cessation of NATO’s military operation, and our assessment of the NATO operation remains the same. It hasn’t changed. That action is illegal. It is in violation of the UN Charter and the basic principles of international law. And Russia will do its utmost to put an end to that action. QUESTION: Mr. Kukan, do you see any option for direct talks between the United Nations and Belgrade?

S-G: What is important here, is what is going on is that we are all in consultations trying to come up with a common position, a position that would eventually lead to a solution, and also form the basis of a Security Council resolution. The search for this solution is on, and in fact, you refer to what is going on in Moscow today, and the possibility that there will be a trip by Mr. Ahtisaari and Mr. Chernomyrdin to Belgrade. All that is working towards a search. If that succeeds, we all move forward to implementation, and I’m supporting that mission. So the question here is not whether it is the UN directly—and when you say the UN, is it my envoys—who sit directly and discuss this issue in Belgrade? I have made it clear that my good offices and that of my envoys are available. If, at some future date, that becomes necessary, we will not close the door. But, for the moment, we have all supported the Chernomyrdin/Ahtisaari effort..They have my full support. And Ahtisaari, as you know, has had lots of experience working with the UN, both in Namibia and in the Balkans, and I personally have full confidence in him. And-I expect he and Chernomyrdin are determined to push this process forward, and I hope they’ll be successful. QUESTION: Ivanov, is Russia ready to take part in an international peace force in Kosovo, and, if yes, under what conditions? How do you see this force? IVANOV: Provided that a UN Security Council resolution on the implementation, for deployment of the international security force, is passed, and provided that Russia agrees to that resolution, we’ll look into further ways to take part in that force. QUESTION: Mr. Ivanov, NATO says it wants to lead that peace mission in Kosovo. Is that a point where a solution could break, that Russia wouldn’t accept NATO’s lead of that mission? IVANOV: The peace process must go under the UN’s auspices. And here I mean the entire process. And that process consists of civic implementation and an international security presence. So it is a comprehensive operation, and, as Mr. Annan has mentioned, it must be governed by a UN Security Council resolution. As for the international military presence, various aspects and parameters of that presence are under discussion now. FRED ECKARD: Thank you very much.

27 May 1999 Justice Must Be Allowed to Take Its Course

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7008); International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

5 June 1999 • 715

International Rescue Committee Plans Food Airdrops in Kosovo

The Secretary-General condemns this attack against United Nations personnel and calls on the Government of Israel to take all necessary measures to ensure that the Israel Defence Forces and their local Lebanese auxiliary respect the noncombatant status of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. The President of the Security Council may wish to inform the Members of the Council of this matter. The Secretary-General of the United Nations avails himself of this opportunity to renew to the President of the Security Council the assurances of his highest consideration.

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7014); Kosovo

4 June 1999

The Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Louise Arbour, informed me in person of the Court’s decision to indict President Slobodan Milosevic and other officials of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Tribunal was established by the Security Council. According to its statute, it acts independently. The Prosecutor, therefore, must go where the evidence leads her. Justice must be allowed to take its course.

28 May 1999

The United Nations has been informed of a plan by the International Rescue Committee to conduct airdrops over Kosovo in order to provide emergency food aid to internally displaced persons. The United Nations welcomes any initiative which may help to relieve the urgent needs of displaced persons in Kosovo. The World Food Programme (WFP) has agreed to observe the inspection by Societe Generale de Surveillance, a Swiss firm, of the loading of the aircraft for these airdrops, to certify that only food supplies for humanitarian purposes are loaded.

1 June 1999 Letter (EOSG); Israel Letter to the president of the Security Council, Baboucarr-Blaise Ismaila Jagne, informing him of an Israeli attack on the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. The Secretary General of the United Nations presents his compliments to the President of Security Council and wishes to inform him of the following incident involving the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. At about 0500 hours on 31 May 1999, a mortar round fired from a position of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF)/de facto forces (DFF) impacted at a United Nations position located on the edge of Brashit, while another round impacted 15 metres from the position. An Irish soldier was killed and two others were wounded, one of them seriously. Just before the incident, armed elements fired three mortar rounds at the IDF/DFF. However, their location was about 1 kilometre away from the United Nations position.

Secretary-General Welcomes News of Breakthrough Agreement Reached in Belgrade

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7018); Kosovo I welcome the news of the breakthrough agreement reached in Belgrade yesterday. My warmest congratulations go to President Martti Ahtisaari and Special Envoy Victor Chernomyrdin on their achievement. Though many details of the agreement remain to be defined, we understand that intensive work has begun on a Security Council resolution to put the accord into effect. The United Nations, which has been active in preparing for peace, is proceeding at full speed with its planning, so that it can assume the responsibilities the Security Council may wish to entrust to it, particularly in the civilian field. I have always believed that the only meaningful victory for the international community at the end of this tragic crisis will be one which permits the refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes in safety and dignity. I have asked my Special Envoys, Carl Bildt and Eduard Kukan, to convene a meeting in Geneva of all United Nations agencies and other organizations likely to be involved in post-conflict activities in Kosovo, in order to review the status of our plans for a collective response to this humanitarian and political challenge.

5 June 1999 Letter (UN archives); Yugoslavia Letter sent to the permanent representative of the United States to the UN, A. Peter Burleigh, from

5 June 1999 • 715

International Rescue Committee Plans Food Airdrops in Kosovo

The Secretary-General condemns this attack against United Nations personnel and calls on the Government of Israel to take all necessary measures to ensure that the Israel Defence Forces and their local Lebanese auxiliary respect the noncombatant status of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. The President of the Security Council may wish to inform the Members of the Council of this matter. The Secretary-General of the United Nations avails himself of this opportunity to renew to the President of the Security Council the assurances of his highest consideration.

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7014); Kosovo

4 June 1999

The Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Louise Arbour, informed me in person of the Court’s decision to indict President Slobodan Milosevic and other officials of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Tribunal was established by the Security Council. According to its statute, it acts independently. The Prosecutor, therefore, must go where the evidence leads her. Justice must be allowed to take its course.

28 May 1999

The United Nations has been informed of a plan by the International Rescue Committee to conduct airdrops over Kosovo in order to provide emergency food aid to internally displaced persons. The United Nations welcomes any initiative which may help to relieve the urgent needs of displaced persons in Kosovo. The World Food Programme (WFP) has agreed to observe the inspection by Societe Generale de Surveillance, a Swiss firm, of the loading of the aircraft for these airdrops, to certify that only food supplies for humanitarian purposes are loaded.

1 June 1999 Letter (EOSG); Israel Letter to the president of the Security Council, Baboucarr-Blaise Ismaila Jagne, informing him of an Israeli attack on the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. The Secretary General of the United Nations presents his compliments to the President of Security Council and wishes to inform him of the following incident involving the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. At about 0500 hours on 31 May 1999, a mortar round fired from a position of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF)/de facto forces (DFF) impacted at a United Nations position located on the edge of Brashit, while another round impacted 15 metres from the position. An Irish soldier was killed and two others were wounded, one of them seriously. Just before the incident, armed elements fired three mortar rounds at the IDF/DFF. However, their location was about 1 kilometre away from the United Nations position.

Secretary-General Welcomes News of Breakthrough Agreement Reached in Belgrade

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7018); Kosovo I welcome the news of the breakthrough agreement reached in Belgrade yesterday. My warmest congratulations go to President Martti Ahtisaari and Special Envoy Victor Chernomyrdin on their achievement. Though many details of the agreement remain to be defined, we understand that intensive work has begun on a Security Council resolution to put the accord into effect. The United Nations, which has been active in preparing for peace, is proceeding at full speed with its planning, so that it can assume the responsibilities the Security Council may wish to entrust to it, particularly in the civilian field. I have always believed that the only meaningful victory for the international community at the end of this tragic crisis will be one which permits the refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes in safety and dignity. I have asked my Special Envoys, Carl Bildt and Eduard Kukan, to convene a meeting in Geneva of all United Nations agencies and other organizations likely to be involved in post-conflict activities in Kosovo, in order to review the status of our plans for a collective response to this humanitarian and political challenge.

5 June 1999 Letter (UN archives); Yugoslavia Letter sent to the permanent representative of the United States to the UN, A. Peter Burleigh, from

716 • 5 June 1999

the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza. Identical copies of the letter were sent to the permanent representatives of Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, and France, with the following memorandum. Dear Mr. Ambassador, The Secretary-General would be grateful if the attached memorandum from him is transmitted to your government with a request that it received attention in the G-8 discussions on the draft resolution of the Security Council for the implementation of the agreement reached in Belgrade by President Ahtisaari and Mr. Chernomyrdin with the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Also attached is a text of a letter received today from the FRY Government, which will be circulated as a document of the Security Council. These documents are being transmitted also to the other members of the G-8. With assurances of my highest consideration. Memorandum from the Secretary-General of the United Nations

1. Following the acceptance by the Belgrade authorities of the proposals on Kosovo conveyed to them by President Ahtisaari and Mr. Chernomyrdin, I understand that efforts are underway to prepare a draft resolution for rapid consideration by the Security Council, reflecting the terms of the settlement and putting in place arrangements for implementation. I believe this to be of the highest importance in order to form a sound basis in international law for what is proposed, create the conditions for the safe return to their homes of the refugees and displaced persons and establish a framework for lasting peace, coexistence and reconciliation in the region. 2. I wish in this regard to draw attention to certain concerns that have been on my mind since the beginning of the crisis. These concerns have guided the many weeks of planning in the United Nations for a possible role for the organization and the UN System as a whole. 3. My first concern is that the international community act as far as possible as one in whatever arrangements are made. I mean by this not only the United Nations and its agencies and programmes, but also other non-UN bodies including in particular the European institutions. I consider it essential to avoid duplication and competition ‘and to harmonize the action of the many actors. 4. I am not pronouncing on the international military presence, whose precise composition, as I

understand it, is still under consideration. I do wish to say; however, that in order to ensure harmonious action, overall responsibility for civilian operations should be clearly and unequivocally allocated to a single institution with the specific responsibility of working with all other bodies involved so that the operations will be conducted in an integrated manner. I very much hope that the Security Council will make provision for this. Those drafting the proposal for consideration in the Council may wish to bear this preoccupation in mind. 5. A second concern is that the civilian and security components of the international presence should be directed by the Security Council to operate toward the same goals and in a mutually supportive manner. I cannot over-emphasize the importance of this, in particular during the initial stages in which the various activities will need to interact very closely. 6. A third concern is putting in place a political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement, and negotiations between the parties for a settlement. In this context, consideration should be given to the need for the two processes—i.e. this negotiation and the implementation of agreements on the ground in Kosovo—to work in harmony. 7. I very much hope that these concerns can be borne in mind as the resolution of the Security Council is finalized.

6 June 1999 Letter (UN archives); G-7 summit Letter to Jean Chrétien, prime minister of Canada, with the following Aide Memoir. Excellency, The world looks to the Denver Summit with great hopes and high expectations. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations it is my duty, and my pleasure, to submit a number of points for the consideration of the Heads of State and Government participating in the Summit. Of the many challenges that the community of nations—rich and poor, developed and developing must face as we enter the closing years of this century, three issues related to the United Nations’ agenda stand out as particularly important: • Globalization, Development Cooperation and the Special Needs in Africa; • Meeting environmental challenges; and • Strengthening the United Nations.

6 June 1999 • 717 The attached aide-memoire briefly elaborates and offers suggestions for each of these issues. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. AIDE MEMOIRE

Globalization, Development Cooperation, and Special Needs in Africa

1. The globalization of the economy holds great potential for growth and development. Yet many developing countries, and in particular the least developing countries, have not shared in the fruits of globalization, including expanded international trade and investment. Least developed countries today account for a mere 0.4 per cent share of world trade, and one per cent of inflows of direct foreign investment (FDI) to the developing world. For a third of developing countries, the ratios of FDI to GDP have fallen over the past decade. These countries need to become integrated into the global systems of trade and investment relations. 2. A new paradigm of development cooperation is needed in which assistance is melded with trade and with debt and private investment strategies, and in which new public-private partnerships are moved to center stage. Although development remains primarily the responsibility of developing countries themselves, the international community must secure an international environment favourable to development that allows full growth opportunities to developing countries. 3. Specifically targeted policies are necessary for the least developed countries. They face severe supply-side constraints that can be overcome only by a coupling of debt relief and significant increases in aid as well as in private investment flows. Furthermore, these countries require assistance in creating domestic conditions conducive to investment and in enhancing democratic and transparent governance. Lastly, they would greatly benefit from enhanced access to the markets of major industrialized countries. 4. The United Nations provides a unique forum for development cooperation. Consensus on the international development agenda is translated into norms and agreements, and implemented through the United Nations’ operational activities. With programmes in 173 countries and territories, the United Nations provides substantial development and humanitarian resources, on a grant basis, to developing countries totalling about $6 billion a year. The bulk of this assistance is directed to development in Africa and in the least developed countries.

5. Moreover, the United Nations’ comprehensive mandate, spanning social, economic and political issues, allows it to provide support for integrated approaches to development. It also links work in peacekeeping, refugees, relief and development, and it provides an ideal base for early warning and preventive diplomacy initiatives, and for comprehensive responses to potential or actual crisis situations. 6. One important outcome of the Denver Summit might be a strong reaffirmation of the support of the participating countries for an integrated approach, through the United Nations, to peacebuilding and economic and social progress, and of their commitment to sustain the Organization as a major and reliable source of on-the-ground support to development around the world, and particularly in the low-income countries. 7. Cooperative efforts are underway throughout the entire United Nations system to help countries achieve the priority goals and objectives arising from the recent series of global conferences. The primary goal of the integrated follow-up to the United Nations conferences is poverty eradication through sustainable, people-oriented development. We look to the Denver Summit for continued strong support for these efforts. 8. There are now clear indications that African economies are emerging from the stagnation of the 1980s. Real GDP has grown by 2.5 per cent per annum since 1990. The outcome for 1996 is expected to be better still at a growth rate of 5 per cent, as estimated by the IMF. Politically, African countries are making steady progress in democratization. Over thirty countries have held elections, often with UN assistance, and many of these now have more open and representative systems of government. The stage is set for the industrial countries to reinforce the progress now at last underway in Africa. 9. The interest expressed at previous summits of the major industrialized countries in devising and adopting new initiatives for Africa is most welcome, as are corresponding efforts at the national levels, such as “The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act” under consideration by the U.S. Congress. Strong support by the Denver Summit for existing efforts, including the United Nations System–wide Special Initiative on Africa, which engages the United Nations as well as the Bretton Woods institutions, would add credence to our collective concern to secure economic and political progress across the continent.

718 • 6 June 1999 Meeting the Challenges of the Environment

10. Issues concerning the human environment assume a special significance for the Denver Summit, in view of the fact that the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Environment and Development meets immediately thereafter. Accordingly, the Summit may wish to review progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and other Earth Summit commitments. 11. Much has been accomplished since Rio. There are also major areas of disappointment in the implementation process, however, in particular the failure to abide by the financial commitments made at Rio, and the failure to reverse the major trends in environmental degradation. 12. A reaffirmation by the Denver Summit of the goals reached five years ago is highly desirable, including the provision of increased financial and technical assistance to the developing world. In addition, implementing and strengthening the conventions on Climate Change, Biodiversity and Desertification requires the highest level of political support. 13. A redoubling of efforts is also desirable in incorporating sustainability concerns into various areas of sectoral policy. Among the most urgent are transport, energy, water, and forests. 14. The Commission on Sustainable Development and UNEP continue to be the major global instruments for responding to the challenges of sustainability and the environment. The leaders participating in the Denver Summit have shown both moral and material support, but further progress requires that UN environmental institutions be strengthened. Strengthening the United Nations

15. As suggested by their Lyon Communiqué, and by many other Member States, three Departments in the United Nations Secretariat dealing with socio-economic and development issues have been merged under the authority of a single UnderSecretary-General. This Under-Secretary-General also chairs the Executive Committee on Economic and Social Affairs, providing policy coherence and coordination in the normative functions of the United Nations in these domains. 16. Coordination of United Nations operational activities for development similarly has been entrusted to the Executive Committee for Development Operations, chaired by the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. The operations of these two

Executive Committees will strengthen capacities, improve effectiveness and eliminate overlap. 17. Reforms underway also aim to achieve greater integration and coordination of operational activities for development at the country level. The Resident Coordinator system is being strengthened, to enable the Resident Coordinator to become the leader of a United Nations Country Team and to guide the preparation of a common United Nations country programme framework. A strengthened Resident Coordinator system will result in improved harmonization of United Nations operations, increased information sharing and countrylevel coordination including through the establishment of common premises and services. 18. Plans are being implemented to cut by onethird the proportion of United Nations budget resources used for administrative costs, from 38 per cent to 25 per cent, making those savings available for development activities. Furthermore, the proposed budget for the next biennium includes a real reduction in expenditures, as well as the elimination of approximately 1,000 posts. 19. In July 1997, the Secretary-General will propose a major set of strategic reform initiatives. Some of these measures can be achieved under the authority of the Secretary-General. Others require the approval of Member States. In each instance, the proposals will be designed to focus the activities of the United Nations more clearly around its core competencies, to avoid duplication with other international institutions and to take into greater account the expanding capacity of global civil society. 20. Specifically, the aim of these reforms is to achieve a rationalization of United Nations Funds and Programmes, a more effective integration of the work of the United Nations in providing humanitarian assistance, the streamlining of certain administrative and support activities in the political and security sectors, as well as the transformation of the United Nations’ delivery of communications and outreach services to governments and civil society. 21. As a result of the proposed changes, the United Nations will also be better able to embark upon further coordination with other bilateral and multilateral institutions providing development assistance. Such enhanced cooperation will also involve greater coherence in the non-military aspects of peace operations, including democratization, police training, institution building and delivery of humanitarian assistance. 22. A strong positive message of support from the Denver Summit for the reform measures

7 June 1999 • 719 underway and those to be announced this summer, would be most valuable. Indeed, it is imperative for the success of the reform measures that all nations coalesce behind major changes needed to modernize the United Nations. 23. The financial situation of the United Nations continues to be dire. According to current projections, regular budget funds will be exhausted by the end of August, at which time borrowing from the peace-keeping account must be resumed. It is urged that the Summit support an early positive resolution of this recurrent fiscal crisis. 24. A vision of a new United Nations is emerging, a United Nations Organization suited to the tasks of the twenty-first century and able to meet the highest expectations of its Member States. It is vital that we seize this moment to realize this vision. Support for United Nations reform by the Heads of State and Government meeting at Denver is essential to making reform plans and proposals, arrived at in a spirit of consultation and collaboration, a reality.

draw. The UNHCR believes that the Kosovo Serbs’ right to remain in their home areas must be safeguarded, as the return proceeds. A mass information campaign will be launched in the asylum countries in an effort to provide the refugees with information about return and assistance, as well as to raise awareness of the risks posed by landmines, unexploded ordnance and booby-traps. On the ground over the weekend, the KosovoAlbanian border remained volatile with continued clashes between the KLA and Serb forces. In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, an angry group of Kosovars at Stenkovec I Camp attacked a family belonging to the Roma ethnic group on Saturday, after a member was identified by a refugee as having allegedly been involved in the killing of his father in Podujevo town. Rioting broke out until UNHCR, United States Ambassador to FYROM Christopher Hill, and NGO staff intervened. Some staff members suffered minor injuries during the rioting. Statement Attributable to the Spokesman on Angola

7 June 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Kosovo Excerpts from the noon briefing by the deputy spokesman for the Secretary-General, Manoel de Almeida e Silva. Kosovo

As we mentioned on Friday, the SecretaryGeneral’s Special Envoys for the Balkans will convene in Geneva tomorrow an informal, workinglevel meeting on conceptual planning for civilian implementation in Kosovo. The aim of the meeting is to bring together actors who are likely to be involved in post-conflict activities. Meanwhile, intense planning for the return of refugees and internally displaced people continues. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is meeting today with other United Nations agencies and, following the Tuesday meeting, will convene two meetings on Wednesday; one with representatives of non-governmental organizations and another with donor countries on the return issue. UNHCR and its partners will need to go into Kosovo quickly, as soon as security is assured, in order to assist the internally displaced and to prepare for returns. The UNHCR said it was concerned about the situation of the remaining Serbian civilian population in Kosovo, once the Yugoslav forces with-

The Secretary-General today expressed deep concern at the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Angola, where the extremely precarious security situation now requires the distribution of most humanitarian aid by air—an effort threatened by lack of funding. If funds are not immediately made available for air transportation, the entire humanitarian effort will stop and hundreds of thousands of Angolans will face severe malnutrition, disease and death. . . . New Report on Haiti

Out on the racks this morning you’ll find the Secretary-General’s latest report on the situation of democracy and human rights in Haiti (A/53/950). The Secretary-General concludes that the overall human rights situation has been adversely affected by Haiti’s political and institutional crisis, but there have been certain positive developments. These include the maintenance of broad respect for the fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly and association. The Secretary-General expresses concern about shortcomings in Haiti’s judicial system, which he says must be forcefully addressed, and about police involvement in crime. The International Civilian Mission is working to bring cases of ill-treatment by the police to the attention of local authorities. It is also monitoring cases of police abuse. In addition, the Mission is working

720 • 7 June 1999

with others to administer a training course to police groups. Given the impact of the protracted crisis, it is apparent that much remains to be done to strengthen Haiti’s State institutions and civil society organizations, according to the report. . . .

7 June 1999 Letter (UN archives); Kosovo Internal note from Sergio Vieira de Mello with several points from a phone conversation with Sadako Ogata, head of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, including a handwritten note by the Secretary-General in response. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Mrs. Ogata’s Thinking as Regards the Kosovo Operation

1. Mrs. Ogata called me on Saturday, 6 June from Zagreb. The following salient points transpired: (a) She very much hopes—and I agree entirely—that the civilian implementation structure will be lean, well-integrated, à la UNTAC and not à la cumbersome post-Dayton civilian arrangements in Bosnia, with all components reporting to one single authority. (I noticed that this is precisely your recommendation in the memorandum you addressed to the G-8.) (b) She wishes Dennis McNamara to assume responsibility for the Kosovo repatriation and reintegration operation in Pristina, as a senior member—Deputy?—of the civilian structure. Dennis would retain operational control over the refugee programmes in Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but another person would look after UNHCR’s activities in Bosnia and Croatia. I think this is certainly the way forward. 2. Dennis called me yesterday morning and requested me to let you know that he is, of course, interested in playing the operational repatriation role described above (which is very similar to the one I played as part of UNTAC in Cambodia). He wished you to be made aware of this point, bearing in mind your earlier plan to appoint him as Martin’s successor. As always, he will do what you decide. The proposal by Mrs. Ogata is sound. I have asked her task force to propose structures for our presence in Kosovo and the region. —K.A., 8 June

8 June 1999 Remarks by the Secretary-General Entering UN Headquarters

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Kosovo QUESTION: Have you spoken by phone with anyone this morning concerning the draft agreement? ANSWER: Yes, I know there is an agreement and I did speak with (U.S.) Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and they were both quite relieved that there is an agreement (inaudible) now. The Security Council has to work on a resolution. QUESTION: How soon do you expect it to get to the Security Council? Answer: Well, I expect it to be at the (Security) Council today. I hope whatever hurdles there may be, will not be insurmountable. QUESTION: What is your understanding at this point of the UN role in the peacekeeping force. At this point it’s a NATO-led force. It is simply a stamp of approval by the UN? ANSWER: No, I think there are several aspects of the implementation. You have the military aspect and then you have the civilian aspect. The civilian aspect (inaudible) will be handled by the United Nations and that operation will be headed by the Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral and there will be a military aspect. The military commander and the civilian head will have to coordinate their efforts very very closely. Thank you.

8 June 1999 Fundamental Shift of UN Attitude Toward Private Sector

Speech (OSSG, SG/SM/7022); human security Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the US Chamber of Commerce, in Washington, D.C. It is a great pleasure to join you this evening. Mr. [Thomas] Donohue, I would like to thank you for this invitation and for this opportunity to talk to your membership. I am well aware that the businesses and groups represented in the Chamber of Commerce are as dynamic as any in the world, and that they contribute not only to American prosperity, but to global well-being as well. So I have great hopes of forging better ties and working more closely together with all of you. Many of you may be thinking that a United Nations Secretary-General is somewhat out of place at a “business summit” such as this. You

8 June 1999 • 721 might even be under the impression that the United Nations does not support free enterprise, or that we wish to stick business with the bill for all the world’s ills. My task tonight is to dispel such myths, and to make you feel more at home with the United Nations. Let there be no mistake: the United Nations needs the world’s businessmen and businesswomen: as promoters of trade and investment; as employers and entrepreneurs; as experts on globalization; in short, as full partners in our global mission of peace and development. In that light, I have two simple messages for you. The first is that a fundamental shift has occurred in recent years in the attitude of the United Nations towards the private sector. Confrontation has taken a back seat to cooperation. Polemics have given way to partnerships. The second is that a strong United Nations is good for business. I know that just saying so is not enough. I hope to provide for you tonight not just words but works, not just promises but proof. I hesitate to begin with myself, but the challenges I face are very much like yours, whether you are the owner of a small enterprise or the head of a multinational conglomerate. Like many of you, I have to manage and motivate people. Like you, I am accountable to shareholders. And like you, I have had to make my organization leaner, more cost-effective and better able to focus on its core strengths. I should add that this comparison goes only so far. Unlike you, my board of directors is made up of 185 Governments. Many of them can’t agree on our own by-laws. Many deny me the resources needed to do the job. Some are even at war with one another! Still, I think you get my point. Of course, what counts most is what the United Nations has to offer. The Organization’s primary mission—our main stock in trade—is to promote values: the universal values of equality, tolerance, freedom and justice that are found in the United Nations Charter. Every society, from Asia to the Americas, is the product of values, of shared bonds and ideals. Global society also needs such a framework if it is to thrive. Moreover, without values—without rules governing contracts and property rights; without confidence based on the rule of law; without trust and transparency—there could be no well-functioning markets. We know this when it comes to national economies, but we have yet to apply it

fully to global markets. United Nations-based values enjoy worldwide acceptance and can provide that common understanding, for societies and markets alike. They are the cornerstone of our interdependent world and the foundation of the global economy. These values also form the basis of the United Nations work for political and economic stability. Private investors do not want to risk their hardwon capital in insecure neighbourhoods. That is one reason why, from Central America to the Middle East, from Africa to South-East Asia, the United Nations has brokered peace, separated warring forces, fed refugees and created vital space for negotiators to resolve their differences peacefully, through negotiation. The United Nations fights poverty, illiteracy and the spread of deadly diseases such as AIDS. We promote democracy and work to safeguard the global environment. We also address what I call “problems without passports”—such as terrorism, organized crime and drug-trafficking—which do not respect borders and thrive where laws and institutions are weak. For business, these efforts translate into reduced risk and greater opportunities. If this is the public face of the Organization, there is also a quieter side which is especially important for business: the United Nations system’s wide-ranging technical services. When ships sail freely across the seas and through international straits, they are protected by rules defined and legitimized by United Nations conferences. Airlines have the right to fly across borders and land in case of emergency because of agreements negotiated by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Mail and overnight courier packages move throughout the world with the help of protocols established by the Universal Postal Union. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) protects trademarks and patents, including hallmark American products like movies, music and computer software. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) allots frequencies and keeps the airwaves from becoming hopelessly clogged. These are all United Nations agencies. Such efforts make up what I call the “soft infrastructure” of the global economy, ensuring the free flow of goods, services, finance and ideas. It comes at very low cost. And while it rarely makes news and doesn’t stare you in the face,

722 • 8 June 1999

you’d know it was missing the minute it was gone. Values, stability, services: it is no surprise that the United Nations and the private sector are joining forces. The voice of business is now heard in United Nations policy debates. Corporations are also offering concrete support. Insurance companies, for example, are working with us to improve preparedness for natural disasters. Still, there is more that we can do together. Our work for peace and democracy is never done. And too many countries and consumers remain outside the global economy. The United Nations would like to enlist your help in bringing the world to them, and them into the world. It was with this in mind that I proposed, earlier this year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, a “Global Compact” between the United Nations and business. As you know, globalization is under intense pressure. And business is in the line of fire, seen by many as not doing enough in the areas of environment, labour standards and human rights. This may not seem fair, but it is a perception that will not go away unless business is seen to be committed to global corporate citizenship. The Global Compact offers a reasonable way out of this impasse. It asks businesses to adopt a set of principles in these three areas, such as protecting human rights within their sphere of influence, supporting the abolition of child labour and taking a precautionary approach to environmental challenges. These are steps which, I should stress, also make good business sense. The United Nations, for its part, would continue to make a strong case for free trade and open global markets. Business could then be left to do what it does best—create jobs and wealth— while giving the global market more of a “human face”. Information on the Compact is contained in the materials that have been made available to you tonight. The United Nations would also like to enlist your help in breaking another logjam. The United States has now been in arrears in its payments to the United Nations for 13 years. The private sector, more than any other, understands the meaning of a contract. It is a matter of honour, of keeping one’s word. Last year, the Chamber of Commerce spoke out boldly in favour of renewing United States funding for the International Monetary Fund

(IMF), a key part of the United Nations system. Your voice was crucial in tipping the balance, and I am grateful for that support. I am convinced that the Senate and Congress would listen again if you spoke up on the question of arrears. Senators Helms and Biden have shown leadership in crafting a compromise. But success is by no means assured. Your voice, loud and clear, could again make an important difference. The United Nations I am asking you to support is in fundamental respects a changed Organization. New management structures are in place as a result of a comprehensive reform effort. New leaders have taken the reins in the fields of human rights, health, development and the fight against crime and drugs. We even have a new web page designed to help business do business with the United Nations. At the same time, we are retaining what is tried and true: all that we have done for half a century, from peacekeeping to humanitarian assistance, to help the peoples of the world help themselves. I am aware that I have outlined a rather extensive range of challenges—so many, in fact, that it may seem difficult to decide where to begin. Allow me, then, to say a special word about Africa. While I am deeply dismayed by the conflicts that have engulfed many countries, these should not obscure the good news emanating from other nations. In Nigeria, the military has just handed over power to an elected civilian leadership. In South Africa, elections for President have just taken place. Here, too, it is my hope that business will continue helping Africa turn over a new leaf. Business is not an end in itself. Nor is the existence of the United Nations, though I know that many people think that bureaucracies are best at perpetuating themselves. Both the business community and the United Nations are engaged in the service of something larger than ourselves: human security in the broadest sense. Your terms are our terms. Peace and prosperity are the dividends we all want. The United Nations is part of the solution. Thank you again for this opportunity to state my case for a strong United Nations. Now, I would be happy to answer your questions.

9 June 1999 Secretary-General Says Escalation in Attacks on UN Personnel is Deeply Troubling

Speech (OSSG, SG/SM/7024); personnel safety Address to the 2nd summit on Security of the International Civil Service, in New York.

9 June 1999 • 723 It is good to see you all here. I would like to pay tribute to the Coordinating Committee for International Staff Unions and Associations (CCISUA) and the Staff Committees of New York and Geneva for maintaining an intense focus on the question of staff security. This is, literally, a life-or-death issue for the international civil service. United Nations personnel continue to die and suffer grievous injury in the line of duty. Though risk comes with the territory, I share your sense that the situation seems to have got out of hand in the last few years, and that much more needs to be done to get it back under control. This meeting could hardly be more timely. The United Nations has just begun a new mission in East Timor in a very troubling security environment. Even before the arrival of our personnel, threats against the Organization were voiced. The United Nations will soon be sending staff to Kosovo as well, under no less hazardous conditions. You may have heard it said that the United Nations is being side-lined. The number of United Nations peacekeepers in the field may have declined. But the reality is that the international community continues to turn to the United Nations. Again and again, United Nations personnel are being asked to leave their homes and their families for the front-lines of the fight against misery and hatred. Again and again, our people can be found bringing aid and hope to the victims of natural and man-made disasters. That is a measure of the great faith that is placed in our unique combination of skills and our more than half-century of experience. But it is also, all too often, a measure of the political failings and inaction of Member States that have bred so many of these crises in the first place. Since the first staff security summit in February last year, more than 20 United Nations civilian personnel have been killed. Four United Nations aircraft, one in Côte d’Ivoire, one in Guatemala and two in Angola, have gone down with substantial loss of life. Though not strictly a security issue, the crash of Swissair 111 also took from us beloved and irreplaceable colleagues. Just last week, a soldier serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was killed by an errant Israeli missile. Kidnapping, arrest, detention and harassment have continued to be frequent occurrences. Meanwhile, the fate of some 50 staffers, some of them detained or missing since the 1970s, remains unknown. In the face of such loss and distress, other steps

over the past year may not seem like much. But a number of significant gains have been made that promise improvements in the overall situation. This past January, the Convention on the Safety of the United Nations and Associated Personnel, adopted by the General Assembly in 1994, finally entered into force and President Mehri Madarshahi has spoken very eloquently. Today, at this ceremony, the staff will be presenting tokens of appreciation to representatives of the 25 Governments that have ratified the agreement, which makes it an international crime to abduct or kill United Nations and associated personnel. I urge the other Governments that have signed it to join this honour roll as soon as possible. And to those who remain outside the agreement, I repeat what I have said before: these are your own citizens venturing out into peril. They have a right to greater respect and assurance than you are giving them at present. I also call on States to sign and ratify another international agreement: the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Statute is a landmark achievement in the advancement of international law, and includes language making it a war crime to attack personnel involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The definition applies to both international and internal conflicts. Of course, the real value of any agreement lies in its implementation. Governments must live up to their words. Several Governments have made admirable contributions and pledges to the Trust Fund for Security of United Nations Staff that was established last year by the Administrative Committee on Coordination. I am pleased to announce today that the Fund has received $1 million from the Government of Japan, fulfilling a pledge it made earlier this year. Norway has donated $100,000. Monaco and Senegal have also contributed. Such generosity provides an example for others to follow. Money is a crucial factor in our ability to provide better security. So far the Trust Fund money has gone towards a variety of initiatives. A mobile training team has been established consisting of two security officers and a stress counselor. The team recently trained more than 1,000 staff members, local and international, in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan. This was just a first step. More training is planned as more resources become available.

724 • 9 June 1999

One lesson that emerged from this exercise is that the importance of stress management has been vastly underrated. Stress management will continue to be part of the training package, but we realize now that there is a desperate need for qualified stress counsellors in the field. The Security Coordinator’s office has also carried out a workshop on the management of hostage incidents. We are continuing to strengthen inter-agency cooperation, as well as cooperation between United Nations organizations and peacekeeping operations. We are exploring the possibility of creating rapid response teams for crisis situations. We are hoping to develop computer software that would enhance the security management system. And we are looking at some of the less well known issues involved in staff security, such as airworthiness standards and other aspects of air travel in volatile situations. While there is no way to provide absolute assurance against someone intent on harming the United Nations, there is much that we can do and I wish to assure you that we are all dealing with this as a matter of urgency and we will press ahead. The escalation in attacks on United Nations blue and in violations of international humanitarian law is a deeply troubling phenomenon. So is the erosion of staff morale. I would be especially distressed if staff were to be discouraged from applying for field assignments. I am confident that will not happen, because I know we all feel even more strongly the call of duty and the challenge of direct involvement with the problems the United Nations is tackling around the world. Our place is where the action is. We wouldn’t have it any other way. And, of course, we must be able to fulfil the mandates given to us by the Member States. The safety and security of staff is a non-negotiable issue. This summit is an important step in getting that message across and I want to again congratulate the staff on their efforts. I promise to use every opportunity to lead the charge and take the case to the Member States.

9 June 1999 Letter (EOSG); Kosovo Letter to the president of the Security Council, Baboucarr-Blaise Ismaila Jagne. Following is a letter to the Secretary-General dated 7 June 1999 from Louise Arbour, prosecutor for the Interna-

tional Criminal Yugoslavia.

Tribunal

for

the

former

Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to the attached letter dated 7 June 1999 which I have received from the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Justice Louise Arbour. I would be grateful if you could have this letter and the attachment circulated among the Members of the Security Council. The competence of the International Tribunal in investigating possible war crimes in Kosovo has already been confirmed by the Security Council in four resolutions, most significantly in resolution 1160 of 31 March 1998. In her letter, the Prosecutor has outlined the requirements facing her office in the light of developments in Kosovo and the need to carry out forensic investigations as soon as international forces are allowed to enter the area. In view of the scale of the required operations and the need to act swiftly, the Prosecutor has concluded that the only way to allow immediate investigations is through the use of gratis personnel. Consequently, she has asked my approval for seeking and accepting up to 300 gratis personnel from Member States, who would perform specialized functions relating to forensic investigations. The Prosecutor has insisted on expeditiousness in this operation and I believe her concerns for immediate action are fully justified. In comparison to the investigations of the International Tribunal in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where access to crime sites was not possible until months or years after the fact, the immediate presence of forensic investigative teams in Kosovo would put the International Tribunal in a much better position to secure crime sites and gather evidence before they are tainted or lost. Immediate action would facilitate the collection of crucial evidence within a short span of time and enable the fulfilment of the International Tribunal’s mandate in an efficient, effective and timely way. It is therefore my intention to approve the request of the Prosecutor of the International Tribunal to proceed with issuing invitations to all Member States to offer gratis personnel, and to accept experts for the specialized functions as identified by the Prosecutor, for a period of six months, and in accordance with the regime for gratis personnel established by the General Assembly. I have also forwarded the Prosecutor’s letter to the President of the General Assembly.

9 June 1999 • 725 Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. * * * Following discussions last week between the Registrar of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Mrs. Dorothee de Sampayo, the Deputy Prosecutor, Mr. Graham Blewitt, and Secretariat officials in New York, I am writing to request your assistance in the matter of carrying out forensic investigations in Kosovo. Four Security Council resolutions have called upon the Prosecutor of the International Tribunal to conduct investigations in Kosovo: resolutions 1160 (1998) of 31 March 1998; 1199 (1998) of 23 September 1998; 1203 (1998) of 24 October 1998; and 1207 (1998) of 17 November 1998. However, as you know recent events have created an entirely new and overwhelming situation, one that could not have been anticipated and one with which the Prosecutor’s Office is unable to cope. Due to the scale of destruction, and the widespread abuses of human rights reported in Kosovo, the International Tribunal will have to deal with an unprecedented quantity of tasks once it is possible to enter Kosovo. If the Tribunal is to fulfil its mandate by any basic standards, it is anticipated that it will be necessary to undertake and complete separate crime scene examinations at more than 16 sites in Kosovo. I must point out, however, that this preliminary assessment is based on the information now available. The actual size of the task before us will have to be determined once access to the area is possible. Moreover, the investigations will have to be carried out at very short notice, and must commence as soon as safety permits. The main lesson that has been learned from International Tribunal investigations in Bosnia and Herzegovina is that the Office of the Prosecutor must be in a position to commence its on-site crime scenes investigations as soon as access is possible and before essential evidence is lost forever. We will only have one opportunity to complete these on-site investigations. As I indicated, the initial aspect of this work is to undertake on-site crime scene examinations. To do this work, multifaceted investigation teams involving forensic and other specialists will be required to gather and record evidence at the various crime scenes that have been prioritized by this Office. The teams will need to contain capabilities in the areas of ballistic and explosives assessment, weapons and munitions identifica-

tion, crime scene assessment, evidence-gathering, and ethnic cleansing assessment. It will also be essential to maintain the integrity of any evidence available at the crime scenes and, in this regard, it will be necessary to complete much of the investigative work in a very short period of time, preferably before the refugees return to their homes and villages (which, in most instances, will be crime scenes). Finally, to ensure that it will be possible to adduce admissible and reliable testimony at future trials before this Tribunal, these teams must undertake the work on the Prosecutor’s behalf and under my direction. The Office of the Prosecutor does not have the capacity or the expertise required for this scale of operations, nor any ability to undertake such extensive crime scene investigations at such short notice. Neither did the Tribunal’s budget allocation for 1999 provide for the massive level of urgent investigative capacity that is outlined herein, particularly the level of specialized expertise required for the task. Responding to the early resolutions in 1998, a supplementary budget was approved to enable investigative activity in Kosovo to begin. Although modest, the budget enabled us to establish a team of 10 persons dedicated to Kosovo investigations. This team comprises investigators, lawyers, analysts and translators and will continue to work on the Kosovo investigations. However, they have no expertise in forensic work. We have considered this matter carefully and we believe that the immense task with which we have so suddenly been confronted can be achieved only with the urgent assistance from Member States. What we require is the assistance of several national investigation teams with the capabilities outlined above, to undertake on-site crime scene examinations in Kosovo as soon as it is possible to gain access to the region. It is likely that forensic investigation teams with the capabilities we require are available at the national level and can be assembled at fairly short notice. In order to carry out the work we have prioritized, we envisage the formation of approximately 12 forensic investigation teams. Though at this stage it is not possible to identify the exact number of personnel that would be required to staff these teams, the preliminary projection is that a total of approximately 300 experts may be needed. We estimate the work would be completed by experts within a maximum period of six months, as the window of opportunity is narrow: before the return of the refugees and before the onset of winter.

726 • 9 June 1999

We have given much thought to the question of how to link these teams to the work of the Tribunal and a number of options have been examined. Two prerequisites are considered essential. The first is that the forensic investigation teams require the proper authority under which to conduct their investigations in Kosovo and the second is that they would conduct their investigations under the general control and direction of the Prosecutor’s Office. We have determined that the only viable way in which to address both requirements would be to involve national investigation teams in this urgent task under the gratis personnel regime of the United Nations. This regime is specifically created to urgently provide highly specialized functions not available within the Organization, on a temporary and exceptional basis. It enables Member States to make expertise available to the Organization and to link that expertise to the Organization itself. In this way, both the problem of authority and that of control are overcome. I am fully aware of the fact that the quantity of the prospective personnel involved in this urgent operation is exceptional. I am also cognizant of the difficulties that the Tribunal has had with the gratis personnel regime. However, we see no other way in which we can effectively and adequately conduct the investigations required by the Security Council and the Statute of the Tribunal. If approved, we will adhere strictly to the provisions of the General Assembly resolution and write to all Member States requesting their assistance. I would be most grateful if you would consider this request. I am available at any time to discuss this matter and to provide more information, as needed. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. (Signed) Louise Arbour, Prosecutor

10 June 1999 Letter (UN archives); Kosovo Proposals by the G-8 foreign ministers sent to the Secretary-General. A handwritten note is included from the Secretary-General with his response to the document designated for the deputy secretarygeneral, the chief of staff, and Bernard Miyet of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

implementation of an interim peace settlement in Kosovo: 1. Integrated civilian implementation structure to maximise effectiveness. 2. A Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, as envisaged in paragraph 6 and 10 of the draft United Nations Security Council Resolutions prepared by the G-8 Foreign Ministers on 8 June 1999 should be appointed rapidly to lead the civilian effort. 3. Other international organizations with relevant expertise to contribute as part of an integrated structure, with each organization retaining its own separate accountability. 4. A Steering Board to give strategic direction, bringing together the EU, the UN, the OSCE, the G-8 Member States, the organizations involved and a representative of the OIC. 5. Close coordination between the civilian and military presences from the outset. 6. Civilian implementation structure to be deployed rapidly, as soon as a secure environment has been established. 7. A conference of the relevant international organisations to be convened urgently by the United Nations Secretary-General to assign responsibility for the specific areas set out in paragraph 11 of the draft United Nations Security Council Resolutions as prepared by the G-8 Foreign Ministers on 8 June 1999. 8. Particular priority to be given to the establishment and deployment of an international civilian police force, and to the training of a locally recruited police force, in order to take on responsibility for civil law and order as soon as possible from KFOR, as envisaged in the MTA of 9 June 1999. 9. Given the scale of the reconstruction task, an early donors’ conference in which G-8 memberstates pledge to play a full part. 10. The restoration of stability in Kosovo to be part of a wider strategy for regeneration of the region, as set out in the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe. I spoke to PRs [Permanent Representatives] of US/UK today, about this document. It may be necessary to organize a meeting (see [paragraph] 7) as follow-up to the Bildt meeting in Geneva. This should be in New York. We should also establish friends of Kosovo Groups. Do review and advise. —K.A., 11 June

Proposals of the G-8 Presidency in the Light of the Discussions on Civilian Implementation in Kosovo

The G-8 Foreign Ministers adopted the following general principles on the civilian aspects of the

10 June 1999 Letter (EOSG); Kosovo

11 June 1999 • 727 Letter to the president of the Security Council, Baboucarr-Blaise Ismaila Jagne. Following is a letter dated 10 June 1999 from Javier Solana, secretary-general of NATO. I have the honour to transmit herewith a communication dated 10 June 1999 from Mr. Javier Solana, Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), relating to the commencement of the withdrawal of Serbian troops from Kosovo. I should be grateful if you would urgently bring this letter and its enclosure to the attention of the members of the Security Council. * * * Yesterday NATO military authorities agreed with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) on the procedures and modalities for the withdrawal from Kosovo of FRY security forces. FRY security forces have begun to withdraw from Kosovo in accordance with these agreed procedures and modalities. NATO is monitoring the FRY’s compliance closely. Against this background, NATO air operations against the FRY have been suspended. I look forward to keeping in close touch with you on this matter and the evolution of the overall situation. (Signed) Javier Solana

11 June 1999 Letter (UN archives); nuclear testing Internal note from Jayantha Dhanapala of the Department of Disarmament, with a handwritten note by the Secretary-General agreeing to decline the invitation. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

G-8 Task Force on Nuclear Testing by India and Pakistan

1. I wish to bring to your attention and consideration the attached paper concerning Canada’s proposal for a possible participation of the Department for Disarmament Affairs in the work of the G-8 Task Force of Senior Officials, established in June 1998, to address the crisis resulting from the May 1998 nuclear-weapon tests by India and Pakistan. Should the Department agree, Canada intends to submit this proposal at the next meeting of the Task Force, which is scheduled to take place on 23 June in Kiev. 2. Having carefully considered the proposal, I

strongly feel that a direct involvement by the United Nations in the work of the G-8 Task Force is not advisable. In the recent past, DDA has received invitations to participate actively in measures pursued by a number of like-minded countries on politically sensitive issues and has always declined those invitations. However, I shall be glad to have your guidance on this matter. Agreed, we decline the invitation. —K.A., 15/6

11 June 1999 Letter (UN archives); disarmament and demobilization Internal note to the under-secretary-general for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Bernard Miyet, from S. Iqbal Riza, the SecretaryGeneral’s chief of staff. Following is a note dated 21 May 1999 from Miyet to the Secretary-General. NOTE TO MR. MIYET

Security Council— Open Debate on Disarmament and Demobilization of Combatants

1. Please refer to your note of 21 May. 2. The Secretary-General’s position is that it is up to members of the Security Council to decide on what subject they wish to devote their attention, whether in formal meetings or consultations. His own view is that rather than discussion of generic issues of this nature, constructive debate on specific conflict situations on the ground would be more meaningful. 3. This being said, he notes that you expect that such debate might assist in including expectations on demobilization activities in the budgets of peace-keeping operations. DPKO might set up a small working-level group to focus on this issue. 4. The Secretary-General does not intend to present his views in a letter. We would appreciate talking points for the anticipated meeting with the Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs. Should the debate be held, DPKO should prepare a draft statement for the Secretary-General. 5. My apologies for the delay in replying. Thank you. * * * NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

The Deputy Permanent Representative of Malaysia came to see me on 19 May to discuss

728 • 11 June 1999

possible initiatives Malaysia could undertake during its Presidency of the Security Council in July 1999. In this connection, his Government was thinking of holding an open debate on disarmament and demobilization of fighters, perhaps resulting in a Presidential Statement stressing the importance of this process in creating a sustainable peace. The Deputy Permanent Representative was aware that DPKO is in the process of preparing a Lessons Learned report, on this subject. I explained that disarmament and demobilization involves more than just DPKO and that other Departments, UN agencies and NGOs are also involved in providing assistance for the process in various ways. We would need to consult with them on how we could provide input for the debate. I also explained that DPKO’s report on this subject is a work in progress and is unlikely to be completed by July. DPKO would welcome the idea of an open Security Council debate on disarmament/demobilization and on its importance in creating sustainable peace, because it could help our efforts to include the demobilization aspects of these tasks in the mandates and budgets of multidimensional peacekeeping operations. Should you concur with this view, DPKO could set up a working-level group, including the concerned Departments and agencies, to see how we could take this initiative forward. Our initial idea would be that the Secretary-General could present his views on this issue in a letter to the President of the Security Council, or we could prepare a short non-paper on the subject to be circulated to Council members. The Deputy Permanent Representative noted that the Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs is scheduled to be in New York in the early part of July and his Government would hope to hold the open debate at that time. I look forward to hearing your views on this subject. Many thanks.

11 June 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Kosovo Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. Kosovo

The daunting task of implementing the Kosovo peace plan has begun. The Secretary-General, who has been entrusted to establish the international

civilian administration in Kosovo under the resolution which was adopted by the Security Council yesterday, has ordered the immediate dispatch of an advance headquarters team to the region. They are prepared to leave Saturday and Sunday. A few from Headquarters, many from the region, they will assemble in Skopje in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and are expected to travel from there to Pristina in Kosovo by road. Among the tasks to be carried out by the advance United Nations Headquarters team are the establishment of coordination mechanisms with the military and other international actors operating in Kosovo, as well as advising the military on the implementation of non-military tasks. In addition to the advance Headquarters team, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations is also dispatching over the weekend to the region a forward logistics and communications team to start work on planning for the United Nations mission. Humanitarian agencies, meanwhile, are forging ahead with their plans to send in a humanitarian convoy to Kosovo at the earliest opportunity to provide urgently needed relief to hundreds of thousands of people marooned inside Kosovo. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) are sending personnel with the international security force, which is to deploy in Kosovo, possibly starting tomorrow, and the first United Nations multi-agency convoy in two-and-a-half months is prepared to go into the province on Monday. That convoy includes 32 trucks from UNHCR, WFP and UNICEF, as well as selected NGOs. It will carry humanitarian daily rations, or meals ready to eat, pallets of bottled water, blankets, tents, plastic sheeting and hygienic kits. Two multi-agency convoys are planned to go to Kosovo daily from Skopje, which will be the logistical hub for relief operations into Kosovo, once security is assured. The convoy operation is part of the monumental task of providing humanitarian aid inside Kosovo, initially to hundreds of thousands of displaced people, and later to the three quarters of a million people outside the Serbian province who are eager to return home. As many as 500,000 to 600,000 people are believed to be in desperate condition inside Kosovo. There has been no assistance provided to them since 23 March, and the situation is grim, according to a United Nations assessment mission that visited Kosovo last month. . . . As stated in his report on the renewal of the

12 June 1999 • 729 United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) mandate, the Secretary-General is aware of diplomatic efforts currently under way concerning his mission of good offices in Cyprus. In this context, he is studying the 10 June joint statement by the G-8 Foreign Ministers in preparation for the G-8 Summit meeting to take place in Cologne next week, which highlights the continuing interest of the international community in a solution to the Cyprus problem. Since assuming his functions, the SecretaryGeneral has spared no efforts to bring about a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. He remains in contact with all concerned and expects to be able to report to the Security Council on his good offices mission before the end of the month. . . . QUESTION: What is the Secretary-General’s take on today’s meeting between the Ambassadors of Libya, the United States and United Kingdom and the Secretary-General? SPOKESMAN: He is calling the three of them together in response to the Security Council resolutions on Libya. He is required, as you will recall, under an earlier resolution, to provide a report within 90 days of when the two suspects were handed over for trial in the Netherlands, and he would hope that these discussions today would facilitate his 90-day report. QUESTION: Was the meeting called by the Secretary-General? Was the Libyan Ambassador invited by the Secretary-General also? SPOKESMAN: Yes. QUESTION: Would the Libyan Ambassador be participating in the meeting or just observing it? SPOKESMAN: No. What is required is for all three Governments to clarify their positions in regard to this previous Security Council resolution, so he is there to talk with each of them. There are no observers—there are three participants. . . .

11 June 1999 Letter (EOSG); Kosovo Letter to the president of the Security Council, Baboucarr-Blaise Ismaila Jagne. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and specifically to paragraph 6 requesting me to appoint, in consultation with the Security Council, a Special Reprsentative to control the implementation of the international civil presence to be established in Kosovo, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It is my intention to appoint Mr. Sergio Vieira

de Mello, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Co-ordinator to serve as my Special Representative on an interim basis until I reach a decision on whom to nominate to undertake this function on a continuing basis. I should be grateful if you would bring the foregoing to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

12 June 1999 Letter (EOSG); Kosovo Letter to Zivadin Jonanovic, federal minister for foreign affairs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Excellency, I have the honour to refer to Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) and specifically to paragraph 6 requesting me to appoint, in consultation with the Security Council, a Special Representative to control the implementation of the international civil presence to be established in Kosovo, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Until I make a decision on whom to nominate to undertake this function on a continuing basis, I have appointed Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello, UnderSecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator to serve as my Special Representative on an interim basis. Mr. Vieira de Mello left New York for Kosovo, via Skopje, today. In order to effectively discharge his responsibilities so essential for the restoration of normality and stability in Kosovo and the region as a whole, Mr. Vieira de Mello will depend on the assistance and cooperation of all concerned, including the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It will be essential for my Special Representative to have access to all levels of Government. It would be very much appreciated therefore, if the various authorities concerned in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia could be advised as appropriate so as to ensure full cooperation on their part with Mr. Vieira de Mello and his staff. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

12 June 1999 Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 10 of Security Council Resolution 1244

730 • 12 June 1999

Report to the Security Council (EOSG, S/1999/627); Kosovo/UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo Report on the creation of a civil presence in Kosovo (a chart at the end of the report is not reproduced here). I. Introduction

1. The present report is submitted pursuant to paragraph 10 of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), in which the Council authorized the SecretaryGeneral, with the assistance of the relevant international organizations, to establish an international civil presence in Kosovo in order to provide an interim administration for Kosovo under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy. In paragraph 11 of the resolution, the Council enumerated the main responsibilities of the interim administration. This report presents a preliminary operational concept for the overall organization of the civil presence, which will be known as the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). A more detailed concept will be submitted to the Security Council in connection with the request, in paragraph 20 of resolution 1244 (1999), that the Secretary-General report on implementation of the resolution within 30 days. That document will be based on a report by the advance Headquarters team to be deployed shortly in Kosovo. II. Overall Structure of the Mission

2. It is apparent that in order to fulfil the provisions of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) effectively, the structure of the Mission must ensure that all activities of the international community in Kosovo are carried out in an integrated manner with a clear chain of command. The Mission will rely on the capabilities and expertise of the various international organizations that will participate, while maintaining coherence and effectiveness. 3. Accordingly, UNMIK will be headed by a Special Representative of the Secretary-General, appointed by the Secretary-General in consultation with the Security Council. The Special Representative of the Secretary-General will have overall authority to manage the Mission and coordinate the activities of all United Nations agencies and other international organizations operating as part of UNMIK. The Special Representative will also be responsible for facilitating a political process designed to determine the future political status of Kosovo, taking into account the Rambouillet accords, as specified in paragraph 11 (e).

4. The Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral, who will be appointed at the rank of Under-Secretary-General, will be supported in his work by a Chief of Staff and various units, including units for political and legal advice, military liaison, liaison with the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and relations with the mass media. 5. The Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral will be assisted in his tasks by four Deputy Special Representatives of the SecretaryGeneral. Each will be responsible for one major component of the Mission. In order to ensure that the institutional capacities of the agencies cooperating with the United Nations are pooled for optimal effectiveness on the ground, each component will be assigned to an agency which would take the lead role in a particular area, as follows: (a) Interim civil administration: the United Nations; (b) Humanitarian affairs: the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); (c) Institution-building: the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE); (d) Reconstruction: the European Union. The Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Interim Civil Administration will also serve as the Principal Deputy Special Representative and officiate as Chief of Mission in the absence of the Special Representative. A preliminary description of the structure of the Mission is annexed to the present report. 6. The Special Representative of the Secretary-General will appoint an Executive Committee whose membership will include the four Deputy Special Representatives. The Executive Committee will assist the Special Representative in fulfilling his responsibilities. It is expected that the agency with the overall responsibility for a particular component will draw upon the capacities and expertise of other organizations on the ground and coordinate their work to maximum advantage. 7. It is imperative that UNMIK and the international security presence coordinate their activities closely to ensure that both the military and the civilian presences operate in a mutually supportive manner towards the same goals, as required by paragraphs 6 and 9 (f) of resolution 1244 (1999). To this end, effective arrangements will be established for regular consultations between the Special Representative of the Secretary-General

12 June 1999 • 731 and the Commander of the international security presence. The Special Representative’s staff will include a Military Liaison Unit to facilitate day-today relations with the international security presence and to ensure that effective liaison with the military is established for all aspects of the Mission’s work. III. Role and Responsibilities of the Components Interim Civil Administration

8. The interim civil administration component of the Mission, under the United Nations, will comprise three main offices, namely, a Police Commissioner, an Office for Civil Affairs, and an Office for Judicial Affairs. 9. The Police Commissioner’s staff will consist of the following: (a) An International Civilian Police Unit to oversee the civilian police operation and to establish and supervise a Kosovo Police Force; (b) A Special Police Unit for crowd control and other special police (c) An International Border Police Unit.

led by UNHCR, will also coordinate, with other international organizations and non-governmental organizations, the provision of humanitarian and disaster relief aid. UNMIK will establish, as soon as possible, a Mine Action Centre to deal with the threat posed to the returnees and internally displaced persons by landmines and unexploded ordnance. Institution-building

13. The task of institution-building, for which OSCE will be the lead agency, might comprise four main functions, the final structure to be decided in consultation with OSCE: (a) Human resources capacity-building, in the areas of justice, police and public administration; (b) Democratization and governance; (c) Human rights monitoring and capacitybuilding; (d) Conduct and monitoring of elections. Strengthening the institutions of civil society, especially independent indigenous media, would also be central to these tasks. Reconstruction

It is recalled that resolution 1244 (1999) stipulates, in paragraph 9 (d), that the international security presence will initially be responsible for public safety and order. When the civil presence takes over, as envisaged in paragraph 11 (i), and in view of the Mission’s executive responsibilities for law and order, consideration will have to be given to arming the police. 10. The Office for Civil Affairs will be responsible for overseeing and, where necessary, conducting a number of civil affairs functions, such as the civil service and economic and budgetary affairs, as well as supporting the restoration and provision in the short run of basic public services, such as public health, education, utilities, transport and telecommunications. 11. The Office for Judicial Affairs will be responsible for the organization and oversight of the judicial system, authenticating legal documentation and related activities.

14. The tasks of reconstruction would be led by the European Union, and should be aimed at rebuilding the physical, economic and social infrastructure and systems of Kosovo and supporting the reactivation of public services and utilities. The range of tasks would be decided in consultation with the European Union. These could include near-term projects in the area of agriculture and markets, and activities relating to commerce; activities to re-establish essential public services and develop programmes for economic recovery; and longer-term capital projects in the areas of housing, utilities, transportation and communications. Every effort should be made to avoid the creation of a gap between humanitarian relief and rehabilitation and longer-term reconstruction. The overall plan for Kosovo should take into account the reconstruction and stabilization plans for the wider region.

Humanitarian Affairs

15. The structure described above on a preliminary basis represents, in my judgement, the optimum for an effective and integrated international civil presence in Kosovo, which can fulfil the provisions of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) with the assistance of relevant international organizations, under the leadership of the United Nations. Consultations are being undertaken with the organizations concerned to refine this concept

12. Paragraph 11 (k) of resolution 1244 (1999) stipulates that the principal function of UNMIK in the humanitarian area is to ensure the safe and unimpeded return of all refugees and displaced persons to their homes in Kosovo. Other functions are likely to include protection of and assistance to minority groups. As foreseen in paragraph 11 (h), the humanitarian affairs component,

IV. Observations

732 • 12 June 1999

further. Without prejudice to the role and authority of the Security Council, it would be my intention, as in other operations, to consult regularly with Governments and organizations in a position to assist me in the discharge of the responsibilities entrusted to me by the Council. 16. It is clearly an essential requirement for the success of UNMIK that the people of Kosovo be included fully and effectively in its work, in particular that of the interim administration, so that the transition to self-governing institutions is both smooth and timely. Community leaders and professionals can make immediate and significant contributions in judicial affairs, governance and the provision of public services. UNMIK intends to establish from the start a system of advisory mechanisms and implementation committees which will fully engage the local population. 17. I have informed the President of the Security Council of my intention to appoint Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello as my Special Representative, on an interim basis. The deployment of UNMIK is under way. Humanitarian agencies have deployed along with the first contingent of the international security presence and have begun to provide humanitarian relief. An advance core headquarters has been assembled at Skopje and will be deployed in Kosovo at the earliest opportunity. 18. I would welcome an early indication from the Security Council that this concept of operations for UNMIK meets with its general approval. A more detailed report and cost estimates will be submitted, in accordance with the usual procedures, once the advance team has completed its initial assessment on the ground and the necessary consultations with the participating agencies have been held.

16 June 1999 Video Message to the People of East Timor

Speech (OSSG); East Timor It is a great pleasure for me to greet the people of East Timor. I wish to speak with you today about the historic process in which you are now engaged. Just over a month ago—on the fifth of May in New York—the Governments of Indonesia and Portugal signed an Agreement entrusting me with the task of organizing and conducting a popular consultation in East Timor. This means that you— the people of East Timor—will have the opportunity to make an important choice about your future.

All East Timorese over 17 years of age will be able to cast a vote in the popular consultation organized by the United Nations. I have appointed Mr. Ian Martin as my Special Representative to carry out the consultation process. Mr. Martin will lead UNAMET, the United Nations Mission in East Timor. Over the next few weeks, UNAMET personnel will help you understand the consultation process. They will provide information about the Agreement and the autonomy proposal. They will help you understand the choices you have. They will explain to you the voting procedures. They will explain how the United Nations intends to protect the secrecy of the ballot. Today, I would like to stress some important points about the process, and about the role of the United Nations. First of all, the United Nations will conduct the consultation process in a completely impartial manner. The United Nations is not in favour of, or against, any result. Our task is to make it possible for you—the people of East Timor—to make your own choice. Your vote will be secret. No one will know, or ever find out, what choice you make. When the votes are counted, no one will know how any particular village or district has voted. United Nations electoral experts will organize and conduct the consultation, coordinated by my Special Representative. United Nations personnel will register all those who have a right to vote. They will conduct the vote, count the ballots, and announce the result. They will make sure that the ballot papers and boxes are not tampered with. I will soon appoint an independent Electoral Commission to monitor the electoral activities of UNAMET. The Electoral Commission will be the final authority on electoral justice, and will ensure the transparency and impartiality of all procedures and decisions. Altogether, about 900 international personnel of the United Nations Mission will be sent to all parts of the territory of East Timor. Besides electoral personnel, UNAMET will have information personnel to help explain the process to you. There will also be United Nations civilian police officers, from many different countries, who will advise the Indonesian police as they discharge their duties. United Nations military liaison officers from different countries will maintain contact with their Indonesian counterparts. The Agreement between Indonesia and Portugal has set 8 August as the date for the con-

17 June 1999 • 733 sultation. The men and women of UNAMET, and all of us at the United Nations, are prepared to carry out our responsibilities impartially so that you can make your free choice. The popular consultation is not about winning or losing a competition. It is your chance to settle the question of East Timor peacefully. It is your opportunity to launch a new era of reconciliation. Peace is a prize that all East Timorese can share. Now is the time for all of you, whatever outcome you favour, to play your part in bringing about dialogue and reconciliation. The United Nations will work with both sides to advance the process of reconciliation that regardless of the result, all sides will work toward a better future for East Timor. Let us all join together to ensure the success of the consultation process. For that process to move forward, an atmosphere of security and peace is essential. Violence from all sides must stop. Faction leaders, who have a special responsibility to see that this happens, will have to show political maturity and statesmanship. I urge you all to show restraint and tolerance during this crucial period in your history. For its part, the United Nations will do its utmost to enable you, the people of East Timor, to express your will freely regarding your future. Thank you.

17 June 1999 Secretary-General Talks of Importance of Uniting UN to Confront Massive Human Rights Violations and Crimes Against Humanity

Speech (OSSG, SG/SM7035); human rights Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS), in New York. It is a great pleasure for me to join you in opening your annual meeting here at United Nations Headquarters. I had the opportunity last night to speak to some of you about issues of common concern. I did not, however, have a chance to pay tribute to you as an institution, as a vital part of our efforts to renew our thinking about the prospects and promise of the United Nations. Let me also welcome the appointments of Ms. Charlotte Ku as Chairperson and Professor Jean Krasno as Executive Director of ACUNS, and offer my praise for the outstanding leadership provided by Professor Tom Weiss, who has served so ably as Executive Director. As the work of

ACUNS grows in scope and significance, it is critically important that your leadership is up to the task. I know that it is. As a long-standing member of ACUNS, I have always valued the contribution you make to every aspect of the United Nations mission. In my time as Secretary-General, I have sought to open our doors to an ever wider and ever greater circle of non-governmental organizations, private sector groups and academic institutions. Believe me, we needed it. Over the last two-and-a-half years, we have engaged what I call “the new diplomacy” in issues from disarmament to development to human rights and peace and security. The energy and initiative that these groups and organizations provide have given all our efforts renewed inspiration. Equally important, however, is the need for those energies to be rooted in real scholarship and hard thinking about how the United Nations can be active and assertive in our complex world. Where do we look for new ways to make peace and end wars? Who can provide us with new ideas for development, and new structures for disarmament? These are questions that we must answer together. The Academic Council fosters dialogue and cooperation between academia and various components of the United Nations system. I am pleased to note that ACUNS membership, once largely centred in the United States, has recently broadened its affiliation with universities and research institutes in Europe and Asia. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage you to continue expanding the global network of your organization. This would enable the United Nations system to benefit from a wider range of contributions from individual scholars to United Nations projects and problem-solving. The theme of your conference, “Rebuilding Torn Societies”, could not have been more timely. In Kosovo—after the ethnic cleansing, and the killings, after the devastation—the task of rebuilding society will be immense. We need to rebuild not only the infrastructure, the homes, the mosques, the churches and the schools of Kosovo. No less importantly, we need to help restore a sense of humanity to a place where inhuman acts went on for far too long. This is a task that requires patience and understanding, but also new ways of fostering reconciliation and understanding where hatred and suspicion have been sown. Throughout the Kosovo conflict, I have maintained that the United Nations must find a way to unite behind the aim of confronting massive

734 • 17 June 1999

human rights violations and crimes against humanity on the scale of Kosovo. With the resolution authorizing the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, the United Nations Security Council has spoken with one voice—in defence of peace with justice, in defence of human rights, and in defence of the values and principles enshrined in the Charter. But as this audience knows only too well, Kosovo is the exception. In far too many conflicts in far too many parts of the world, abuses on a terrible scale take place day in and day out, with devastating consequences for those societies. They, too, need our help, our attention, our commitment. In particular, I think of conflicts that now have lasted decades, and show no sign of ending. Yes, the parties themselves are ultimately responsible for making peace. But we, too, must look at our own practices, our own policies, and rethink and renew our approach. Where can we be more effective? Where can we make a greater difference? And how? These are questions that I look to you to answer. You may think it is a tall order, but if you don’t do it for us, who will? I wish you all success with your conference.

17 June 1999 Letter (EOSG); Kosovo Letter from the president of the Security Council, Baboucarr-Blaise Ismaila Jagne. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, I have the honour to refer to paragraph 18 of your report submitted pursuant to paragraph 10 of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) on 12 June 1999 (S/1999/1672) and, following consultations with the Council, to inform you that the members of the Council approve of the concept operations for the United Nations Mission in Kosovo outlined in the report. Accept, Mr. Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration. Baboucarr-Blaise Ismaila Jagne President of the Security Council

17 June 1999 Letter (UN archives); international humanitarian law Internal note from Ralph Zacklin of the UN legal office outlining guidelines for UN forces in international humanitarian law. Following is a note from S. Iqbal Riza, the Secretary-General’s chief of

staff, dated 17 June 1999, and a handwritten note by the Secretary-General. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Secretary-General’s Bulletin on the Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law

1. Please find enclosed the agreed DPKO/OLA text of the Secretary-General’s Bulletin on the Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law for your approval. 2. In this connection, I wish to recall that Mr. Miyet has undertaken to share the text with the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, indicating that it is the Secretary-General’s intention to issue them in two weeks time (Mr. Miyet’s Note of 20 May 1999 to the Secretary-General refers). In these circumstances, we would suggest that the text not be promulgated before members of the Committee have had the opportunity of commenting upon it. * * * 1. The saga relating to the establishment of guidelines observance by UN forces of international humanitarian law, which dates back to your days in DPKO, is finally coming to an end. DPKO and OLA, after much wrangling, have now agreed on a text (copy attached) and submit for your approval. Under normal circumstances, your approval would be followed by a promulgation of the guidelines with the issuance of Secretary-General’s Bulletin containing the provisions. However, it would seem that a procedural issue has risen in which the Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operations (during its last session) urged that the guidelines “be finalized as soon as possible in consultation with the Special Committee”. 2. In the light of the above-mentioned request of the Special Committee, DPKO has suggested that the finalized text be shared with the Special Committee, indicating that it is the SecretaryGeneral’s intention to issue them in two week’s time. This would give the members of the Special Committee that much time to submit their comments and the Secretariat would take note of any concerns the members of the Special Committee may raise. OLA supports the suggestion. 3. Taking the above into account, you may, therefore, wish to consider adopting one of the following options: (a) Withhold promulgation for two weeks and thereafter issue the guidelines, reflecting any com-

23 June 1999 • 735 ments or suggestions raised by the Special Committee members. Risk involved: The Guidelines could be held up for a long time or completely unravel in the Special Committee. (b) Issue the guidelines as they have been drafted by DPKO and OLA and send a copy to the Special Committee; treating such transmittal as ex post facto consultations. Risk involved: Secretariat could be heavily criticized for ignoring a specific with [sic] of the Special Committee which they took to mean prior consultation. 4. Your guidance regarding the above options would be appreciated. Thank you. Proceed as discussed. —K.A. 18/06

18 June 1999

suspension of NATO’s air campaign subsequent to the successful conclusion of a military technical agreement between NATO military authorities and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). I have received confirmation from the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Clark, that all uniformed Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbian Security Forces have withdrawn from Kosovo as of today in conformity with the military technical agreement. The Alliance’s limited air response and phased air campaign has therefore been terminated. I will keep you informed of further significant developments.

22 June 1999 Secretary-General Expresses Satisfaction That UN Humanitarian Mission to Sudan is Proceeding Positively

Letter (UN archives); international humanitarian law

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7040); Sudan

Internal note from the Secretary-General to Bernard Miyet, under-secretary-general of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

The Secretary-General has expressed his satisfaction in noting that the United Nations Inter-agency humanitarian assessment mission to the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement Army (SPLM/A)held areas of the Nuba Mountains, in the South Kordofan state of the Sudan, began yesterday and is proceeding positively. The mission, including representatives of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and World Food Programme (WFP), will assess humanitarian needs of vulnerable civilian populations in the area. This is the first time that the United Nations is able to assess humanitarian conditions in this particular area since the early 1980s. The mission, which is expected to visit five villages, is scheduled to complete its assessment and return to Khartoum on 24 June. The Secretary-General welcomes the cooperation being extended to the mission by both the Government of Sudan and the SPLM/A, and hopes that United Nations humanitarian agencies will be able to count on their continued support for the provision of relief to all those in need of humanitarian aid throughout the Sudan.

NOTE TO MR. MIYET

Guidelines on the Observance by UN Forces of International Humanitarian Law

1. I would like to express my strong disappointment that the guidelines on the observance by UN forces of international humanitarian law have incurred so much delay, leading to the further complication that the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations is now insisting on being consulted in the finalization of the guidelines. 2. Be that as it may, we should send the guidelines to the members of the Committee and the Chairman of the Bureau, for their information only, telling them that we are confident that they will find the guidelines to be useful and that they will be issued in two weeks.

20 June 1999 Letter (EOSG); Kosovo Letter from Javier Solana, secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to the Secretary-General, who forwarded it to the president of the Security Council. I am writing to follow up on my letter of 10 June 1999 (S/1999/663), in which I informed you of the

23 June 1999 Letter (UN archives); waiver of immunity To: Mr. Ralph Zacklin Assistant Secretary-General Office of Legal Affairs

736 • 23 June 1999

From: S. Iqbal Riza Subject: Request for Waiver of Immunity Reference your memorandum of 21 June, the Secretary-General has approved our joint recommendation for the waiver of immunity for Mr. Carlos Villán Durán of OHCHR so that he can appear in the Spanish Courts. Thank you. CONFIDENTIAL NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Waiver of Immunity

1. The attached note from Mr. Zacklin follows a request received by Mrs. Robinson for a staff member of her office, to appear in the case of Senator Pinochet. The testimony sought apparently is clarification of UN procedures under which the reports of the Special Rapporteur on human rights in Chile were prepared and considered by the Human Rights Commission. 2. While the Convention on Privileges and Immunities provides for immunity being claimed, the same Convention states that the “Secretary-General shall have the right and the duty to waive the immunity of any official in any case where, in his opinion, the immunity would impede the course of justice and can be waived without prejudice to the interests of the United Nations.” 3. Both Zacklin and I are of the view that immunity should be waived in this case. Of course, this would not be welcome to Chile and certain other countries. 4. Your guidance is requested. Thank you.

24 June 1999 Letter (EOSG); Kosovo Letter sent to the ministers of foreign affairs of the countries making up the Friends of Kosovo, three international organizations, and the president of Finland as president-designate of the European Union. See the list at the end of the document for a complete list of recipients. Excellency, Since the adoption of Security Council resolution 1244 on 10 June, the United Nations has been moving rapidly to fulfil the responsibilities entrusted to it in Kosovo. The United Nations Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) has been established and is in the process of deploying to the field, in close cooper-

ation with other organizations participating in the international civil and security presence. As indicated in my report to the Security Council on 12 June 1999, it has been my intention to consult regularly with Governments and organizations who are in a position to assist me in the implementation of resolution 1244. For this purpose, I have decided to form a consultative group, to be known as the “Friends of the SecretaryGeneral for Kosovo”. The attachment shows the provisional composition of this group. I have decided to convene a meeting at Foreign Minister-level of this Group on Wednesday, 30 June 1999, from 0800 to 1200 hours at United Nations Headquarters in New York. It is my privilege to invite you, or a designated senior representative, accompanied by two advisers, to participate in this meeting. I would be grateful for your confirmation at your earliest convenience. Please, accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Friends of the Secretary-General for Kosovo (provisional list) Governments

Canada China France Germany Greece Italy Japan Netherlands Russia Turkey United Kingdom United States International Organziations

European Union* Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Organization of the Islamic Conference

24 June 1999 Remarks to the Press by the Secretary-General Following His Talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Kosovo SECRETARY-GENERAL: I had a very helpful discus* Finland as President-designate.

25 June 1999 • 737 sion with the prime minister and we talked about Kosovo, about Libya, about Iraq, about economic development and the debt issue and we talked about the need to alleviate poverty, particularly in Africa, and other issues. QUESTION: About Kosovo, did you agree on what was the most pressing and immediate issue there? S-G: I think on Kosovo the major issue at the moment is to help get the refugees back and make sure they come back in an orderly manner. That one has shelter and that one is prepared for winter and to settle them and of course there is the longer term reconstruction and the institution-building and administration of the whole territory. But for the moment the human needs are what we are focussing our attention on. QUESTION: How great is the concern that many of them may not be back before winter sets in? S-G: Well, obviously we will want to see as many of them back. Originally we were planning on a figure of about four hundred thousand going back before the winter. But of course there has been some spontaneous return, and so the number may be much higher than that. But we also need the time to be able to prepare the ground, to be able to prepare shelter, to be able to preposition food for us to be able to look after them when they get back. And this is why we have been trying to tell them to be patient, to give us time to prepare the ground, before their return. I hope this message also takes hold because it is always better to have an orderly return than a spontaneous one when we are not prepared for it. QUESTION: The (former) leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, Paddy Ashdown has been mentioned as a possible contender for a type of high representative in Kosovo. Do you think he might be a good candidate, or is a good candidate? S-G: He is one of the candidates, and I will be seeing him this evening.

25 June 1999 The Global Challenges of AIDS

Speech (OSSG, SG/SM/7045); AIDS Text of the first Diana, Princess of Wales, Memorial Lecture, delivered in London. Thank you, Professor [Michael] Adler [Chairman, UK National AIDS Trust], for that most generous introduction. Let me also thank the National AIDS Trust for organizing this event, and for inviting me to speak to all of you today. It is a great honour.

First, of course, I am deeply moved at being asked to deliver the first lecture in memory of Diana, Princess of Wales. Today, we pay tribute to Diana’s name; but more than that, we give thanks for her life, and for what she did to improve the lives of so many others. It is also an honour to address you within the hallowed halls of the Bank of England. Not many outsiders are given such access to the venerable “Old Lady”! But above all, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about the global challenge of HIVAIDS, which ranks very high among the current concerns of the United Nations. In fact, there can never have been a disease that is so international. I want to speak particularly about the devastating impact of AIDS on the developing world— especially on Africa. But I also want to tell you some good news—about new kinds of cross-border and cross-sector partnership, which are making the world a better, safer place. And I want to tell you how business leaders, in particular, can and must respond in larger numbers and more varied ways to the challenge of the AIDS epidemic. Some may think that because better medicines have been found, the AIDS emergency is over. Alas, no. There is still no cure for AIDS. The advance of HIV has not been stopped in any country. Even in the industrialized world, the rate of new infections has held steady for the last ten years. In short, the AIDS emergency continues—and it continues to grow. But my friends, we are not powerless against it. Together we can fight this epidemic. But to do so, we must first fight the conspiracy of silence and prejudice that has for too long surrounded it. For those living with HIV and AIDS, this conspiracy is an enemy no less deadly than the disease itself. Let us begin by admitting some hard facts: • AIDS is far more than a medical problem. • AIDS is far more than a national problem. • AIDS is far from over. Today, more than 33 million people are infected. More than 14 million have died. Already by the end of 1997, more than eight million children had lost their mothers to AIDS. And the epidemic is expanding in new directions—for instance into Eastern Europe, where even five years ago the virus was still almost unknown.

738 • 25 June 1999

In India, HIV is now firmly embedded in the general population. It is spreading even into rural areas that were thought to have been spared. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, which has a population of 45 million, a survey revealed last year that almost half a million people are already infected, and that the infection rate is now three times higher in villages than in cities. India as a whole now has more people living with HIV than any other single country in the world. In East Asia and the Pacific, new HIV infections rose by 70 per cent between 1996 and 1998. Unless we act fast, these regions could soon face a crisis comparable to what we already see in many parts of Africa, where whole nations now live under the shadow of AIDS. A child born during the next six years in Botswana should have had an average life expectancy of 70 years. Thanks to AIDS, that child will in fact have an even chance of dying by the time he or she is 41. Every minute that passes, as you and I go about the routine business of our lives, four or more young Africans are infected. And every day, Africa buries five and a half thousand of its sons and daughters who have died of AIDS. This is not only an unspeakable tragedy for so many individuals and their families. It is also devastating to the economies of their countries. AIDS is unravelling fragile and hard-won success stories throughout the developing world. It is taking away both breadwinners and those who look after the young, the old, and the infirm. It is destroying the very fabric of society. Already in 1997, Nelson Mandela warned the Economic Forum in Davos: “AIDS kills those on whom society relies to grow the crops, work in the mines and the factories, run the schools and govern nations and countries.” In his country—the same South Africa which became such a lodestar of hope to all Africans five years ago—one in five pregnant women is today infected with HIV. Africa’s health sector is consumed with caring for people with AIDS, at the expense of other needs. In some countries, AIDS-related costs will soon absorb half or more of health budgets. In the Ivory Coast, a teacher is dying of AIDS every other day. Throughout southern Africa, girls are taken from school to nurse their dying parents. Boys leave school to look after their orphaned siblings. The vulnerable position of women leads to an

increase in infections among them, which in turn leads to an increase in infections among infants. This leads to a double or triple burden for women, since they must care for their sick husbands and children at the same time. And so it goes on. Driven by poverty, AIDS leaves society even poorer, and thus even more vulnerable to infection. It brings in its wake discrimination, prejudice, and often violations of human rights. In this way, AIDS is taking away not only Africa’s present; it is taking away Africa’s future. The economic impact of AIDS ranges from the global to the local, from financial forecasts to the factory floor. A Kenyan business survey found that HIV/AIDS costs companies nearly 4 per cent of their annual profits, and that by 2005, thanks to AIDS, Kenya’s gross domestic product will be 15 per cent smaller than it would otherwise have been. The effects on individual firms can be crippling. Africa’s businesses must cope with increased absenteeism, the decline of an already limited skilled labour force, and higher payments for sickness, disability and death. These micro-economic effects have already been felt, to some extent, by all companies in all developing countries. Cumulatively, they have a severe macro-economic impact, which is felt even in the industrialized world. Africa, once eagerly anticipated as a market by potential trading partners, is now unlikely to play this role for years to come, as AIDS siphons off its resources. And if the Asian epidemic continues expanding, trade with Asia too will suffer, as the millions of infected people begin to fall ill and die. It seems an unending downward spiral of death and despair. In the words of my colleague Dr. Peter Piot, the head of The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the epidemic has become “a permanent challenge to human ingenuity and solidarity”. This challenge cannot be met without resources. Clearly the 150 million dollars a year currently being spent on AIDS in Africa comes nowhere near what is needed. To carry out a minimally effective package of interventions, the affected countries would require at least a six-fold increase in resources. In this country, and elsewhere in the prosperous West, drug “cocktails” have made a huge difference—even though HIV mutates so fast and so effectively that researchers and clinicians are hard

25 June 1999 • 739 pressed to keep ahead of it. But even if the cocktail were medicine’s answer to AIDS, it is at present far beyond the reach of the countries where answers are most desperately needed. For most people living with HIV/AIDS today, the ten-thousand to sixty-thousand-dollar annual price tag of an anti-retroviral regime belongs, quite simply, in a different galaxy. One of our aims must be to bring it down within their reach. We must find low-cost, effective therapies that developing countries can afford— for instance, to prevent mother-child transmission and to fight AIDS-related infections like tuberculosis. We must strengthen health systems to deal with the increased demand. This is particularly urgent in sub-Saharan Africa, where the largest number of AIDS patients live, health systems are weak, and the ability to pay is very low. Experience in several countries is beginning to show that it can be done. But, whatever our success in improving and increasing treatments, our strongest hope and our prime objective must be to prevent people becoming infected in the first place. The missing piece, the secret weapon we crave remains an effective vaccine. To find it will take patience, commitment and funds. But we must keep trying. The many scientific and ethical challenges involved can only be met through global collaboration between government, academia and industry. UNAIDS and its co-sponsors are working on many fronts to speed up development of new vaccines, and to find scientifically and ethically appropriate ways of testing them, for the benefit of the developing world. For example, the UNAIDS secretariat is helping to ensure that pharmaceutical companies use HIV strains from developing countries as the base for the vaccines they are working on. And years of preparatory collaboration by WHO and UNAIDS helped to make possible Uganda’s first HIV vaccine trial, in February this year. The World Bank, another UNAIDS co-sponsor, is exploring the market failures which lead to under-investment in an AIDS vaccine, and designing financial instruments which should stimulate private investment. And through its international Vaccine Advisory Committee, UNAIDS provides a forum for global planning and coordination. Research partners include the Medical Research Council of the United Kingdom, and the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative—a truly universal partnership in

which the National AIDS Trust is the United Kingdom partner. This Initiative succeeded in raising funds from Governments, starting with the United Kingdom last year; from business leaders such as Bill Gates, who has pledged 25 million dollars; and from society at large. More and more people are coming to understand that “AIDS is everybody’s business”. That is the motto of UNAIDS, the partnership which brings together seven co-sponsors from different parts of the United Nations family, with mandates ranging from health to development. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations International Drug Control Programme, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Bank are all working together, with the help of the UNAIDS Secretariat, to ensure that countries get the benefit of their combined expertise and support. Increasingly, UNAIDS is also joining forces with bodies outside the United Nations system— from grass-roots activists through private and public corporations to heads of State. In the past two decades, we have learnt from both successes and setbacks in Africa and elsewhere. We now know much more about how to prevent new infections, how to care for those with HIV, and how to alleviate the impact of AIDS on families and nations. The challenge now is to replicate and adapt the successes, on a larger scale and in many more countries. To that end, UNAIDS is bringing together national Governments, voluntary relief agencies, pressure groups and, not least, the private sector. As I said at the outset, the first battle we must win in the war on AIDS is the battle to tear down the wall of silence and prejudice that surrounds it. Nowhere is this more crucial than in Africa. In the last year or so many African governments have at last come to understand that official recognition of the AIDS problem, as a first step towards dealing with it, is a way to attract potential investors, not to frighten them off. Many African leaders are now speaking out on AIDS, and making a real effort to involve all sectors of society in the battle against it. In Botswana, a nationwide plan for combating AIDS was launched last September by President

740 • 25 June 1999

Mogae. Eighty per cent of the funding comes from within the country. In Lesotho, the AIDS budget has been doubled. In Swaziland, the Government has declared war on AIDS “not in words only, but in deeds”. In Namibia, the Cabinet has approved a new national AIDS programme, and in South Africa a new partnership, engaging all sectors of Government and civil society, was launched last October. People are also becoming more and more aware that responses to AIDS must take full account of human rights. Throughout the world, people with AIDS and HIV have seen their rights violated and their fundamental freedoms curtailed. That will only change when governments and employers, with the affected communities themselves, work together to change it. Last year, to help them do that, the United Nations published international guidelines on AIDS and Human Rights, setting out the responsibilities of both government and business. In particular, we urged the private sector to develop codes of professional conduct guaranteeing full respect for the human rights of all those affected by HIV and AIDS. No company and no government can take on the challenge of AIDS alone. What is needed is a new approach to public health—combining all available resources, public and private, and using all opportunities, local and global. If the money is found it will not be wasted. Experience in Uganda and Thailand—to name just two developing countries—has shown that there can be real success in reducing new infections, when the scale of HIV and AIDS is acknowledged and there is a well-thought-out, well-funded prevention response. Business can play a critical role, by providing a venue for HIV education, and by giving leadership within the wider community. A leading British company, Glaxo Wellcome, has launched “Positive Action”, an international fund which has so far invested over 25 million pounds in community and partnership projects. To give one example, it has helped fund a four-year programme of prevention and therapy for selected groups of patients in the Ivory Coast, with emphasis on preventing infected mothers from passing HIV to their infant children. So there is one business, at least, which has understood that AIDS is indeed “everybody’s business”. Happily, it is not alone. A Nepalese company, “Get Paper”, for instance, has helped create a health promotion

organization where six years ago none existed. Encouraged by its British customer The Body Shop, it started by establishing an AIDS information booth for truck and bus drivers. Today it is taking HIV prevention to 12 per cent of the country, and its efforts regularly attract foreign aid. In Nigeria, the oil company Chevron has taken an equally imaginative and tenacious approach to HIV prevention, working to protect the community as well as its own employees. In South Africa, Eskom, the electricity generating company, which has over 37,000 employees, made HIV/AIDS a strategic priority six years ago. As a result, it can now guarantee benefits to employees with AIDS and their families, and fund its medical clinics to cover tests, immune-system monitoring, and medical support. In Zimbabwe, Rio Tinto has taken steps to protect its skilled workforce. It has formed volunteer, employee-led AIDS action groups to act as peer counsellors and lead education campaigns among colleagues. And it is providing condoms to the largely male staff in its mining camps, many of whom face long periods of separation from their wives. Last month, UNAIDS helped launch an initiative by a new partner in Africa: Bristol-Myers Squibb. This company has committed 100 million dollars over five years to a new public/private partnership called “Secure the Future”, which supports medical research projects, education efforts, and social support mechanisms throughout southern Africa. These are encouraging examples. They show that corporate engagement can make a big difference. And here I must acknowledge the pioneering work in this field done by the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, which has been working closely with UNAIDS, WHO and the Global Business Council. These actions are born neither of mere oldfashioned philanthropy, nor of narrow self-interest, but from a marriage between deeply held values and stark realism. Increasingly, business leaders recognize that their responsibility—and their interest—lie not only in how their actions affect their shareholders, but in their impact on the societies in which they operate, and on the planet as a whole. The spread of AIDS is partly a tragic by-product of globalization. At least we now see the beginnings of a global response. So today I should like to issue three challenges to business, whether here in the United Kingdom,

25 June 1999 • 741 in other industrialized countries, or in the developing world: • First, embrace your workforce and their families, by working to end prejudice and discrimination against those affected by AIDS. Allow people with HIV to continue working, and so to remain useful members of society. • Second, do everything you can to protect the communities where you work, by preventing the spread of HIV in your workplaces and beyond. You can do this by spreading AIDS awareness and by distributing condoms. • And third, look to the global picture: realize the implications of this world epidemic, and join in the effort to combat it. Join forces with the many organizations, governmental and non-governmental, which are in the forefront of the fight for survival. The struggle against AIDS is a moral imperative—who could deny it? Happily, it is also a commercial imperative. It makes good business sense. Many of you here today represent some of the key players already acting in effective partnerships to fight HIV and AIDS. Through its work to keep a spotlight on the global epidemic, the United Kingdom’s National AIDS Trust and its supporters could serve as a model to other countries in the developed world. I know you still have challenges to meet here in the United Kingdom; but you have also started to make a crucial difference in some of the countries whose needs are most acute. Together, Governments, non-governmental organizations, business and the media have an immense store of knowledge, expertise, influence and funds. The Global Business Council on HIV/AIDS, in which Glaxo Wellcome has played a leading role, is helping to mobilize these resources, notably by providing encouragement to national councils in Botswana, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and Thailand. You in the National Aids Trust have now taken the initiative in establishing a United Kingdom Business Council on HIV and AIDS, as part of this network. I hope other countries will soon follow. Let me conclude by repeating my most important message: AIDS is not over. This is not about a few foreign countries, far away. It is a threat to an entire generation—indeed, a threat to human civilization as a whole. The question is not whether more people will die. Many more will die. The question is whether it will be only the generation AIDS is claiming

now, or the next one too, and the one after that. And finally, to Diana, Princess of Wales, were she with us today, I would say this: You won the hearts of millions by acknowledging your own human vulnerability. And you were among the first in this country to fight the conspiracy of silence and prejudice against AIDS. Maybe it was precisely your own vulnerability that gave you the commitment to match your compassion. Maybe that was what gave you your singular gift for listening, your need to hear and to help, your courage to speak up on behalf of the most vulnerable on this earth. Maybe that was what gave you your talent for making others want to do the same. Perhaps it takes that special kind of sensitivity to do what Diana did. The rest of us can only draw inspiration from it. Faced with her example, we simply cannot leave the neediest on this earth to needless death and degradation. She gave too much, and cared too deeply, for us not to honour her memory with action. In some parts of Africa, the name for AIDS translates as “shame has fallen on the Earth”. My friends, shame will indeed fall on the Earth if we turn our backs on those affected by AIDS and cast them into the shadows. Shame will fall on all of us if we do not wipe out every trace of prejudice and discrimination surrounding this disease. Today, we have the chance to practise hardheaded realism and heartfelt idealism at the same time—to combine self-interest with a sense of shared responsibility. It is a chance that does not come often. For Diana, for the millions living with AIDS today, and the many more who will live under its shadow tomorrow, we must seize the chance now, or bear the shame for ever. Is the choice really so hard?

25 June 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Kosovo Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. Kosovo

The Secretary-General has formed a group of Friends for Kosovo and has invited them to New York next Wednesday morning to consult on issues that have arisen during the initial implementation of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).

742 • 25 June 1999

You’ll recall that in his report to the Security Council of 12 June, he said he would consult regularly with governments and organizations who are in a position to assist him in his implementation of their resolution 1244 on Kosovo. The provisional list of Friends (and I stress provisional) includes Canada, China, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States. Three international organizations are also included. They are the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. . . . Spontaneous returns to Kosovo continue. The numbers reached a record high of nearly 50,000 on Thursday, bringing to over 300,000 the number of refugees who have now returned. Aid workers struggled to find shelter for them in war-devastated villages and to help victims of landmine accidents. Under a repatriation plan to three locations inside Kosovo (Pristina, Prizren and Urosevac) announced by the UNHCR Thursday, the first organized return is scheduled to take place from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on Monday. Meanwhile, aid convoy and relief operations are gathering steam, with dozens of trucks reaching those in need on a daily basis. . . . Lebanon

The following statement on Lebanon is attributable to the Spokesman: “The Secretary-General is deeply concerned at the escalation in the Israel-Lebanon sector. Over the last three weeks, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has reported an apparent slackening of control on both sides over their personnel in south Lebanon. This has affected the civilian population, as well as UNIFIL. “Yesterday’s direct attacks on civilian targets in several areas of Lebanon, and the rocket fire into northern Israel, represent a serious escalation. That innocent civilians lost their lives is particularly deplorable. “The Secretary-General calls on the parties to cooperate with UNIFIL in containing the conflict. Above all, innocent civilians must not be targeted and the international status of United Nations personnel must be respected.” . . . Secretary-General in London

As we mentioned to you yesterday, the SecretaryGeneral travelled from Moscow to London yesterday, where he met with Prime Minister Tony Blair. His comments to the press after that meeting were made available to you. . . .

This morning, the Secretary-General met with Foreign Minister Robin Cook for two hours. In a press encounter afterwards, the Secretary-General welcomed the United Kingdom’s intention to sign in New York this afternoon a document committing British military assets for rapid deployment as part of United Nations peacekeeping missions. The transcript of those remarks is available in my Office. France is also joining the standby arrangements today and, together with the United Kingdom, will sign a Memorandum of Understanding to that effect at 3:15 this afternoon on the thirty-seventh floor of the Secretariat. The press are invited. The French and United Kingdom Ambassadors will be happy to take your questions. . . . Solomon Islands

The Secretary-General, in response to a request from the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands, has decided to send a United Nations mission to the country to examine the humanitarian situation there. The mission, which leaves this weekend, will be led by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. It will also include representatives of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the UNHCR, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Department of Political Affairs. The mission will arrive on Tuesday and depart on Saturday. . . . QUESTION: Could you clarify the status of the independent team of experts going to Iraq to remove the remaining chemicals at the UNSCOM lab, since the OPCW in The Hague is objecting to the use of its experts in this mission? SPOKESMAN: We’ve been saying all along that our staff and others in Baghdad could be threatened by the existence of dangerous substances in the UNSCOM laboratory. We just want to send experts on these dangerous substances to the laboratory to clean it up and remove whatever threat might exist there. We’ve asked for help in identifying the experts who could do this job. It’s got nothing to do with the mandate of UNSCOM. It’s a safety issue and we’re trying to deal with it in a straightforward way. There may well be objections, but we’re looking for experts to do the job. QUESTION: Will the Secretary-General reconsider the planned mission? SPOKESMAN: We’re looking for experts who could carry out the mission. When we find them, Iraq has agreed to them, we will send them. . . . QUESTION: Is there any plan on how to conduct business in Kosovo? Who is going to be in charge?

28 June 1999 • 743 SPOKESMAN: The Security Council gives the United Nations Mission full civil authority in Kosovo, while recognizing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Carl Bildt was here yesterday and he described it as the Council had effectively suspended that country’s control over Kosovo and transferred it to the United Nations. That’s probably the simplest way to describe it. QUESTION: The Central Bank in Yugoslavia said they would insist the dinar still be the currency in Kosovo and they were actually still sending notes there. What is the United Nations position on that? SPOKESMAN: The Special Representative will decide. QUESTION: You mentioned the need for judges. Will some of those be international? SPOKESMAN: I don’t think that’s Sergio Vieira de Mello’s plan. When the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia suspended the autonomy that Kosovo had enjoyed under Tito, many ethnic Albanian judges were fired. That was in 1990. Those people are still around, so he will have qualified people, the Serb judges who are already there and the Albanian judges who used to be there. He will be consulting with this group that he’s going to meet with tomorrow on the selection of these judges, and he hopes to make an announcement next week on the appointment of judges. QUESTION: What about prejudiced opinions? SPOKESMAN: Well, he will be consulting with them. He has said he wants to consult with the Kosovar leadership—ethnic Albanian and ethnic Serb, and that’s what he would be doing tomorrow. QUESTION: What law would be used to judge—the criminal law of Yugoslavia, the provincial law? SPOKESMAN: I assume it will be on the law of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, except if that law would be seen as prejudicial. In that case, I think he would reserve to himself the right to suspend any laws that he considers unfair.

25 June 1999 Letter (EOSG); East Timor Letter to the president of the Security Council, Baboucarr-Blaise Ismaila Jagne. Following is a proposed list of countries to make up the civilian police of the UN Mission in East Timor. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to the civilian police component of the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET).

Following the usual consultations, I propose that the civilian police component of UNAMET be composed of the countries in the attached list. I should be grateful if you could bring this matter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. Countries Contributing Civilian Police Personnel to the United Nations Mission in East Timor

Argentina Australia Austria Bangladesh Brazil Canada Egypt Ghana Ireland Japan Jordan Uruguay Malaysia Mozambique Nepal

New Zealand Pakistan Philippines Republic of Korea Russian Federation Senegal Spain Sweden Thailand United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United States of America Zimbabwe

28 June 1999 Secretary-General Speaks of the Dialogue of Civilizations and the Need for a World Ethic

Speech (OSSG, SG/SM/7048); Islam Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, at the Sheldonian Theatre, in Oxford, England. It gives me great pleasure to address this Centre for Islamic Studies. Islam is not only one of the world’s great religions. In the course of history it has also been the guiding spirit of more than one great civilization. There was the great age of the Abbasid Caliphate, when Arabic was the main language of learning from Spain to Central Asia. And later there were such magnificent cultures as those of Mughal India, Safavid Iran or the Ottoman empire. No one doubts that in the past there were distinct human “civilizations”, in the plural. They rose and fell; they blossomed and they declined. One of the first writers to perceive this was the great Islamic historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun.

744 • 28 June 1999

Some civilizations existed at the same time, in different parts of the world, and had little or no contact with each other. Others did come into contact, and often into conflict, seeking to dominate or conquer one another. This second pattern, of interaction and competition between civilizations, became more common over the last two millenniums. Perhaps the clearest example was the competition between Islamic and Christian civilizations. They, after all, were closely related to each other, being both derived from the ancient monotheistic tradition of the Middle East, which Muslims call deen alIbraheem—the religion of Abraham. In the medieval Crusades, Christians and Muslims fought each other for control of Jerusalem, for the city and the Land which were Holy to both of them, as well as to the Jews. But at different times their competition affected many other parts of the world, from Spain to Indonesia and from Russia to sub-Saharan Africa, where I come from. Yet their interaction did not only take the form of conflict. There was also “dialogue”, as different civilizations learned from each other. In the Middle Ages, the Christians had much to learn from the Muslims: medicine, science, mathematics—even the works of ancient Greek philosophers, lost in the European Dark Ages but preserved and translated into Arabic by Muslim scholars. Later the Christian world developed superior organization and technology, and used these assets to conquer, or dominate, all the other civilizations in the world. The dialogue of civilizations became, to all intents and purposes, a monologue. As a result of that Western expansion, and the spectacular improvements in transport and communications which have followed it, the peoples of the world today are much more closely interconnected than they used to be. In some respects at least, whether we like it or not, all of us are now living in a single, global civilization. And yet in the last few years we seem to have heard more and more about “civilizations” in the plural—and not in the past but in the present. Samuel Huntington’s prediction of a “Clash of Civilizations” has stimulated an enormous amount of discussion since it first appeared in 1993. All sensible people must wish to avoid such a clash. Certainly most Muslim leaders do. Last September one far-sighted leader of a Muslim country, President Mohammed Khatami of Iran, made a memorable speech on the subject

to the United Nations General Assembly. He said that “the Islamic Revolution of the Iranian people . . . calls for a dialogue among civilizations and cultures instead of a clash between them”. At his suggestion, the Assembly has since decided to proclaim the year 2001 as the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations. So what are these separate civilizations in the world today, and what form can their dialogue take? Professor Huntington was right to point out that, with the end of the cold war, we are passing into a phase where there is no longer a clear-cut global conflict between ideologies, such as socialism and liberalism. Instead there are conflicts between identities, where the issue is not so much what you believe as what you are. But is it right to see these conflicts as happening between different “civilizations”? I am not so sure. Sometimes the groups in conflict have very similar cultures. Some even share the same language. Such was the case, for instance, with Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, and with Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. On the other hand, it is true that outsiders often identify with one or other side in these conflicts on the basis of religion or culture. There is a degree of fellow-feeling among Muslims across the world, as there is among Jews, or indeed white AngloSaxons, when they see members of their own group in conflict with people from other groups. In this way historical traditions, values and stereotypes continue to bring some peoples together, while driving others apart. “Civilizations” no longer exist as separate entities in the way they once did. But modern societies still bear the strong stamp of history, and still identify with each other along cultural fault lines. Among these fault lines, the one that generates most discussion today runs between Islamic and Western societies. Objectively, it may seem somewhat artificial—especially to an audience like this, in which it would be hard to say who is Muslim and who is Western, and I’m sure many are both. But subjectively it can be very real, especially perhaps to Islamic peoples whose view of themselves has been strongly affected by the history of the last millennium. Most Muslims are acutely aware that their religion and civilization were once dominant in large parts of Europe, Africa and Asia. They know that this empire was gradually lost,

28 June 1999 • 745 and that almost all Muslim countries fell under direct or indirect Western domination. Today colonialism has ended, but many Muslims still resent their manifest inequality with the West in power politics. Many of them have a sense of defeat and disadvantage. Their resentment has been fed by the unjust treatment of the Palestinians and, more recently, by atrocities committed against Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. Muslims today would like to see their culture and civilization duly respected, by themselves and by others, as was the case in the past. That surely, is a hope we should all share, provided we understand that respect today is no longer to be earned by military conquest. Modern societies are too closely linked with each other, and modern weapons are too terrifyingly destructive, for interaction between modern “civilizations” to take the form of armed conflict, as that between past civilizations often did. Today’s dialogue must be a peaceful one. That is one reason why I believe it has to proceed on the basis of a set of shared values. Even the most extreme moral relativist is condemned to be a universalist in this sense. The doctrine of “live and let live” will only work if all cultures and all societies accept it as the norm. Personally, however, I do not believe that “live and let live” is a sufficient norm for today’s global society. And that, perhaps, is where I part company from Professor Huntington. I do think it is vital that we preserve and cherish diversity wherever we can. But not, as he suggests, by identifying “civilizations” with geographically distinct cultural blocs. That might perhaps preserve an appearance of cultural diversity at the global level. But each bloc would have a depressingly closed and monolithic culture on the local level. Professor Huntington himself seems to advocate a world like that, at the end of his book, when he warns against the danger of America becoming a multi-civilizational country, or in his terms a “torn” society. I think most of us would disagree with that. Most of us feel that America’s openness and diversity are its best qualities, and that if it tried to impose cultural conformity it would be embarking, like other great Powers before it, on the road of decline. The conventional view is that civilizations are destroyed by internal conflict, which weakens their defences, causing them to fall prey to the bar-

barians at the gates. But in so far as that is true, I suspect it is because rulers and leaders have too often tried to deal with internal conflict in ways which end up making it worse. They have suppressed dissent and ignored genuine grievances, and so driven more and more people to rebel, even in alliance with those dreaded “barbarians”. In fact the very notion that foreigners are barbarians, without any civilization or ideas of their own worth studying, may be one of the things that saps the strength of a supposedly superior civilization, and eventually brings about its downfall. The history of Islamic civilization illustrates this point. For hundreds of years the Muslim world was in the forefront of scientific and technical progress, as well as artistic achievement—at a time when Muslim scholars were bringing together Greek philosophical and Indian mathematical concepts, while Muslim statesmen were refining Persian and Byzantine ideas of kingship. A great Jewish scholar like Maimonides could flourish in the service of Muslim rulers. And later the Ottoman empire gave asylum to both Jews and Christians fleeing from persecution in Christian States. Indeed, the Ottomans for several centuries brought good administration to regions which have too often lacked it since—the southern and eastern Mediterranean, and the Balkans. Their empire was for long a splendid example of cultural and ethnic pluralism, from which we still have much to learn. Yet sadly the same Ottoman empire allowed Islamic thought to become dominated by conservative theologians who opposed all innovations— from coffee to the printing press—equating them with heresy. The result was that—even while the West was surging ahead through the embrace of rationalism and science—in the leading Islamic State of the time religion came to be seen as an obstacle to reform, and modernization as something inherently anti-religious. Some of the current attempts to restore Islamic greatness are, I fear, doomed to fail because— instead of loosening these shackles of obscurantism—they are trying to fasten them even more tightly. This is especially true of those movements that resort to violence as a means of enforcement, ignoring the clear message of the Quran that “there is no compulsion in religion”. I fear this can only lead to even greater alienation. Yet I am sure there is no necessary conflict

746 • 28 June 1999

between belief and modernity, in Islam any more than in other religions. The challenge for Muslim thinkers, here in Oxford and elsewhere, must be to live up to the finest traditions of Islamic thought— including the tradition of “ijtihad”, or free interpretation, not just in theology and law but in all the arts and sciences. They should encourage their fellow Muslims to enquire freely what is good and bad in other cultures, as in their own. All of us who come from developing countries need to understand that the greatest gap between the developed and the developing world is the “knowledge gap”. It can only be bridged by openminded research and free, courageous thought. The way forward, while preserving the bedrock of our traditions in belief and custom, is to free our minds to absorb and understand a world that is constantly changing. If Ibn Khaldun were alive today, I am sure this would be his message to the Muslim peoples: live up to the best traditions of your past, and play your full part in a future of co-existence and constant interaction between different traditions. One contemporary Muslim, at least, did preach that message: Eqbal Ahmad, whose death last month we must all mourn. Four years ago he gave up his glittering academic career in the United States, and went back to work in Pakistan. It is tragic that he did not live to endow his own country with a world-class university, named after Ibn Khaldun, as he dreamed of doing. But I am sure his example will inspire others to carry on his work. In short, our world ethic cannot be simply a matter of “live and let live”, in the sense of letting each State enforce its own orthodoxy on all its citizens. Still less can it consist of letting one or two powerful “core States” enforce their will on others which are deemed to share their culture. On the contrary, we must accept—and even cultivate—the presence of different traditions within each region of the world, and indeed within each society. That is why I am glad to be speaking today, not just at a centre of Islamic studies, but at a centre of Islamic studies in Britain—a major Western country—and in Oxford, a historic seat of Western learning. It is good that such a centre is associated with this great university. I hope in the future the association will become even closer, as the Centre develops its programme of teaching and research. It also gives me great pleasure to follow in the steps of the Prince of Wales, who from this very lectern, six years ago, publicly acknowledged the

debt which Western civilization owes to the Islamic world. Many of you will remember that His Royal Highness spoke not only about Muslim contributions to the culture of medieval and renaissance Europe. He also spoke of the millions of Muslims living in the West today—one million of them, or probably more by now, here in Britain. “These people”, he said, “are an asset to Britain.” Of course they are. More than that, I would say that Muslim communities are an essential part of Western society today. They represent one of many traditions that are coming together in the modern West. Their presence makes possible a dialogue of civilizations—or at least of traditions—within the West. They bring their own traditions to this dialogue, and they are well placed to study other traditions, some of which have a longer history in Western societies. They can absorb what they find valuable in those traditions, incorporate it into their own outlook and way of life, and also transmit it to fellow Muslims in other countries, particularly those where they have close family ties. These Western Muslim communities will, I suspect, be seen by future generations as an important source of renewal and inspiration in Islamic thought. So the Dialogue among Civilizations must be a dialogue within societies as well as between them. President Khatami himself implied this, when he said that the dialogue is necessary for the “enhancement of civility, whether at national or international level”. And it must be a dialogue of mutual respect. The aim is not to eliminate differences between human beings, but to preserve and even celebrate them as a source of joy and strength. That is the world ethic that we need: a framework of shared values—a sense of our common humanity—within which different traditions can co-exist. People must be able to follow their own traditions without making war on each other. They must have sufficient freedom to exchange ideas. They must be able to learn from each other. As the Quran says—in a passage which I know is a favourite of yours, Dr. Nizami [Director of the Centre]: “O mankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other”—“not”, a leading commentator adds, “that you may despise each other”. [49:13]

28 June 1999 • 747 And that means that each nation must not only respect the culture and traditions of others, but must also allow its own citizens—women and men alike—the freedom to think for themselves. As President Khatami told the General Assembly: “We should recognize that both men and women are valuable components of humanity that equally possess the potential for intellectual, social, cultural and political development, and that comprehensive and sustainable development is only possible through the active participation of both men and women in social life.” All the great religions and traditions overlap when it comes to the fundamental principles of human conduct: charity, justice, compassion, mutual respect, the equality of human beings in the sight of God. That is what has made it possible for States in all parts of the world, representing many different religious and cultural traditions, to espouse the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other more detailed international agreements which flow from it. It may be presumptuous to single out any of these rights and obligations for special emphasis, but in this context none can be more important than freedom of thought and of expression. Those freedoms enable human beings to listen to each other, respect each other’s traditions, and learn from each other. Whatever else we define as specific to a particular culture or civilization, those freedoms are vital to us all, and we must never part with them. In Oxford, and in the Oxford Centre of Islamic Studies, I know that this essential point is understood. You are well placed to spread your understanding of it far and wide, and I’m sure you will do so.

28 June 1999 Letter (EOSG); Guinea-Bissau Letter to the president of the Security Council, Baboucarr-Blaise Ismaila Jagne. I have the honour to refer to the mandate of the United Nations Peace-building Support Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNOGBIS), as agreed following my consultations with the Council last March (see S/1999/232 and S/1999/233 of 3 March 1999). Members of the Council will recall that following the events of 7 May in Guinea-Bissau, which resulted in President Vieira’s ouster from office, I indicated in my statement of 11 May 1999 that the Secretariat, in view of the changed circum-

stances on the ground, would review options available to the United Nations with regard to the peace process in that country. As part of the review process, the Department of Political Affairs dispatched an assessment mission to Guinea-Bissau from 10 to 12 June 1999 to take stock of the situation in the country and to make recommendations as to the appropriate role the United Nations should now play in response to the new situation on the ground. The mission reported that despite the changed circumstances, the overall mandate of UNOGBIS remained valid although some of its aspects may need to be revised to adapt to the new realities. Accordingly, the revised mandate would read as follows: (a) Help create an enabling environment for restoring, maintaining and consolidating peace, democracy and the rule of law and for the organization of free and transparent elections (same as in the original mandate except the word “maintaining”, which is new); (b) Actively support national efforts, including those of civil society towards national reconciliation, tolerance and peaceful management of differences, particularly during the transitional period (new); (c) Encourage initiatives aimed at building confidence and maintaining friendly relations between Guinea-Bissau, its neighbours and its international partners (new); (d) Seek the commitment of the Government and other parties to adopt a programme of voluntary arms collection, disposal and destruction (original mandate); (e) Provide the political framework and leadership for harmonizing and integrating the activities of the United Nations system in the country, particularly during the transitional period leading up to general and presidential elections (original mandate). The above revised mandate takes into account the new realities on the ground and would enable UNOGBIS to contribute meaningfully to efforts aimed at restoring durable peace and sustainable development in the country. Meanwhile, I instructed my Representative to travel to Guinea-Bissau on 22 June for consultations with the authorities and to begin the task of acting in motion the operations of UNOGBIS. I should be grateful, Mr. President, if you would bring this letter to the attention of Members of the Security Council.

748 • 28 June 1999

Please, accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

29 June 1999 Secretary-General Deplores Attack on UNAMET Regional Office in East Timor

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7052); East Timor The Secretary-General deplores in the strongest terms today’s attack on the Maliana regional office of the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET). According to UNAMET personnel, approximately 100 persons, reportedly pro-integration militia members, threw rocks and stones at the office while UNAMET staff and local East Timorese took refuge there. Several people were seriously injured, one UNAMET staff member was hurt and the office was extensively damaged. The Secretary-General’s Personal Representative for East Timor, Jamsheed Marker, and his Special Representative for the Popular Consultation, Ian Martin, have protested the attack to the Indondensian authorities in Jakarta and Dili. The Secretary-General holds the Indonesian Government, which has responsibility for bringing law and order to the Territory, accountable for allowing such an attack to occur, and deems any assault on UNAMET personnel or property completely unacceptable. He calls on the Indonesian police to investigate the incident and to bring the perpetrators to justice. In the 5 May Accords, signed in New York by Indonesia and Portugal, Indonesia undertook to create an atmosphere of peace and security in East Timor before the August popular consultation. The Secretary-General reiterates his call on the Indonesian Government to fulfil its commitments under the Accords by taking the necessary steps to rein in militia activities; begin disarming armed groups, in cooperation with UNAMET; provide protection for United Nations offices and create a climate conducive to the holding of the popular consultation. The Secretary-General wishes to make clear that such acts of provocation and vandalism will not deter UNAMET from fulfilling its obligations as set forth in the 5 May Agreement and Security Council resolution 1246 (1999).

30 June 1999 Secretary-General’s Talking Points from Friends of Kosovo Meeting

Speech (OSSG); Kosovo

Excellencies, Friends, Permit me to begin by welcoming you to the United Nations this morning. Your presence symbolizes the commitment by the international community to the people of Kosovo and to a vital United Nations. The task the Security Council has assigned to us is enormous in scope and complex in execution. We will do our utmost to succeed. In order to do so we will continue to need the interest and support that brought you here today. Paragraph 10 of Security Council resolution 1244 authorizes me to establish an interim civilian presence in Kosovo, with the assistance of the relevant international organizations, while paragraph 11 enumerates the mission’s responsibilities. This civilian presence is intended to provide an interim administration under which the people of Kosovo are able to enjoy substantial autonomy. Within 48 hours of the adoption of resolution 1244, I submitted to the Security Council a concept paper outlining the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK). Today is the 17th day of UNMIK’s presence on the ground, and the core elements of the mission have been established, as you will be briefed momentarily. All of us are indebted to Sergio Vieira de Mello, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General ad interim, for his effective leadership. I hope to be in a position soon to announce the permanent SRSG and his Principal Deputy. In accordance with Resolution 1244, the structure of UNMIK is designed to ensure that all its activities in Kosovo are carried out in an integrated manner, with a clear chain of command, while also relying on the capabilities and expertise of partner international organizations. I pay tribute this morning to our main non-UN partners, the OSCE and the EU, for the spirit and the reality of cooperation that exists among us as we elaborate and put in place the component parts of our collective enterprise. I want also to say that we well recognize the awesome responsibilities that have been assigned to KFOR, and to express our thanks for its vital support in these initial stages of UNMIK’s deployment. The mission faces a number of immediate challenges. The first is coping with the massive daily flow of returning refugees and internally displaced persons at a rate that exceeds any on record. The humanitarian agencies, led by UNHCR, are performing heroically under exceedingly difficult conditions; they deserve our commendation and support.

1 July 1999 • 749 The next challenge concerns the establishment of a regime of law and order. Only KFOR has the capacity to establish a secure environment in Kosovo, therefore we welcome suggestions for its accelerated deployment. The demilitarization of armed Kosovar groups is a critical step, and we are pleased to note that the KLA has complied with the first key deadline set in its agreement with KFOR. For its part, UNMIK has begun the deployment of civilian police though, as Bernard Miyet will inform you, we need more of them and we need them quickly before we can fully assume our policing responsibility. UNMIK is also about to appoint the first set of judges so that those who are arrested can be tried. A third immediate challenge is political in nature. The UNMIK team in Kosovo, again with KFOR at its side, has begun to engage the various political groupings in Kosovo, in a process of rehabilitation and reconciliation. Some progress has already been achieved. It will grow stronger as a sense of security and freedom from fear takes root. And this sense of security must take root among the Serbs and Gypsies no less than the Kosovar Albanians, for we aspire to a multi-ethnic Kosovo. The long-term success of our mission is defined in terms of enabling all Kosovars to participate fully and effectively in the public life of their province: creating viable legislative and judicial bodies, delivering public services, and establishing a robust civil society. Once that is achieved UNMIK can be drawn down and phased out, and its activities turned over to indigenous institutions. As an interim measure, we have established a United Nations Trust Fund to finance salaries of local administrators, equipment to support their work, and quick-hit projects that will immediately improve the daily lives of Kosovars. I urge you to contribute to this Fund. I would also ask that the humanitarian needs of all citizens of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia be served, and that the definition of such needs include restoring electricity and water supplies. A healing process must begin for the people of the entire region if the dark chapter of this recent past, which began in Bosnia, is not to fester and corrode the prospects of reconciliation. Friends, The horrors to which the Kosovar Albanians have been subjected can never be undone. But KFOR and UNMIK have begun the task of helping the people of Kosovo to rebuild their lives, their homes and communities, and a political

structure within which they can govern their own affairs. Let this joint effort—the international community providing a helping hand, under the legitimacy of a Security Council mandate and in the pursuit of fundamental human rights—be the legacy that we take forward from this tragedy into the next century. Thank you. I would now ask Robin Cook to give us a brief status report on KFOR.

1 July 1999 Letter (UN archives); Kosovo Internal note to the under-secretary-general of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Bernard Miyet, from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza. The note is in response to two letters from Javier Solana, secretary-general of NATO: the first to the Secretary-General and the second to General Wesley Clark. Also included is a handwritten note by the Secretary-General. NOTE TO MR. MIYET

Subject: Kosovo 1. The Secretary-General supports the proposal by Secretary-General Solana, in his letter of 30 June 1999 that Mr. Vieira de Mello issue a public statement of support for the role of KFOR in ensuring public safety and order until the civilian authorities are able to assume these tasks. 2. An urgent draft for the statement is requested, along with a draft response to Mr. Solana. Thank you. * * *

30 June 1999 Dear Secretary General, It was a pleasure speaking with you over the phone earlier this week about the continuing close cooperation between NATO and the UN in Kosovo. Since our conversation KFOR has continued to strengthen its presence and carry out its mission in Kosovo robustly and in close coordination with Special Representative de Mello. I have also conveyed to NATO Allies your appeal (shared fully by myself, SACEUR General Clark and COMKFOR General Jackson) that they do their utmost to ensure as rapid as possible deployment of their forces to Kosovo. I am confident that the Allies, despite the significant burden this effort (in addition to the NATO-led operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina) is placing on national

1 July 1999 • 749 The next challenge concerns the establishment of a regime of law and order. Only KFOR has the capacity to establish a secure environment in Kosovo, therefore we welcome suggestions for its accelerated deployment. The demilitarization of armed Kosovar groups is a critical step, and we are pleased to note that the KLA has complied with the first key deadline set in its agreement with KFOR. For its part, UNMIK has begun the deployment of civilian police though, as Bernard Miyet will inform you, we need more of them and we need them quickly before we can fully assume our policing responsibility. UNMIK is also about to appoint the first set of judges so that those who are arrested can be tried. A third immediate challenge is political in nature. The UNMIK team in Kosovo, again with KFOR at its side, has begun to engage the various political groupings in Kosovo, in a process of rehabilitation and reconciliation. Some progress has already been achieved. It will grow stronger as a sense of security and freedom from fear takes root. And this sense of security must take root among the Serbs and Gypsies no less than the Kosovar Albanians, for we aspire to a multi-ethnic Kosovo. The long-term success of our mission is defined in terms of enabling all Kosovars to participate fully and effectively in the public life of their province: creating viable legislative and judicial bodies, delivering public services, and establishing a robust civil society. Once that is achieved UNMIK can be drawn down and phased out, and its activities turned over to indigenous institutions. As an interim measure, we have established a United Nations Trust Fund to finance salaries of local administrators, equipment to support their work, and quick-hit projects that will immediately improve the daily lives of Kosovars. I urge you to contribute to this Fund. I would also ask that the humanitarian needs of all citizens of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia be served, and that the definition of such needs include restoring electricity and water supplies. A healing process must begin for the people of the entire region if the dark chapter of this recent past, which began in Bosnia, is not to fester and corrode the prospects of reconciliation. Friends, The horrors to which the Kosovar Albanians have been subjected can never be undone. But KFOR and UNMIK have begun the task of helping the people of Kosovo to rebuild their lives, their homes and communities, and a political

structure within which they can govern their own affairs. Let this joint effort—the international community providing a helping hand, under the legitimacy of a Security Council mandate and in the pursuit of fundamental human rights—be the legacy that we take forward from this tragedy into the next century. Thank you. I would now ask Robin Cook to give us a brief status report on KFOR.

1 July 1999 Letter (UN archives); Kosovo Internal note to the under-secretary-general of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Bernard Miyet, from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza. The note is in response to two letters from Javier Solana, secretary-general of NATO: the first to the Secretary-General and the second to General Wesley Clark. Also included is a handwritten note by the Secretary-General. NOTE TO MR. MIYET

Subject: Kosovo 1. The Secretary-General supports the proposal by Secretary-General Solana, in his letter of 30 June 1999 that Mr. Vieira de Mello issue a public statement of support for the role of KFOR in ensuring public safety and order until the civilian authorities are able to assume these tasks. 2. An urgent draft for the statement is requested, along with a draft response to Mr. Solana. Thank you. * * *

30 June 1999 Dear Secretary General, It was a pleasure speaking with you over the phone earlier this week about the continuing close cooperation between NATO and the UN in Kosovo. Since our conversation KFOR has continued to strengthen its presence and carry out its mission in Kosovo robustly and in close coordination with Special Representative de Mello. I have also conveyed to NATO Allies your appeal (shared fully by myself, SACEUR General Clark and COMKFOR General Jackson) that they do their utmost to ensure as rapid as possible deployment of their forces to Kosovo. I am confident that the Allies, despite the significant burden this effort (in addition to the NATO-led operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina) is placing on national

750 • 1 July 1999

resources, will respond in a positive and timely manner. Also, I enclose for your information a copy of a letter I have sent to General Clark, regarding the essential role of KFOR in ensuring public safety and order until civil authorities are able to assume this task. I understand that you and Mr. de Mello attach importance to KFOR’s role in this regard and I would very much welcome any public statement of support you or he might be able to issue. In particular, a statement confirming the UN’s support for KFOR detaining and holding serious offenders against public order, and notifying such detentions to a designated UN judicial official would be extremely helpful. I thank you in advance for your assistance and look forward to continuing our work together towards bringing lasting peace and security to the Balkans. Yours sincerely, Javier Solana Approved. —K.A. 1/7

* * *

29 June 1999 Dear General Clark, The Council discussed today KFOR’s role in ensuring public safety and order in Kosovo until civil authorities are able to assume this task. In particular, Council reaffirmed that KFOR has full authority under UNSCR 1244 and OPLAN 10413 for effectively carrying out this task. Council also underscored the importance of ensuring consistency in the implementation of this task across all five KFOR sectors and of managing the transitional period until the UN Civil Administration is up and running. Pursuant to Council’s discussion, I would like to ask that you instruct COMKFOR to issue guidance to the five sectoral commanders for the arrest and detention of serious offenders against public order, with such offenders being held until they can be handed over to the UN Civil Authority. COMKFOR should ensure consistency across the five sectors with regard to the interpretation of crimes which would constitute serious offences against public order. COMKFOR should also continue to liaise closely with SRSG de Mello, including on the possibility of the latter’s issuing a public statement confirming the UN’s support for KFOR detaining and holding serious offenders against public order and notifying such detentions to a designated UN judicial official.

Yours sincerely, Javier Solana

2 July 1999 Letter (UN archives); field missions staffing Memo to all heads of departments and offices alerting them to the need to draw on staff for field positions in East Timor and Kosovo. The memo is in response to a note, annexed below, from UnderSecretary-General Bernard Miyet to S. Iqbal Riza, the Secretary-General’s chief of staff. To: All Heads of Department/Office All Heads of Office away from Headquarters From: The Secretary-General Subject: Release of staff for United Nations field missions 1. As you know, the past several weeks have witnessed a resurgence in United Nations field operations. In addition to maintaining some 22 peacekeeping, political and humanitarian missions and several special envoy presences throughout the world, the Organization has now been tasked with the establishment of the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) and the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), as well as with the expansion or our presence in the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) and the renewed activities of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). 2. In particular, Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) of 10 June 1999 authorized “the Secretary-General, with the assistance of relevant international organizations, to establish an international civil presence in Kosovo in order to provide an interim administration for Kosovo under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and which will provide transitional administration while establishing and overseeing the development of provisional democratic selfgoverning institutions to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants of Kosovo”. UNMIK’s Interim Civil Administration Component will be responsible for overseeing and, where necessary, conducting a number of civil affairs functions—such as civil service and economic and budgetary affairs—as well as supporting the restoration and provision in the short run of basic public services, such as public health, education, utilities, transport and telecommunications. This is a task of unprecedented

5 July 1999 • 751 dimensions, demanding—above all—the rapid and effective deployment of qualified, missionready personnel. 3. I am pleased to note the successful deployment of the initial start-up team, which has established the United Nations presence in Pristina, and to thank those of you who have released our staff for this effort. That being said, in the coming weeks, several hundred more staff will be identified for longer-term deployment (usually for one year, or longer) to UNMIK. 4. As always, I rely on your cooperation in ensuring the timely release of the staff of your department/office selected for mission service. I am assured that every effort will be made by the Office of Human Resources Management to support you in replacing these staff as soon as feasible. However, I particularly count on your active support in releasing immediately on request those staff selected for deployment to UNMIK in the coming days and weeks, as a demonstration of our shared commitment to meeting the enormous challenge set before us. We must remain determined to meet the increasing demands being placed on the Organization and the confidence being expressed by the international community. Thank you. * * * NOTE TO MR. RIZA

Re: UNMIK: Release of staff members for mission service In the coming days and weeks, FALD [Field Administration Logistics Division] will be requesting departments to release numerous staff at short notice to serve in UNMIK or other field missions for longer term periods. We anticipate that, understandably perhaps, there will be hesitance on the part of some departments to meet our requests. Without their active support, however, we simply will not be able to meet the staffing requirements on the ground; thereby potentially jeopardizing the success of the mission. As you know, the Secretary-General has attached great importance to successfully meeting the UNMIK mandate. It is therefore recommended that he be asked to address the attached communication to all Heads of Departments/Offices at Headquarters and Heads of Offices away from Headquarters. He might also be requested to raise the issue at this next Senior Management Meeting. Your endorsement of this approach would be greatly appreciated, as would your securing the

approval and signature of the Secretary-General to the attached memorandum. Thank you.

5 July 1999 Transcript of the Secretary-General’s Remarks Upon Entering the Palais des Nations

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Sierra Leone/Kosovo SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am once again very happy to be here in Geneva. I have a full programme, but if you have questions I will take one or two. During the next two days, I think we will have many encounters and time to discuss the issue of poverty eradication. We will also discuss the rights of the child. Tomorrow I will be receiving Bernard Kouchner here to discuss Kosovo and I think you would also have a chance to meet him. I will take one or two questions before I start the day. QUESTION: You will be going to Sierra Leone. How do you see a perspective for a peaceful settlement of the conflict? S-G: I think we are on the verge of a peace agreement. We have UN observers and a UN presence there and so I am going to see how things are going on the ground for myself to encourage the protagonists to move ahead with reconciliation and to see what further the international community can do to assist the situation. QUESTION: KFOR is now doing the police in Kosovo but is complaining that it is not part of its regular duty. When do you expect the UN to take over the police function? S-G: One of the long-term plans is to put in first of all 1,500 police and train 3,000 local police. But under the Security Council resolution and under the agreement everyone recognized that it does take time to recruit that many police from around the world to put them into Kosovo and to train the police. The resolution demands that the international military presence should secure the environment, should be responsible for public order until such time as the police has been mounted. I do agree with you that the military do not like to do police work but given the circumstances this is the arrangement we have. And we are going to move as quickly as possible to put in the police. They have started arriving and as soon as we are fully staffed we will take on the police functions. QUESTION: Now that you’ve appointed Bernard Kouchner, what’s the role of Carl Bildt and Eduard Kukan from now on?

752 • 5 July 1999

S-G: Carl Bildt and Eduard Kukan will have an advisory role for me. He is playing a very active role on a whole range of issues. We have operations on the ground but there are other aspects of the Kosovo and the Balkans issue which needs to be looked after and Carl will be involved in that. [Eduard] Kukan will also be involved as and when required but as you know, he has reverted to his role as Foreign Minister but will be at my disposal to advise and to undertake specific missions for me as when required. Thank you very much.

5 July 1999 Press Conference with the International Chamber of Commerce

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Global Compact “Welcome. We had a very productive meeting. It is my pleasure to share with you the good news that emerged from it. First, I am very pleased that the business community has taken up the challenge of the Global Compact that I proposed in Davos earlier this year. And second, we have made good progress in improving investment prospects for African and least developed countries. Regarding the Global Compact, the business community increasingly sees the UN as a way to ensure the benefits of globalization are spread more widely. Business is calling for a stronger UN, especially in the areas of human rights, labor and the environment, because this is seen as the most sensible way forward to safeguard open markets while at the same time creating a human face for the global economy. Business leaders are also ready to work with us in concrete ways to promote best practices. Now the challenge is to involve other actors, such as the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and NGOs, to make this a successful partnership for everybody. I believe we can all be on the same side. Regarding investment in least developed and African countries, it is my hope that pilot studies undertaken jointly by UNCTAD and the ICC will help stimulate badly needed investment and put African countries back on the investment-location map. We need to bring about a major shift in perception. Good political performance does and should pay off and those countries that are making serious efforts should not be discounted simply because of

overall negative perceptions about the African continent. I will leave now the floor to my colleagues and business leaders.

8 July 1999 Transcript of the Secretary-General’s Encounter with the Press in Sierra Leone

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Sierra Leone SECRETARY-GENERAL: Mr. President, let me say how happy I am to be here on this important day in the recent history of Sierra Leone. We have now taken an important step—a step for peace—and we have the difficult task of implementation ahead of us. I know that the people of Sierra Leone have gone through a painful experience. Who can forget the brutal amputation of limbs that went on here, and all the atrocities that took place. But I hope, following the signing of yesterday, that this will be a thing of the past. And now, we all have to come together to implement the peace agreement that was negotiated. I have had the chance to discuss the peace agreement, the implementation, the support of the international community, not only implementation of the military and political aspects of the agreement, but the need for reconstruction and rehabilitation of the economy of Sierra Leone, so that the people of this country can look forward to a life of peace and prosperity which could be theirs given the resources and the riches that are available here. I can promise you that the United Nations will work hand-in-glove with the government and the people of Sierra Leone to bring peace about. But we all have to pull [sic] our efforts. No one can do it alone. The government under the leadership of President Kabbah, I’m sure, is going to do its best. But you, the people of Sierra Leone, also have a responsibility to work with the government to work for peace. Thank you. QUESTION: [Concerning the disarmament provision of the peace agreement.] S-G: I agree with you that disarmament is absolutely crucial and an essential part of the exercise. In fact this morning, in my discussions with the ECOMOG Force Commander and our own Chief Military Observer, this was one of the key issues we discussed, the need for us to move ahead very quickly, and for the troops and militia to disarm and be directed into more constructive activities. We are going to work with ECOMOG, with our own forces, with all sides to ensure that they are disarmed and they disarm quickly. Those who

10 July 1999 • 753 can be inducted into the national army will be trained or retrained and then directed into the army. QUESTION: [One concerns the tens of thousands of refugees dispersed in the region; the second is, what about the civilians who are behind rebel lines, in terms of what the UN can do.] S-G: I think that Sierra Leoneans who are outside the country will be encouraged to come back. The High Commissioner for Refugees has had a very good programme of helping returnees, and I would hope that we will be able to do the same for Sierra Leoneans living in the region (Guinea, Liberia and elsewhere). On the question of humanitarian assistance, again I have discussed it with the Military Commanders and they’re going to move as quickly as they can, following the ceasefire, to open up the country so that we will be able to get assistance to them. Of course, access is not going to be easy everywhere, and we might have to resort to helicopters and planes to get to the people in difficult locations. QUESTION: Secretary-General, in the reconstruction of Sierra Leone, I’m pretty sure that you will be dependent on the trust fund that was set up for Sierra Leone by the UN. What has been the response of the donors? S-G: I think, for the reconstruction, we are not going to rely on the trust fund. We’re going to rely on major bilateral donors to come in and give Sierra Leone a hand. There has been too long the feeling in certain quarters that Africa must solve its own problems. Yes, the basic responsibility for problems in Africa lies with us. We, the Africans, have the responsibility to solve these problems. The crises and the conflicts we are facing are the result of actions we have taken and we should be able to resolve them. But we need the help of the international community and the bilateral donors. At this critical stage, I hope that donors will give, and give freely, willingly, and be generous with Sierra Leone, bearing in mind how much the people in this country have suffered and that the international financial institutions would also do their part in the reconstruction of the economy of this country.

The Secretary-General was heartened by the news that the Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs and the rebel leaders meeting in Lusaka, Zambia since 26 June had adopted a ceasefire agreement for the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 7 July 1999. This is an important and welcome step towards the restoration of peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in the Great Lakes region of Africa. The Secretary-General urges the Heads of State and the rebel leaders concerned to sign and otherwise ratify the cease-fire agreement as a matter of urgency. He calls on them to declare and enact an immediate cessation of hostilities and troops standstill, pending the entry into force of the ceasefire agreement, and to create the trust and goodwill that are crucial to the future reconciliation among the Congolese and within the Great Lakes region. The Secretary-General has informed the Security Council of his willingness to seek authorization to deploy United Nations military observers at an early date, with a possible subsequent deployment of a full-scale United Nations peacekeeping operation. A technical survey team is being dispatched to the Democratic Republic of the Congo this week to assess the feasibility of the deployment of observers. The Secretary-General commends President Frederick Chiluba and the Zambian Government for their untiring efforts since September 1998 to bring the Lusaka peace process to a successful conclusion. He also commends all those who have facilitated and complemented the Lusaka process, and particularly the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity and the Leader of the Libyan Arab Jamahirya, who brought about the Sirte agreement of 18 April 1999. The Secretary-General is prepared, subject to authorization by the Security Council, to make a substantial contribution to helping the parties implement the cease-fire agreement. The United Nations will spare no effort in mobilizing the international community to assist the peoples of the region in their efforts to achieve reconciliation, reconstruction and development.

10 July 1999 Letter (EOSG); East Timor

8 July 1999 Secretary-General Heartened by News of Ceasefire Agreement for the DRC

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7064); Democratic Republic of Congo

Letter to the president of the Security Council, Hasmy Agam. Excellency, As you are aware, I am called upon by para-

754 • 10 July 1999

graph 3 of the 5 May Agreement on Security reached by the Government of Indonesia and Portugal and the United Nations (A/53/951S/1999/513, annex III) to ascertain, prior to the start of registration and based on the objective evaluation of UNAMET, if the necessary security situation exists for the peaceful implementation of the consultation process. On 4 May, I conveyed in a memorandum to the parties the main elements that would need to be in place in order to enable me to determine that the necessary security conditions exist for the start of the operational phases of the consultation process, and subsequently outlined those elements in paragraph 6 of my 5 May report to the Security Council. According to the original consultation schedule, the registration was to begin on 22 June. At that time, I reported to the Council that I was unable to certify that the necessary conditions existed to begin the operational phases of the consultation process, given the security situation throughout much of East Timor and the absence of a level playing field (S/1999/705). In particular, I noted that militia activities continued to have a constricting effect on political freedom. I also noted that I wished to allow UNAMET sufficient time to reach full deployment. I therefore postponed my assessment conditions for three weeks, until 13 July. UNAMET has made the necessary preparations to begin registration on 13 July. However, while I have reported to the Council that there has been some improvement in the security situation in the capital, Dili, in East Timor as a whole, and especially in the western districts of the Territory, the security situation remains serious despite the deployment of UNAMET personnel. The recent incidents in Maliana, Viqueque and Liquica involving UNAMET personnel have served to highlight the larger problem of militia impunity. The grounds for our concern have been amply detailed in recent briefings to the members of the Council. It is essential that steps be taken to ensure that the people of East Timor are able to participate in safety and free of intimidation in the popular consultation provided for in the 5 May Agreements. Over the last two weeks, my Personal Representative for East Timor and my Special Representative for the East Timor Popular Consultation met with senior officials of the Government of Indonesia to discuss the situation in East Timor. The Government reaffirmed its resolve to address the security situation. I have also shared with the Government a list of specific criteria towards which there should be meaningful, visible progress in order for me to make a determination to

proceed with the operational phases of the consultation process: These criteria were based upon the elements in the 4 May memorandum, and I remain fully confident that the Indonesian authorities have the capacity to take meaningful steps towards their fulfillment in a short period of time. There have been some positive developments in the area of peace and reconciliation, such as the intra-East Timorese dialogue begun at the Dare II Peace and Reconciliation Conference convened by Bishops Belo and Nascimento and the accords signed by pro-autonomy and pro-independence groups under the auspices of the Commission of Peace and Stability on 18 June, but the latter remain incomplete and they have yet to bear fruit on the ground. A high level visit by Indonesian authorities will take place on Monday, 12 July. Members of the Council are aware of my earnest desire to carry out the responsibilities entrusted to me with all determination, so that the people of East Timor can express their wishes as to the future of the territory. UNAMET will make every effort to adhere to the tight time-frame that is available to it. I must, however, weigh my determination to move ahead against the conditions prevailing on the ground. Accordingly, in order to allow for concrete steps to follow the visit of the Indonesian authorities, I now propose to start registration on 16 July. The requisite certification of security conditions and the opening of registration would be confirmed if concrete progress is made on improving the security situation in East Timor as defined in the criteria. I have informed the Governments of Indonesia and Portugal of this decision, and I will keep the Council fully informed of any future developments. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

13 July 1999 Letter (UN archives); Administrative Committee on Coordination review Letter faxed to headquarters marked confidential from Elisabeth Lindenmayer while traveling with the Secretary-General. To: Mr. Iqbal Riza, Chef de Cabinet, EOSG UNations, New York From: Elisabeth Lindenmayer Delegation of the Secretary-General, Algiers Cc: DSG, P. Civili Date: 13 July 1999 Subject: ACC Review

13 July 1999 • 755 1. As requested, I have briefed the SecretaryGeneral on the proposals by the DG [Director General] of WIPO for the transformation of ACC and of Mr. Civili’s recent suggestion that these proposals be prepared by Mrs. Blix and Ahmed. 2. The Secretary-General agrees that the study should be prepared and that both Blix and Ahmed are very experienced. He wonders however whether we should limit ourselves to only insiders for a study of this kind. He would like to suggest instead that we put together a mixed team comprising both insiders and outsiders. In his view “Fresh eyes can reveal things which may escape us”. Regards.

13 July 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); West Africa/Iraq Excerpts from the noon briefing by the deputy spokesman for the Secretary-General, Manoel de Almeida e Silva. ... Secretary-General in West Africa

Today was the Secretary-General’s second day in Algiers, where he is attending the Organization of African Unity (OAU) summit. One of the pressing security concerns being discussed in the margins of the summit is how to stop the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. In his first two bilateral meetings today, the Secretary-General and his Special Envoy, Mohamed Sahnoun, met first with Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and then with Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki. His day today is one of several bilateral meetings with several heads of State from different regions of Africa. In the morning, he met with President Blaise Compaore of Burkina Faso. He also met President Jerry Rawlings of Ghana and President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa. In addition to other individual meetings, in the afternoon he had a joint meeting on the Democratic Republic of the Congo involving President Sam Nujoma of Namibia, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and President Laurent-Desire Kabila of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well as Salim Salim, the Secretary-General of the OAU. . . . Guinea-Bissau

The second statement is on Guinea-Bissau. Last Friday, the military junta in Guinea-Bissau handed over to the transitional civilian government, the

remaining political prisoners it had detained following the 7 May events. The Secretary-General welcomes this development. It is consistent with the spirit and the letter of the 6 July press statement of the Security Council on Guinea-Bissau and constitutes a resolute step by the authorities towards national reconciliation and restoration of the rule of law. . . . Iraq

I have just received a note from the Iraq Programme on their regular weekly update which is out. It shows that last week Iraq exported $17.4 million of oil, and that, with the steady increase of the price of oil over the past weeks, the revenue so far in Phase VI is already $1.2 billion. Phase VI began on 25 May and the first oil in this phase was exported on 1 June. The update also notes that, so far, $44.4 million of oil industry spare parts and equipment has arrived in Iraq. . . .

13 July 1999 Secretary-General’s Remarks After Meeting with Prime Minister Meles Zanawi of Ethiopia

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Ethiopia QUESTION (Ethiopian radio): What can you tell us about your meeting with our Prime Minister? SECRETARY-GENERAL: First of all, we did discuss the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia, and also some of the African issues on our continent, and the role of the UN and the international community in these conflicts. I expressed my hope that we should be able to find a solution to this conflict and stop the killing and save lives. QUESTION (Ethiopian TV): There is a general complaint among the Ethiopian people that the UN and in general the international public did not do much to put enough pressure on Eritrea to withdraw its forces from all the occupied territories of Ethiopia. What’s your comment? S-G This is why we are all here, and I think this is also why there has been quite a lot of meetings in the OAU and also at the Security Council level. And there has been quite a bit of discussion between the leaders around the world. And I hope we’re going to be able to bring this thing to a satisfactory conclusion. I think what one also has to understand is that in these sorts of conflicts, the kinds of initiatives that are taken to try to resolve them are not always in full public glare. So the press and the public may never know how much and what is being done privately to resolve the conflict.

756 • 14 July 1999

14 July 1999 Letter (EOSG); East Timor Letter to the president of the Security Council, Hasmy Agam. Dear Mr. President, As you will recall, in my letter to you of 10 July regarding the East Timor popular consultation process, I proposed rescheduling the start of voter registration to 16 July to allow time for the Government of Indonesia to take concrete steps, based on specific criteria provided by me, to improve the security situation. In subsequent meetings in East Timor with senior officials of the Government, my Special Representative for the East Timor popular consultation has been assured that the authorities are taking steps towards the fulfilment of those criteria. It is not, however, possible for me to conclude at present that the necessary security conditions exist for the peaceful implementation of the popular consultation process throughout the territory, as called for by paragraph 3 of the 5 May Agreement on Security reached by the Governments of Indonesia and Portugal and the United Nations (A/53/951-S/1999/513, annex III). As I noted in my letter to you of 10 July, the security situation in the Territory as a whole remains serious, and there has not been time to properly assess how far recent steps taken by the Government will result in an improvement. In particular, as I have previously reported to the Council, violence and intimidation have continued to be carried out with impunity by pro-autonomy militias. Nevertheless, determined as I believe we should be to go ahead, undeterred by the intimidation, and in view of the need to adhere to the shortest possible time-frame, I have decided to begin the registration, based on positive assurances by the Indonesian authorities, on the condition that meaningful, visible improvements in the security situation will be observed in the immediate future. UNAMET will continue to keep the security situation constantly under review, and I intend to make another assessment of conditions based on its objective evaluation, halfway through the registration period. At that time, I will determine whether there has been enough significant progress to continue registration on the basis that the people of East Timor are able to participate in the popular consultation safely and free of intimidation. I have informed the Governments of Indonesia and Portugal of this decision and I will keep the

Council fully informed of any future developments. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

19 July 1999 Secretary-General Says World Community Must Leave No One Behind As It Moves to Explore and Develop Outer Space

Speech (OSSG, SG/SM/7071); outer space Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the opening meeting of the 3rd UN Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE III), in Vienna. I am delighted to join you today. Of all the important and challenging topics on the agenda of the United Nations, perhaps none quite captures our imagination like outer space. You need only look up at the stars to be filled with the sense of wonder that has spurred men and women to the exploration of space. But outer space does not only stir the soul. It also has great practical implications for the lives of people everywhere. It is those implications you are here to discuss. UNISPACE III is the last major United Nations conference this century. As such, it is a fitting symbol both to the achievements of the last hundred years and of the work of the United Nations. We are at the end of a century that has seen unparalleled progress in science and technology. In many ways, the pinnacle of these achievements was the birth of space technology, with which we finally realized the dream of venturing beyond our own planet. The exploration of outer space has already revolutionized life on our planet in many ways. It has ushered in the satellite age, making possible the phenomenon we have come to know as globalization. Every time live television images are transmitted across continents; every time capital is moved by pressing a few keys on a computer terminal; and every time the Internet puts new stores of information at our fingertips: we can thank the pioneering efforts of space technology, which have allowed us to conquer the barriers of distance. Other applications of space technology are less obvious, but no less important. For instance, observations from space have allowed us to better understand our environment, for example by imaging of the ozone layer or world climate conditions. And space technology has led to advances in fields as diverse as the monitoring of natural disasters and the development of navigational systems.

19 July 1999 • 757 These examples of space technology—some immediately apparent, some much less so—provide a powerful justification for carrying on with our basic research in space science. Our collective knowledge may be enriched in ways which today we cannot even imagine. Meanwhile, we can make much more use of what we already know: • We can ensure that educational resources and medical expertise reach the remote communities in the world. With over 1 billion people remaining illiterate in the world, surely this must be one of our first priorities. • We can gather information that will allow us to locate and suitably manage natural resources, an application especially useful in view of the growing threats to our global environment. • We can improve our weather forecasting, and use it to minimize the effects of natural disasters. • We can use experimentation in space to develop innovative agricultural techniques sorely needed in regions of the world where people still go hungry, even while the world supposedly has the technology to feed its people many times over. • And we can use satellite monitoring to detect landmines, and even the cultivation of plants used to make illicit drugs. Austrian President Klestl referred to this earlier. Indeed, our own United Nations International Drug Control Programme, based here in Vienna, has recently signed an important agreement with the European Space Agency for that very purpose. In short the potential is really great. But there are dangers as well. Unfortunately, the advantages of globalization are far from being equally accessible to all human beings. For example, the telecommunications industry is estimated to be worth a trillion dollars annually, yet one third of the world’s population has never made a phone call, and only five per cent has access to computers. And as technology moves forward, the gap widens between those who are part of the wired world and those who are not. Besides it can be very bewildering to live in a society which is suddenly opened to the outside world by new technology. Countries and peoples need to retain their distinctive cultural practices and identities, under the onslaught of globalization. But at the same time, we must all work to ensure that the possibilities offered by technology both in space and here on earth are used to foster tolerance, trust and shared values. They must not be instruments of hatred of division. Above all, we must guard against the misuse

of outer space. We recognized early on that a legal regime was needed to prevent it becoming another arena of military confrontation. The international community has acted jointly, through the United Nations, to ensure that outer space would be developed peacefully. But there is much more to be done. We must not allow this century, so plagued with war and suffering, to pass on its legacy to the next, when the technology at our disposal will be even more awesome. We cannot view the expanse of space as another battleground for our earthly conflicts. On the contrary, we must ensure that the fruits of technical progress are made available to all people in all nations. This is an important aspect of global developments, and therefore of direct concern to the United Nations. We must find ways to lower the cost of technologies associated with space science, and to provide developing countries with the resources to acquire them. We must also persuade policy makers to acknowledge and pursue the practical benefits of space technology for development. If these goals are to be achieved, partnerships between nations is essential. So too is partnership with industry, commercial groups and with nongovernmental organizations. I am delighted to see that these elements of civil society are taking part in this Conference on an equal footing. We can go even further and speak of partnership across generations. This Conference’s Space Generation Forum is an invaluable tool for including young people in discussions on outer space. Young people, perhaps most of all, are inspired by the potential of space exploration to hope, dream and work together. It is the young that we must look to for the scientific breakthroughs of tomorrow. I’m sure we have future world leaders among us here today. What they will learn at this Conference—notably by exchanging information and ideas in the seminar and workshops of the Conference’s Technical Forum—may be of great value to them later on, and through them to the generations yet unborn. The limitless expanse of the cosmos does not admit of borders or national jurisdictions. Space exploration has given us the opportunity to see the Earth for what it is in the context of the galaxies around us: a tiny sanctuary of life in the midst of the multitude of the heavens. Confronted with the vastness of the universe, we often feel our insignificance. What we should feel even more is the absurdity of the divisions in our small world. Space is a resource we can all share. We must

758 • 19 July 1999

work together to unlock and exploit its secrets. We must ensure that no one is left behind as we move forward in the great adventure of exploring and developing outer space. I understand this Conference is poised to agree on an Action Plan outlining realistic ways to make the benefits of space science and technology available to all. The Vienna Declaration, which will be adopted here, must be not just a form of words but a living force which will change the lives of future generations. Tomorrow, in the midst of your proceedings, we shall observe the thirtieth anniversary of man’s first landing on the moon. Let that memory inspire you as you begin your discussions. Because, if I may paraphrase Neil Armstrong, the small steps you will take here in Vienna can lead to giant leaps for humankind. I wish you all “bon courage”.

22 July 1999 Letter (UN archives); humanitarian law Note marked urgent to the Secretary-General from the under-secretary-general of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Bernard Miyet, regarding holding an informal session to discuss the Secretary-General’s proposal for guidelines to peacekeepers on humanitarian law. Following is a note to the Secretary-General from Miyet of 20 July marked priority. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

International Humanitarian Law

Pursuant to my note of 20 July, I should like to inform you that following discussions between Ambassador Gambari, Chair of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, and the coordinator of the NAM for the Special Committee, we have received a request to arrange an “informal session” of the Working Group of the Special Committee regarding the SGB for Peacekeepers on International Humanitarian Law. This session would amount to an “exchange of information”; we have underlined that, while we are prepared to hear comments from Member States, this is not a consensus text and that its finalization falls within the discretion of the Secretary-General. Ambassador Gambari and Ambassador Duval (Canada), Chair of the Working Group, support our position. We have also clearly stated that this bulletin would be published shortly, and in any case would appear before the ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Coventions, in August. We have tentatively made arrangements for

such a meeting to take place on 27 July, pending your approval; this would be co-chaired by DPKO and OLA. * * * NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

International Humanitarian Law

As I had indicated in my note on the above of the 15 July, the NAM had urged that an informal meeting of the Working Group of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations should be held to discuss the draft Guidelines for peacekeepers. This morning, the Bureau of the Special Committee met to consider this request. I had previously conveyed individually to Ambassador Gambari, Chair of the Special Committee, and to Ambassador Duval, Chair of the Working Group, our strong concern that the Guidelines should be finalized quickly and should not become the subject of a politically-driven discussion. I had also underlined the fact that, while we had given the opportunity to Member States to offer bilateral comments, the completion of this SGB lay within the discretion of the Secretariat, and did not require consensus support from Member States. During this morning’s meeting, Ambassadors Gambari and Duval generally supported our concerns, and made clear their preference for a bilateral process of consultation. However, Egypt, supported by Argentina, insisted upon the importance of giving all Member States an opportunity to discuss this text in a meeting with the Secretariat, and asked that the finalization of the guidelines be deferred to accommodate this. Ultimately, Ambassador Gambari agreed to pursue this possibility, but only on the basis that this would be an informal meeting; and that Member States would view this simply as an opportunity to voice their opinion, and would not expect the Secretariat to produce a consensus text. He also indicated that Member States should expedite their consideration of this text, in view of the Secretariat’s concerns that it should be finalized quickly. Ambassador Gambari indicated that he now intended to discuss this question with Jordan, coordinator of the NAM. Bernard Miyet 20 July 1999 We should issue the Bulletin 1 August. It is a courtesy that was extended to the committee. It cannot delay issuance indefinitely. —K.A. 23 July

26 July 1999 • 759 22 July 1999 Secretary-General Urges All Parties in the DRC to Cease Hostilities During Polio Vaccination

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7075); Democratic Republic of Congo The Secretary-General urges all parties concerned in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to cease hostilities throughout the country before and during the first polio vaccination round from 8 to 20 August. He trusts that a peaceful and secure environment will be provided to give all Congolese children under the age of five protection from the crippling disease of polio. The Secretary-General reiterates his statement of 9 March, in which he called for “days of tranquillity” in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to allow for the polio immunization campaign to cover some 10 million children under the age of five. He recalls Security Council resolution 1234 of 9 April 1999 urging all parties to respect a truce and support the vaccination campaign. The Secretary-General also recalls President Kabila’s commitment to support the vaccination campaign and the willingness expressed by the leadership of the Congolese Rally for Democracy (RCD) to his Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict to facilitate the campaign. United Nations agencies, in particular the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO), along with other humanitarian partners, are proceeding with preparation for the vaccination campaign in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The first round is scheduled to start on 13 August. Two more rounds are scheduled for September and October. The Secretary-General is grateful for the practical assistance to the campaign preparation provided by local authorities. Thanks to a concerted effort of United Nations agencies, NGOs and provincial health personnel, 16,000 vaccination sites have been identified for the campaign. Logistical and security constraints, however, remain in many areas.

26 July 1999 Letter (EOSG); East Timor Letter to the president of the Security Council, Hasmy Agam. Dear Mr. President, In my letter to you of 14 July regarding the

East Timor popular consultation process, I informed you of my decision to begin the registration on 16 July, on the condition that meaningful, visible improvements in the security situation would be observed in the immediate future. I am pleased to report that the 200 registration centres throughout East Timor have now been open for the first ten days of registration, with only occasional temporary closures due to local security problems. In that ten-day period 239,893 East Timorese have registered, 233,716 of them in East Timor itself, and the remainder at external registration centres. Security conditions in a number of provinces have shown signs of improving. This positive development is in part due to the greater cooperation now being shown by the Indonesian authorities, in particular the police, with their UNAMET counterparts. Overall, however, security conditions still remain inadequate. Ongoing intimidation by armed militia groups remains particularly prevalent in the western districts of East Timor. One serious consequence of this situation is the continuing inability of tens of thousands of internally displaced people to return to their homes in safety. The areas from which the largest numbers have been displaced, particularly Covalima, Bobonaro and Liquica, remain under the tight control of the militia. UNAMET, UNHCR and the local authorities are cooperating to promote the ability of the displaced to return to their domiciles and ensure their enfranchisement, but further action to bring armed groups under control is essential. The people of East Timor are showing laudable determination to participate in the popular consultation despite continuing intimidation. I therefore intend to continue registration on the understanding that the Indonesian authorities will work with UNAMET to achieve the further necessary improvements in the security situation and urgently address the problem of internal displacement. The completion of registration and the continuation of the popular consultation process will depend on my being satisfied that these improvements are achieved and sustained. As I am sure the Council realizes, conditions required for a largely technical exercise such as registration are notably less stringent than those which will be necessary for campaigning in the run-up to the consultation. I have informed the Governments of Indonesia and Portugal of my decision. My Special Representative will continue to keep me apprised

760 • 26 July 1999

of the situation in East Timor and I will keep the Council fully informed of developments. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

27 July 1999 Secretary-General Briefs the Security Council on His Recent Trip to West Africa

Presentation to the Security Council (OSSG); Organization of African Unity Mr. President, I wish to brief you on my recent trip to West Africa, on my participation in the Annual OAU Assembly of Heads of State and Government in Algiers and highlight a number of issues that would require the Council’s attention. A. West Africa

As Council Members are aware I visited Senegal, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and Nigeria from 6 to 11 July. These countries are all facing formidable economic, social and security problems, and all are striving to find solutions to these problems, despite woefully inadequate means. The primary purpose of this visit was to express the United Nations’ continued interest in and encouragement of the commendable efforts these ECOWAS countries are making towards seeking, building and consolidating peace and towards democratization and promoting good governance. Senegal

In Senegal, I was able to gain a better understanding of the efforts of the Government and its partners to find a negotiated solution to the Casamance issue. The Senegalese leaders continue to be concerned about the illegal arms trafficking that plagues the sub-region and the increasing military budgets. The Prime Minister suggested that the reduction of military budgets by 1.5% which I had advocated in my report on Africa, should be at least doubled. The Prime-Minister also called for more flexibility on the part of the Bretton Woods Institutions in their assessment of countries’ economic performances. Basing economic reforms on an overly rigid interpretation of economic indicators was not helpful. These sentiments have also been expressed to me by other leaders in the sub-region.

President Diouf expressed his appreciation to the United Nations for what it is doing to help stabilize neighboring Guinea-Bissau. He called on Guinea-Bissau’s international partners to pursue a constructive and pragmatic approach following the unfortunate events of last May. For my part, I undertook to convey to the Bretton Woods Institutions the concerns expressed by the Prime Minister and to encourage GuineaBissau’s international partners to adopt the approach suggested by the President. Sierra Leone

My visit to Sierra Leone on 8 July took place the day after the signature in Lomé of the peace agreement between the Government and the Revolutionary United Front. This peace agreement has been achieved, a result of collective, sustained and courageous leadership on the part of the Government of Sierra Leone and civil society in the country, ECOWAS, the United Nations and the International Community at large. During my visit, I discussed with President Kabbah, with my Special Representative and the Force Commander of ECOMOG the steps to put into place for the implementation of this agreement. I have strong reservations, however, about one aspect of the peace agreement—specifically that dealing with amnesty and pardon—with which the United Nations cannot be associated. Nonetheless, I did not want to pose an obstacle in the way of the overall agreement, or of the boarder peace process. I therefore instructed my Special Representative, Mr. Francis Okelo, to attach a disclaimer regarding Article IX of the peace agreement, clearly stating the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Mary Robinson, has also voiced concerns and has made concrete proposals to President Kabbah. [Text of disclaimer: “The United Nations interprets that the amnesty and pardon in Article IX of this Agreement shall not apply to international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other serious violations of international humanitarian law.”] In Sierra Leone, I also witnessed extensive destruction, much suffering and pain, particularly on the faces of those who have been victims of wanton and abhorrent violence. Reconciliation will be a key element in building peace and I encouraged all Sierra Leoneans to rally behind the peace agreement and to look towards the future. We all now must do our part to help ensure that this agreement is successfully implemented and to

27 July 1999 • 761 enable the Sierra Leoneans to turn the page with confidence and dignity. My report to the Council on Sierra Leone concerning the expanded role to be played by the United Nations in the implementation of the Lomé Agreements is under preparation and will be submitted to you shortly. The report will contain recommendations for the immediate steps to be taken to augment the military, political, human rights and humanitarian presence of the United Nations in Sierra Leone. It is evident that the implementation of the Lomé Agreement will involve a major disarmament and demobilization effort. This would require the deployment of a substantial number of peacekeeping units throughout the whole country, along with additional United Nations military observers. Liberia

My discussions with President Taylor and his government focused on the peace agreement in Sierra Leone and the consolidation of peace in Liberia and in the sub-region. President Taylor pledged to work assiduously with President Kabbah in order to ensure that the peace process in Sierra Leone is on an irreversible course. In this regard he informed me that he would be naming a Career Ambassador to follow up this issue and that he would set-up a hot line between himself and President Kabbah. I commended President Taylor on his decision to destroy all the arms collected during the disarmament process in Liberia. The United Nations has been working closely with the Liberian Government and ECOWAS in order to facilitate the destruction. An official ceremony to burn the arms will take place on 26 July. President Taylor is inviting the leaders of Ghana, Guinea, Nigeria and Sierra Leone to attend this important occasion which will also be used to pay tribute to the role of ECOMOG in Liberia. I am certain that this ceremony and the highlevel gathering will be a positive step towards rebuilding confidence between Liberia and its neighbours in the sub-region and in reviving the Mano River Union. Liberia with the help of the United Nations Peace-Building Support Office has, over the past several months, taken a number of constructive steps towards consolidating peace both at home and within the sub-region. No doubt much more needs to be done, but Liberia deserves, in my view, a fresh look. We cannot afford to let Liberia slip back towards instability.

Guinea

Guinea has had more than its share of problems as a result of instability in the sub-region. It is host to over 700,000 refugees from Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea-Bissau. Nearly ten percent of its total population. This massive and continued presence of refugees has had severe consequences on security, the environment and socio-economic development of Guinea. It was evident that this issue was foremost on the minds of President Conte and his Government. They expressed the concern that these refugees were not ready to return yet as they felt the situation, in their home countries, was still unstable. In light of the above, Guinea like Senegal, has asked me to intercede with the Bretton Woods Institutions so they could take into account the burden posed by the refugees as they assess Guinea’s Economic Reform Programme. Following a request from the Government, the United Nations is organizing in late October a Second Special Consultation on Guinea in order to mobilize funds that would help Guinea mitigate the negative impact of refugees on the host populations. Nigeria

The purpose of my trip to Nigeria was to get a first-hand appreciation of the admirable strides the country is making towards the restoration of democratic governance and economic recovery just five weeks after the end of military rule. In addition to the democratic transformation of Nigeria, the discussions with President Obasanjo and Vice President Abubakar focused on recent developments in Africa, on the peace process in Sierra Leone including the peace-keeping role of ECOMOG. On Sierra Leone, President Obasanjo has reiterated assurances he had given to President Kabbah that Nigeria would not leave Sierra Leone without an adequate means of providing security. He stressed the need to strengthen regional organizations so that the international community could continue to count on these organizations in the search for and maintenance of peace and security on the continent. On the role of ECOMOG in Sierra Leone, following the signing of the peace agreement, President Obasanjo felt strongly that ECOMOG should not be shunned by the United Nations as a peace-keeping force. He was of the view that if ECOMOG was judged fit for a “peace-fighting” force at great cost in lives and materiel, it was cer-

762 • 27 July 1999

tainly fit to finish the job as a peace keeping force. I assured President Obasanjo that ECOMOG’s future role would be fully examined in consultation with all concerned parties. ECOMOG’s role in bringing about peace in Sierra Leone and the sacrifices it has made deserve due recognition. I call upon the international community to provide strong and continuous support to this regional peacekeeping force, so that it can continue its critical work. Mr. President, if you would allow me, I should like to make a few concluding remarks, What has struck me during this trip is the determination of these West African countries to take primary responsibility for finding solutions to their own problems. Their efforts, however, are often stymied by lack of resources, an overflow of refugees, a rampant proliferation of small arms, and debilitating external debt. There is also a growing realization that much more needs to be done to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in their countries. It is clear that many of the problems that these countries face are inter-linked and need to be tackled together as subregional problems. It is my earnest hope that the peace in Sierra Leone, the return to stability in Guinea-Bissau, as well as Nigeria’s initial but resolute steps towards democracy and economic recovery would enable a significant improvement of the situation in and prospects for the sub-region as a whole. I have, throughout this visit, tried my best to dispel the notion in the minds of a number of leaders that the United Nations is losing sight of Africa’s daunting challenges, as the focus is increasingly shifting to other pressing needs. I hope that in our response to the positive developments in the DRC, Sierra Leone and elsewhere in the sub-region you will put to rest this misperception. B. OAU

Immediately following my tour of West Africa, I attended the Annual Summit of the OAU in Algiers which was attended by 46 Heads of State and Government, the largest such gathering ever. I was very impressed with the substance and the seriousness with which the African leaders discussed and dealt with very sensitive and controversial issues, and their readiness to assume responsibility for issues concerning peace and security in their regions. One of the issues that was extensively discussed was the issue of good governance especial-

ly the practice by some African militaries to usurp power through coups d’état. It is important for us to take note of one of the decisions taken at the summit which puts all military regimes in the region on notice, calling on them to democratize within one year and failing which, sanctions will be applied against them. Another aspect of the debate on governance was the criticism addressed to leaders who want to cling to power and the homage paid to those that step down after completing their terms in office and facilitate a peaceful and democratic transition in their countries. The OAU Summit also addressed for the first time the question of international terrorism and adopted a convention on it. I hope that this will lead to the discussion and the adoption of a world convention on terrorism. The Algiers Summit was noteworthy in that three important peace agreements were endorsed at the meeting: the Lomé Peace Agreement on Sierra Leone; the modalities for implementing the OAU Framework Agreement on the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea; and the Cease-Fire Agreement for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The conclusion of these agreements underscores the resolve of the regional organizations to assume responsibility for the management and resolution of conflicts in the African region. Mr. President, while these agreements are important, they are nevertheless very fragile and it is imperative for the Security Council and the international community as a whole to strongly support them both politically and materially. The success of these agreements will depend on the readiness and the timeliness of support by the Security Council. This point was strongly stressed to me at the summit. At my request, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations held extensive consultations with the OAU in preparation for a Peacekeeping Operation between Ethiopia and Eritrea. I have also instructed a small team to travel to Algiers this week to join the OAU High-Level Delegation who is assisting the two countries in agreeing on the technical modalities for implementing the OAU Framework Agreement. The recent developments in Africa have underscored the urgent need to enhance African peacekeeping capacity. I urge the Security Council to provide all the necessary political and financial support to this important activity. There was also strong concern voiced about the proliferation of small arms and the impact of

27 July 1999 • 763 war on children and other vulnerable groups. The plight of refugees and the burden they place on countries of asylum was also raised with me by several leaders. There was also much interest in globalization and concern was expressed about its effect on Africa. Fears persist about the continued marginalization of Africa. There is also fear that while the benefits of globalization were not evident, the burdens are being felt in many parts of Africa. On a number of previous occasions, I have put the Council on notice that the UN would have to act promptly and effectively once peace agreements were concluded in Africa. The case can be made that we are witnessing a qualitative change in Africa, with the conclusion of the three peace agreements, Liberia’s commitment to destroying the weapons, the positive developments in Nigeria, the transition in South Africa, signs of reconciliation in Algeria and the stated resolve of some African leaders not to support regimes which have been installed through coups d’état.

27 July 1999 Remarks by the Secretary-General Upon Leaving UN Headquarters

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); Africa Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, I just briefed the Council mainly on African issues and on my visit to the region and I was able to share with them the positive developments taking place on the Continent. I visited during this trip as you know Sierra Leone, Liberia, Senegal, Nigeria and Guinea. I was able to discuss the political and economic developments in the region. My visit to Sierra Leone came a day after the peace agreement was signed in Lomé and I was able to discuss its implementation and follow-up with president Kabbah. From there I went to the OAU. And then in Nigeria it was very good for me to see for myself the developments after the election of President Obasanjo and the strides towards democratization and economic recovery. At the OAU, it was a very interesting meeting because it was one of the rare gatherings of African heads of states and governments where one was able to discuss solutions to three crises: cease-fire in Sierra Leone had been signed, ceasefire in the DRC had been signed and we were waiting for the rebels to sign on, and in Algiers there was also an understanding between Eritrea and

Ethiopia with regards to their own conflict and they accepted a basic document which will now have to be implemented. I have sent a team to join the OAU group in Algiers to work out modalities for the implementations of the agreement so hopefully we will move forward. The Summit also discussed the issues of good governance, respect for human rights and the need for economic and social development. So it was a very positive development so all in all there I was in Algiers who discussed three peace agreements Sierra Leone, DRC and the positive developments in Eritrea/Ethiopia. Also there were presidents Obasanjo and Mbeki who have been democratically elected from two large countries. On top there was major talks on not recognizing government coming into office by force and respecting the will of the people but of course now that these agreements have been signed and that African leaders have demonstrated their willingness to press ahead the international community should also do its bit and give them the help needed and I think the Council will do just that. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, you did not mention the question of Angola and we know that the question of Angola is the main question in Africa. SECRETARY-GENERAL: We did discuss Angola as well and the efforts that lead us on the continent I am making and my discussions with them for a search for a solution for that desperate and really dangerous situation. The Council itself is very much concerned by this and the efforts to break the impasse will continue and in fact this afternoon I will be having a meeting with a group of countries specifically on Angola. QUESTION: There was, as a follow up question, a report that there is a warrant for Dr. Savimbi. What is your view on this situation? Can you be in discussion with one party and at the same time you issue a warrant for his arrest? S-G: I think one of the difficulties in this situation is that there has been no communication between the two sides for almost a year. I think that is wrong. I made that clear that to make peace there has to be communication. I know that it is sometimes difficult for people to sit across the table and deal with enemies particularly when they feel that those individuals have not always honoured their commitment but you don’t make peace with your friends you make peace with enemies. To make peace you have to establish, you have to have communication either directly or through a third party. I hope we will be able to get back to

764 • 27 July 1999

that status very soon. I think that is also what your question implies. QUESTION: Sir, how large of a peacekeeping force do you envision for the Congo? Will you have the unanimous support of the Security Council? I have a second question, are you delaying the date for the East Timor elections? S-G: Let me say that on the question of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I hesitate to give you any figure because we are sending a technical team to the area. The size of the force will depend on the mandate we are given. It depends on what we find on the ground, the logistical needs before I will give a figure to the Council or to you ladies and gentlemen of the press. I think that what I will say is that any force that is required ought to match the mandate. I think that the force will have to be credible, it will have to be competent, it has to have the right force structure to be able to defend itself and its mandate. That is as far as I can go at this stage. Hopefully it will not be long before I can give you figures. With regards to East Timor, we are still having consultations and I will take a definitive decision in the next day or so, as to a date for the ballot. QUESTION: On Sierra Leone and the peace agreement, you might have addressed this before, it is described as deeply flawed because it provides amnesty to those who committed atrocities. Does the UN plan to do anything to amend this in any way? Is there anything that can be done or should be done? S-G: First the agreement was signed within the government of Sierra Leone and the parties. After a long bitter struggle with incredible inhumanity and tragedy for the people of Sierra Leone. Once the parties have agreed to the agreement, I do not think it would have been appropriate for the UN to stop them from signing the agreement and for the war to continue. We did enter a reservation which I am sure you are all aware of that from our point of view that amnesty does not cover crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and international humanitarian law still prevails. I think it is a position of principles that we stand by and will defend. QUESTION: Regarding Iraq, can you share your views about what appears a continued stalemate in the Council? S-G: I do not know if the stalemate is still continuing but I have to get a full briefing about what happened earlier this morning. I had been caught in a meeting and I think you are referring to the destruction or non-destruction but rather analysis

of the Vx. Their discussions are going on and I think the members of the Council are determined to find a common ground to move forward and I hope they do because it is important that we find a solution and break the impasse on this Iraqi dossier. I do not think that it is healthy to sustain the current situation and we need to find a way forward. My sense is that the members are working very hard in search of a solution and hopefully we will succeed. QUESTION: Do you have any new information on the investigation about the killing of the fourteen Serbs . . . [inaudible]? S-G: Not yet. As my Special Representative, Bernard Kouchner said we will energetically look for those responsible and ensure that they are punished. This kind of impunity cannot be allowed to stand. Obviously we understand the anger, the frustration, and the wish on behalf to seek revenge but this is not how you resolve this kind of conflicts. Our message is one of reconciliation, and we want to build a multi-ethnic Kosovo and we are going to stay on that course. Thank you.

27 July 1999 Security Council Consultations on OPCW Mission to Iraq

Letter (UN archives); Iraq/weapons of mass destruction Internal note marked priority from the under-secretary-general of the Department of Disarmament, Jayantha Dhanapala. Following is a letter sent by fax to the Secretary-General from the president of the Security Council, Hasmy Agam, and a list of questions to be answered by the UN Special Commission in Iraq. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Security Council Consultations on OPCW Mission to Iraq

1. The Security Council met this morning in pursuance of the President’s ruling of last evening. In the course of the discussion, the Russian Federation representative raised the subject of the letter from the Director-General of the OPCW to me dated 23 July on the technical feasibility of overpacking the 7 vials of VX standards and leaving them in the UNSCOM premises, maintaining that this was new information. The U.S. and U.K. representatives refuted this, stating that the option of leaving the VX standards in Baghdad had been

27 July 1999 • 765 known. I also explained the background to the letter of 23 July and the fact that the destruction of the VX standards was consistent with the mandate. 2. The final outcome was the ruling of the President, in accordance with his ruling of 26 July, that there was no consensus to change the original mandate and that the Council will request the Secretary-General to furnish additional information in response to the questions posed by the Chinese representative and supported by some other members of the Council, including a full account of the use of VX standards kept by UNSCOM. 3. Shortly after the conclusion of these discussions and after discussion with Mr. Riza, I spoke to Mr. Jose Bustani, Director-General of the OPCW on the phone. I reported to him the final outcome of the Security Council consultations this morning, and conveyed your request, in the light of the President’s ruling, to proceed with the destruction of the VX standards as part of the original mandate contained in my letter of 24 June to Mr. Bustani. 4. A letter from the President to you requesting additional information on the handling of VX standards by UNSCOM will be received shortly and should, in my view be directed to the Officer-inCharge of UNSCOM, Mr. Charles Duelfer, for reply. * * * DRAFT

Dear Mr. Secretary-General, I have the honour to inform you that the members of the Security Council held three separate sessions of consultations of the whole on the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) mission despatched to Iraq, in the light of the concerns of the members of the Council, to assist the United Nations in the closure of the UNSCOM chemical laboratory in the Baghdad Monitoring and Verification Centre (BMVC). On the basis of the consultations, there was a strong desire on the part of members to bring the matter to closure. It was clear that there was no consensus to change the mandate given to the OPCW team. Accordingly, I concluded, with the concurrence of the members of the Council, that until and unless there was a new consensus to change or modify the mandate of the OPCW team, the mandate remained. There was consensus that the members of the Council should be furnished by UNSCOM with

additional information in response to the questions posed by China and supported by other members, including a full account of the use by UNSCOM of VX reference standards in the chemical laboratory in Baghdad as soon as possible. A list of those questions is attached. Accept, Mr. Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration. Hasmy Agam President of the Security Council List of Questions Posed by China, to Which the Response of UNSCOM is Required by the Members of the Security Council

1. The specific time of the third delivery of the last vial of VX to the Lab and the specific composition of VX; 2. The original lab records of each and every calibration in which VX was used, including the number of calibrations conducted, the quantity of VX used and the results of the calibrations, etc; 3. If VX reference standards become invalid within a year, could we take it that the first two deliveries of VX by the UNSCOM are already harmless now? If that is the case, then why do they still have to be cemented? 4. If the first two deliveries of VX were already degraded and invalid, then why have they not been destroyed immediately? 5. If the overall quantity of the seven vials of VX in the Lab is no more than 10mg, less than one lethal dose to harm one standard-sized person (70kg), could we take it then that the VX stored in the Lab does not post any threat to the safety of the staff of the UN and other organizations living at the Canal Hotel, nor to nearby residents? 6. If analysis on VX reference standards “would not be conclusive and would not solve any concerns” from the scientific point of view, then what is the purpose of the calibrations on Iraqi warheads? 7. If VX reference standards become invalid within a year and the result of each calibration differs due to the different time, venue, environment and UV light of each calibration, then how can we be assured that the results of the calibrations and analysis on Iraqi warheads are valid? 8. If VX becomes invalid within a year, then can the UNSCOM know for sure that Iraq now still possesses chemical weapons of mass destruction with VX? If the answer is yes, then does the UNSCOM have any hard evidence in this regard? It is hoped that together with the original records, written explanation to the above questions will be produced at the earliest date.

766 • 28 July 1999

28 July 1999 Letter (EOSG); East Timor Letter to the president of the Security Council, Hasmy Agam. Dear Mr. President, On 26 July, I informed you of my decision to continue with the registration of voters for the forthcoming consultation in East Timor. Following discussions yesterday with my Personal Representative for East Timor, Mr. Jamsheed Marker, and advice received from UNAMET, I wish to inform you that I have decided to postpone the date of the consultation itself until 30 August. This decision has been relayed to the Governments of Indonesia and Portugal. I took this decision for technical reasons and also as a consequence of the delay to the start of registration that occurred in mid-July and which was necessary at that time to seek an improvement in the security situation. Fundamental to the integrity of the consultation process is that there is a reliable list of voters. I have been advised that UNAMET requires more time in which to collate the list of voters, publicise it adequately and allow for a proper appeals procedure. The Council will note that the new date for the consultation is now over three weeks later than the date of 8 August originally envisaged in resolution 1246 (1999) establishing UNAMET. I would therefore like to request the Council to authorize an extension of the current UNAMET mandate by one month to enable the Mission to perform the tasks assigned to it. As foreseen in the agreement of 5 May, the United Nations will continue to have a presence in East Timor after the consultation. The United Nations is currently planning for this phase and is discussing this with the Governments of Indonesia and Portugal. This was the main focus of attention at the Senior Officials Meeting held on 15–16 July. I intend to report to the Council shortly on this matter. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

28 July 1999 Letter (UN archives); Interlaken seminar Letter to Jenö C. A. Staehelin, permanent observer of Switzerland to the UN. Excellency, I wish to thank you for your letter of 1 June 1999 transmitting the report of the Second

Seminar on Targeting United Nations Financial Sanctions, held in Interlaken, Switzerland, from 29 to 31 March 1999. I am pleased to note that the Interlaken Seminars, organized by your Government in cooperation with the United Nations Secretariat, have enabled participants to reach useful conclusions and recommendations in order to render financial sanctions a more effective tool. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

28 July 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG) Excerpts from the noon briefing by the deputy spokesman for the Secretary-General, Manoel de Almeida e Silva. ... Iraq

As a result of Security Council consultations yesterday, the samples of VX in the Baghdad laboratory of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) were destroyed in the presence of international observers and the SecretaryGeneral’s Special Envoy, Prakash Shah. The experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) have departed Iraq. The OPCW team will arrive in the Netherlands tomorrow. They will be submitting a report to the Secretary-General based on their findings. . . . Angola Mission Audit Report

There is a report out on the racks by the SecretaryGeneral on the findings of a June 1996 audit of the United Nations Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM). This audit was undertaken by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). The Secretary-General analyses the status of the response to the OIOS recommendations. He concludes that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and UNAVEM itself took remedial actions wherever possible. According to the Secretary-General, the in-depth review of procurement by the Angola Mission has contributed to a better understanding of potential weaknesses in procurement in general. “This understanding”, he says, “is being translated by the Secretariat into practical improvements in the organization of the procurement activities in field missions and in general.” He cites a number of specific improvements,

29 July 1999 • 767 including new training for procurement officers and greater emphasis on internal controls. If you’re interested, this report is document A/53/1018. Angola

Still on Angola, yesterday the Secretary-General convened a meeting with permanent representatives of some 14 countries concerned with developments in Angola, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and six African countries, to discuss possible steps that could be taken bilaterally and multilaterally to promote a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Angola. The Secretary-General also updated the meeting on his ongoing consultations regarding the future presence of the United Nations in the country. . . . QUESTION: I’d like to put on record that the Secretary-General, when he spoke to the press yesterday afternoon, obviously knew that the East Timor ballot was being delayed, and I think all of us were rather dismayed to wake up this morning and find out that it had been announced in Jakarta by the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, that the Secretary-General had in fact delayed the ballot for a week. You gave us a very brief one line statement. Could you add anything to his reasoning for delaying the ballot? DEPUTY SPOKESMAN: You know that these decisions, and as I’ve mentioned, the Secretary-General takes them in consultation with the parties, in this case Indonesia and Portugal. And in fact, he has to inform the Security Council, which has not yet received his letter confirming this. The letter is in the process of reaching the Council. This morning there was a verbal presentation at the Council confirming the postponement. But the official announcement is made by the Secretary-General, and as you know, we have certain procedures which are still being followed. And the letter of the Secretary-General to the Council is the document which will have all the reasoning that he followed to make this proposal, this recommendation. There are, I think, two points though, that I should mention. It has to do with the delay of the beginning of registration, which as you know only started on 16 July, when there were concerns regarding security, which, by the way, continue. He will continue to follow that very closely through his Special Representative in East Timor. But there are also technical reasons. With the delay in the beginning of registration, the time-frame for the steps which follow registration was very tight, if the ballot were to remain on 21 or 22 August. These steps have to do with the complete collection of the list of voters, the proper publication of this list and

a time necessary for appeals to be raised, once the lists are published, and scrutinized by the public. I think the most overriding consideration, all the time, in this process, is the integrity of this process. And it’s considered that it is essential for the integrity of the process to respect these steps, registration, publication of the list, appeals process, the campaigning, a cool-off period, which by the way, they are all listed in the original agreement of 5 May. So the integrity of the process is of essential consideration, and I believe this is what has guided the Secretary-General. But we will know all of this in detail through his letter once it is sent to the Council.

29 July 1999 Letter (UN archives); Cambodia Internal note marked priority to the SecretaryGeneral from Ralph Zacklin of the UN legal office. Included is a handwritten note by the SecretaryGeneral. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Subject: Article in Le Monde on 29 July 1999 on Cambodia There has been no procedural delay in the UN response to Cambodia’s request for assistance in the establishment of a mixed tribunal. The matter has been dealt with expeditiously from the time when the subject was first raised with Mr. Hammarberg. Since the idea of a mixed tribunal departed substantially from the position of the Secretary-General which was based on the report of the Group of Experts, it was necessary to examine the proposal carefully and establish clear conditions under which the UN assistance would be provided. Following discussions with Mr. Hammarberg and DPA, this Office prepared a note which was submitted to the Secretary-General for approval last week. Following the Secretary-General’s approval, Mr. de Soto and I met with the Permanent Representative of Cambodia this morning and we will brief the members of the Security Council this afternoon. In our meeting with the Permanent Representative of Cambodia we indicated our readiness to field a mission to Cambodia in August the purpose of which will be to discuss the details of the proposed UN assistance with the Cambodian authorities. Noted. —K.A. 29/7

768 • 30 July 1999

30 July 1999 Letter (UN archives); postconflict peacebuilding Letter from the Secretary-General to James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank. An identical letter was also sent to Michel Camdessus, managing director of the International Monetary Fund. Also included is a handwritten note by the Secretary-General. Dear Jim, I am writing to you with some thoughts and proposals arising from the experience of my recent visit to West Africa. I need not remind you how complex the task of post-conflict peacebuilding can be, and how daunting it can seem to those who must carry it out. The challenges involved—including the disarmament, demobilization, and the reintegration of combatants; the rehabilitation of infrastructure; the creation of democratic institutions; and reconciliation among former antagonists, often following terrible communal violence—all require substantial resources and intricate synchronisation. Each element affects the other, for good and bad, and the process is extremely fragile, much more difficult than waging war. I believe that it is the responsibility of the United Nations system, including the Bretton Woods Institutions, to strongly support the goodfaith efforts of peoples and nations to resolve conflicts and restore stability to their societies. Such efforts are now being undertaken in Liberia and Sierra Leone, which are among the countries I have just visited. Their poverty is evident on nearly every street. But even more apparent, the faces of the people who looked to me for help revealed their dignity and hopes for lasting peace. We must respond, in the time-honoured tradition of the World Bank and the United Nations, in a spirit of solidarity, recognizing that such countries cannot make their way out of dire straits on their own. I consider that it would be valuable to set up a group comprising the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the UN Development Group to study how best we can be more supportive of countries, such as Sierra Leone, which are emerging from conflict. We should, at the same time, assist countries like Guinea, which become flooded with refugees as a result of instability in the region. I am concerned that without the kind of financial and organizational support which organizations like ours can bring to bear on such situations, fragile peace may be threatened, and attempts to

achieve stability might falter. I believe that it should be possible to develop a way of assisting such countries in a flexible and creative manner. Specifically, we might want to consider organizing a meeting of the UN Development Group, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to explore how we can bring into our plans and programmes greater flexibility for countries in such situations in Africa and elsewhere. The lack of international funding can slow the pace of postconflict peace-building, and yet the slow pace of post-conflict peace-building is often cited as a reason to withhold or delay international funding. Finally, we might also discuss cooperation between the BWIs and the UN system in specific programme areas, such as demobilization, disarmament and reintegration. Macroeconomic questions are closely linked to such specific programme issues and it is crucial that we not permit a gap to develop between them. It would be tragic indeed if we did not take advantage of the current momentum, when some very important steps are being made towards peace and stability in West Africa. The return to civilian rule in Nigeria, the peace agreement for Sierra Leone, the consolidation of peace in Liberia — each of these cases shows that African leaders and their peoples are taking responsibility for the wellbeing of their societies, as we have often called on them to do. As they fulfil their obligations, I look forward to exploring with you how we can fulfil ours. Yours Sincerely, With warmest personal regards. —Kofi

31 July 1999 Secretary-General Says Africa in Need of Political and Financial Help

Op-ed (International Herald Tribune); Africa Article by the Secretary-General that appeared in the International Herald Tribune. A day spent this month in Freetown, Sierra Leone, brought home to me the extreme suffering but also the resilience and hope that form the reality of Africa today. In more than 30 years of work for the United Nations, including recent visits to sites of genocide in Rwanda and to victims of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, nothing had quite prepared me for this. I visited a rehabilitation center for “amputees.” The word suggests an operation under anesthetic

2 August 1999 • 769 to save a patient’s life, but this was the opposite. These had been healthy people until they were forced to lie on the ground while their limbs—and other parts of their bodies—were hacked off, sometimes with blunt farm implements. Many other victims had not survived. I saw an 86-year-old woman who had lost her feet in this way. I held in my arms a 2-year-old girl whose right arm had been cut off. These atrocities were meant to terrorize the population. As a result, almost a quarter of Sierra Leone’s 4.5 million people are now refugees. What comfort can we offer such people? How can we begin to explain such acts? They make all our fine speeches about peace and humanity seem inadequate, even futile. And yet I could not help being impressed by the courage of these victims, and by the dedication of the people caring for them. The next day I met some of the refugees in neighboring Guinea. They have swollen the population there, already desperately poor, by more than 10 percent, yet they have been received with great generosity. They welcomed us with songs of yearning for their homeland. They rejoiced at the help that their “brothers and sisters” in Kosovo were getting, and hoped that their own plight would now receive similar attention. I cannot forget such courage, nor turn my back on such need. Outside the rehabilitation center, in the streets of Freetown, some of the world’s poorest people were celebrating the agreement signed the previous day by their country’s leaders, ending eight years of civil war. Yet they knew, and I knew, that the price of peace was an amnesty and a powersharing deal. The leaders of the movement which had seized power illegally would now sit in cabinet alongside the elected president, and be given charge of gold and diamonds—the country’s economic lifeline. Such a peace is very hard to reconcile with the goal of “ending the culture of impunity,” which inspires the United Nations tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and the future international criminal court. That is why my representative had to enter a reservation when he signed the peace agreement, making it clear that, for the United Nations, the amnesty cannot cover crimes such as genocide or other grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Yet at the same time, the United Nations cannot stand between Sierra Leone’s people and their only hope of ending such a long and brutal conflict.

No one can feel happy about a peace obtained on such terms. Yet we should recognize the real effort of African solidarity that lies behind it. Troops from Nigeria, Ghana, Guinea and Mali, acting on behalf of the Economic Community of West African States, drove the rebels out of Freetown and restored the elected president. Togo and other West African countries then patiently brokered the agreement. In Central Africa, a similar combination of military and diplomatic interventions has produced a cease-fire agreement, tenuous as yet, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And in East Africa, Eritrea and Ethiopia have accepted, at least in principle, the peace plan worked out by the Organization of African Unity. At this month’s OAU summit in Algiers, Africa’s leaders agreed, in a welcome change from earlier years, on the importance of the rule of law, respect for the will of the people and human rights, and on the need to focus on social and economic development. Many individuals are not waiting for their leaders but acting on their own to solve their problems. I think of women like Maggy and Beatrice, a Burundian Tutsi and a Rwandan Hutu, who both lost their families in ethnic massacres, and who now run an interethnic orphanage together. Or of Priscilla Misihairabwi, leader of an AIDS support network, who led a successful campaign to make female condoms available throughout Zimbabwe. If such people got the international support that the people of Kosovo are now getting, Africa would have a real chance to turn the corner. The boy soldiers can be disarmed, demobilized and turned into useful members of society—if there are schools for them to go to and jobs for them to do. So many things have to be built or rebuilt, in such a short time. Without timely help, countries like Sierra Leone may soon fall back into the cycle of violence and despair. Never has Africa been more in need of political and financial help. But never, perhaps, has it been better placed to benefit from it. The right kind of aid now, carefully directed to those best able to use it, could pay off a thousand-fold.

2 August 1999 Letter (EOSG); Palestine Letter to the president of the Security Council, Martin Andjaba. I have the honour to refer to resolution 53/42, which the General Assembly adopted on 2

2 August 1999 • 769 to save a patient’s life, but this was the opposite. These had been healthy people until they were forced to lie on the ground while their limbs—and other parts of their bodies—were hacked off, sometimes with blunt farm implements. Many other victims had not survived. I saw an 86-year-old woman who had lost her feet in this way. I held in my arms a 2-year-old girl whose right arm had been cut off. These atrocities were meant to terrorize the population. As a result, almost a quarter of Sierra Leone’s 4.5 million people are now refugees. What comfort can we offer such people? How can we begin to explain such acts? They make all our fine speeches about peace and humanity seem inadequate, even futile. And yet I could not help being impressed by the courage of these victims, and by the dedication of the people caring for them. The next day I met some of the refugees in neighboring Guinea. They have swollen the population there, already desperately poor, by more than 10 percent, yet they have been received with great generosity. They welcomed us with songs of yearning for their homeland. They rejoiced at the help that their “brothers and sisters” in Kosovo were getting, and hoped that their own plight would now receive similar attention. I cannot forget such courage, nor turn my back on such need. Outside the rehabilitation center, in the streets of Freetown, some of the world’s poorest people were celebrating the agreement signed the previous day by their country’s leaders, ending eight years of civil war. Yet they knew, and I knew, that the price of peace was an amnesty and a powersharing deal. The leaders of the movement which had seized power illegally would now sit in cabinet alongside the elected president, and be given charge of gold and diamonds—the country’s economic lifeline. Such a peace is very hard to reconcile with the goal of “ending the culture of impunity,” which inspires the United Nations tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and the future international criminal court. That is why my representative had to enter a reservation when he signed the peace agreement, making it clear that, for the United Nations, the amnesty cannot cover crimes such as genocide or other grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Yet at the same time, the United Nations cannot stand between Sierra Leone’s people and their only hope of ending such a long and brutal conflict.

No one can feel happy about a peace obtained on such terms. Yet we should recognize the real effort of African solidarity that lies behind it. Troops from Nigeria, Ghana, Guinea and Mali, acting on behalf of the Economic Community of West African States, drove the rebels out of Freetown and restored the elected president. Togo and other West African countries then patiently brokered the agreement. In Central Africa, a similar combination of military and diplomatic interventions has produced a cease-fire agreement, tenuous as yet, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And in East Africa, Eritrea and Ethiopia have accepted, at least in principle, the peace plan worked out by the Organization of African Unity. At this month’s OAU summit in Algiers, Africa’s leaders agreed, in a welcome change from earlier years, on the importance of the rule of law, respect for the will of the people and human rights, and on the need to focus on social and economic development. Many individuals are not waiting for their leaders but acting on their own to solve their problems. I think of women like Maggy and Beatrice, a Burundian Tutsi and a Rwandan Hutu, who both lost their families in ethnic massacres, and who now run an interethnic orphanage together. Or of Priscilla Misihairabwi, leader of an AIDS support network, who led a successful campaign to make female condoms available throughout Zimbabwe. If such people got the international support that the people of Kosovo are now getting, Africa would have a real chance to turn the corner. The boy soldiers can be disarmed, demobilized and turned into useful members of society—if there are schools for them to go to and jobs for them to do. So many things have to be built or rebuilt, in such a short time. Without timely help, countries like Sierra Leone may soon fall back into the cycle of violence and despair. Never has Africa been more in need of political and financial help. But never, perhaps, has it been better placed to benefit from it. The right kind of aid now, carefully directed to those best able to use it, could pay off a thousand-fold.

2 August 1999 Letter (EOSG); Palestine Letter to the president of the Security Council, Martin Andjaba. I have the honour to refer to resolution 53/42, which the General Assembly adopted on 2

770 • 2 August 1999

December 1998, at its fifty-third session, under the agenda item “Question of Palestine.” Paragraph 9 of the resolution “Requests the Secretary-General to continue his efforts with the parties concerned, and in consultation with the Security Council, for the promotion of peace in the region and to submit progress reports on developments in this matter.” In order to fulfil my reporting responsibilities under this resolution, I should be grateful if you would kindly convey to me the views of the Security Council by 30 September 1999. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

5 August 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Sierra Leone/ disarmament Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. ... Sierra Leone

Yesterday a team of the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL), that was escorted by the West African peace-keeping force of the Economic Community of West African States’ Monitoring Observer Group (ECOMOG), as well as by a Sierra Leonean bishop and local journalists, at a location 70 kilometres from Freetown, was taken hostage by a rebel group of Sierra Leone, not the RUF. They had gone to this location to secure the release of 100 children, who had been abducted by the rebels. Instead of releasing the children, as promised the previous day, the rebels detained the delegation and presented them with some grievances as a condition for their release, as well as the children’s release. Later in the day, they released the bishop, as well as the United Nations spokeswoman and three military observers. Concerted efforts are under way to secure the immediate release of the team. I have the following statement attributable to the Spokesman. The Secretary-General is deeply concerned at the detention, in Ocra Hills on 4 August, by an armed Sierra Leonean group, of United Nations military observers and civilian personnel, the Nigerian ECOMOG troops who escorted them, as well as local journalists. The Secretary-General deplores this serious incident and urges the armed

group to release all detainees immediately and without any conditions. He also calls on the Government of Sierra Leone and RUF leader Foday Sankoh, as well as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and its military group ECOMOG, to do their utmost to seek the earliest release of all detained personnel and to ensure the safety and security of all international staff assisting the Sierra Leonean people to implement the Lomé peace agreement. (See Press Release SG/SM/7089- AFR/162.) . . . Disarmament

Yesterday afternoon, after our noon briefing, the Secretary-General met with former UnderSecretary-General Yasushi Akashi and Ambassador Nobuo Matsunaga of the Japan Institute of International Affairs. They were the co- chairs of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, and they presented the Secretary-General with the Forum’s report, “Facing Nuclear Dangers: An Action Plan for the Twenty-first Century”. Following that meeting, we issued a statement welcoming the recommendations contained in the report, which the SecretaryGeneral hopes the international community will study with a view to reducing and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons in the world. He also commended Japan’s timely initiative in assembling a group of eminent international personalities to address the urgent issues of nuclear disarmament and nuclear proliferation. . . . QUESTION: The same question on the Congo. Is the reported bombing of two villages in the Congo expected to affect the deployment of the observers that the Secretary-General is seeking to send? ANSWER: I can only repeat what the SecretaryGeneral said coming into the building this morning. He said that we haven’t changed our plans. He has been in touch with President Chiluba of Zambia. He said that he expects to hear back from the President by tomorrow with an assessment of the peace efforts for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But he did say that as of now there is no change of plans.

6 August 1999 Letter (EOSG); Haiti Letter to the president of the General Assembly, Didier Opertti. Dear Mr. President, I last reported to the General Assembly on 10 May 1999 on the situation of democracy and

6 August 1999 • 771 human rights in Haiti (A/53/950). I now wish to bring the General Assembly up to date on developments concerning MICIVIH, our joint mission with the Organization of American States (OAS) in Haiti, which will have an impact on our continuing efforts there. MICIVIH was established in 1993 as a joint mission of the OAS and the United Nations, charged with monitoring, verifying and strengthening human rights conditions in Haiti. This joint mission has contributed significantly to the efforts of the Government of Haiti to strengthen democratic institutions and protect the human rights of its citizens and is viewed as a prime example of the close collaboration between our two Organiza-tions. By its resolution A/RES/53/95 of 8 December 1998, the General Assembly decided to renew the mandate of MICIVIH until 31 December 1999. By letter dated 4 June 1999, the Secretary General of the OAS informed me that, due to recent financial constraints experienced by his Organization, an imminent reduction of the OAS component of MICIVIH would be necessary. As of 1 July 1999, OAS has withdrawn thirty-four (34) members of its personnel, and only one OAS contracted staff remains, the Executive Director, who has been jointly appointed by the Secretary-General of the OAS and myself. Five of MICIVIH’s nine regional offices have been closed since that date. Since receipt of the above-mentioned letter of the Secretary-General of OAS, discussions have taken place between officials of the United Nations and OAS on the reduction of the OAS component of MICIVIH and the effects of that reduction on the operation of the Joint Mission. These discussions have focused on two main issues, namely the payment by OAS of its share of the joint expenses incurred up to the time of the reduction of OAS personnel, and the new modalities of cooperation, including financial arrangements, for the remaining period of the mandate of MICIVIH, on the basis of a significantly reduced OAS component. Such issues will be addressed in revisions to the Memorandum of Understanding between the OAS and the United Nations for MICIVIH, which had been concluded on 17 July 1997. Accordingly, and subject to the above, the United Nations and the OAS have agreed to continue their cooperation in MICIVIH as a Joint Mission between the two Organizations. Whilst the decision of the OAS to withdraw all but one of its staff will necessarily have an impact on the functioning of MICIVIH, I believe, however, that despite that decision, the Joint Mission will be able

to carry out the core activities of the mandate at a meaningful, though reduced level. It is therefore envisaged that the United Nations component of MICIVIH will remain at the same authorized level for the duration of its current mandate. I indicated in my last report (A153/950) that much remained to be accomplished in Haiti with regard to the strengthening of state institutions and civil society organizations, essential elements of an exit strategy of the Joint Mission. I believe that the international community must continue to work together to ensure that the reforms and the strengthening of local capacities achieved so far are maintained. May I draw in particular your attention to paragraph 8 of the ECOSOC resolution of 27 July 1999, which recommends to the General Assembly to review all aspects of MICIVIH’s mandate and operations in light of the situation in Haiti and to consider renewing the mandate of the United Nations component of the Joint Mission. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 53/95, I shall be submitting to the Assembly, at its fifty-fourth session, the second report on the implementation of the current mandate of MICIVIH, together with my recommendation on future action to be taken. In the meantime, I should be grateful if you would bring the contents of the present letter, including the attached letter from the Secretary-General of the OAS, to the attention of the members of the General Assembly. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

6 August 1999 Letter (EOSG); Yugoslavia Letter from Gelson Fonseca, permanent representative to the UN from Brazil and chairman of the Security Council committee established pursuant to resolution 1160 (1998). Dear Secretary-General, I wish to inform you that the Committee established pursuant to Security Council resolution 1160 (1998) is currently considering how best to implement its mandate outlined in resolutions 1160 (1998) and 1199 (1998) within the new framework established by Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). In this context, the Committee is of the view that continued reporting on possible violations of the arms embargo by international organizations, which have been participating in the monitoring regime, can greatly facilitate its efforts to dis-

772 • 6 August 1999

charge the mandate entrusted to it by the Security Council. In the absence of a coordinating monitoring mechanism, such reports may assist the Committee in its efforts to guard against the influx of arms and related materiel of all types into the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including Kosovo. Accordingly, I wish, on behalf of the Committee, to invite you to consider possible arrangements which would allow the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) to report regularly on possible violations of the prohibitions established by resolutions 1160 (1998) and 1199 (1998). Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration.

9 August 1999 Letter (EOSG); international humanitarian law Letter to Cornelio Sommaruga, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, regarding the promulgation of the Secretary-General’s Bulletin on the Observance of International Humanitarian Law by UN Forces, which follows the letter. Dr. Mr. Sommaruga, The Secretary-General’s Bulletin on the Observance of International Humanitarian Law by UN Forces has been promulgated and will enter into force on 12 August 1999. Fifty years after the four Geneva Conventions were adopted, and five decades after the International Committee of the Red Cross called upon the Unified Command in Korea to apply to forces put at its disposal the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva Conventions, there is little doubt that international humanitarian law is applicable to UN forces when in situations of armed conflict they are actively engaged therein as combatants, and for the duration of that engagement. The Secretary-General’s Bulletin, a culmination of a joint ICRC-UN effort, was not an easy task to accomplish. Its drafting demanded great care in reflecting as accurately as possible the existing law and applying it to UN forces mutatismutandis, taking into consideration the legal status of the United Nations Organization and the juridical and administrative powers required to discharge many of the obligations laid down in the relevant conventions which it has now formally undertaken to uphold. Prior to its issuance, the Secretary-General’s Bulletin was circulated for comments to members

of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations. While some of the comments and suggestions made have been incorporated in the final text, others, pertaining to the very nature of peacekeeping operations and the authority of the Secretary-General in that respect, remain controversial. Mindful of these differences of opinion, I have nevertheless decided to promulgate the Bulletin, convinced that it represents the fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law and that its promulgation and dissemination in times of peace will diminish the risk of violation in times of war. I wish to take this opportunity to thank you and the ICRC and those of its staff who throughout the years have contributed to bringing about this important endeavour to its fruition. * * * United Nations, ST/SGB/1999/13 Secretariat 6 August 1999 Secretary-General’s Bulletin: Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law

The Secretary-General, for the purpose of setting out fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law applicable to United Nations forces conducting operations under United Nations command and control, promulgates the following: Section 1: Field of Application

1.1 The fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law set out in the present bulletin are applicable to United Nations forces when in situations of armed conflict they are actively engaged therein as combatants, to the extent and for the duration of their engagement. They are accordingly applicable in enforcement actions, or in peacekeeping operations when the use of force is permitted in self-defence. 1.2 The promulgation of this bulletin does not affect the protected status of members of peacekeeping operations under the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel or their status as non-combatants, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians under the international law of armed conflict. Section 2: Application of National Law

The present provisions do not constitute an exhaustive list of principles and rules of international humanitarian law binding upon military per-

9 August 1999 • 773 sonnel, and do not prejudice the application thereof, nor do they replace the national laws by which military personnel remain bound throughout the operation. Section 3: Status-of-Forces Agreement

In the status-of-forces agreement concluded between the United Nations and a State in whose territory a United Nations force is deployed, the United Nations undertakes to ensure that the force shall conduct its operations with full respect for the principles and rules of the general conventions applicable to the conduct of military personnel. The United Nations also undertakes to ensure that members of the military personnel of the force are fully acquainted with the principles and rules of those international instruments. The obligation to respect the said principles and rules is applicable to United Nations forces even in the absence of a status-of-forces agreement. Section 4: Violations of International Humanitarian Law

In case of violations of international humanitarian law, members of the military personnel of a United Nations force are subject to prosecution in their national courts. Section 5: Protection of the Civilian Population

5.1 The United Nations force shall make a clear distinction at all times between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. Military operations shall be directed only against combatants and military objectives. Attacks on civilians or civilian objects are prohibited. 5.2 Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. 5.3 The United Nations force shall take all feasible precautions to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian property. 5.4 In its area of operation, the United Nations force shall avoid, to the extent feasible, locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas, and take all necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects against the dangers resulting from military operations. Military installations and equipment of peacekeeping operations, as such, shall not be considered military objectives. 5.5 The United Nations force is prohibited from launching operations of a nature likely to strike military objectives and civilians in an indis-

criminate manner, as well as operations that may be expected to cause incidental loss of life among the civilian population or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. 5.6 The United Nations force shall not engage in reprisals against civilians or civilian objects. Section 6: Means and Methods of Combat

6.1 The right of the United Nations force to choose methods and means of combat is not unlimited. 6.2 The United Nations force shall respect the rules prohibiting or restricting the use of certain weapons and methods of combat under the relevant instruments of international humanitarian law. These include, in particular, the prohibition on the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and biological methods of warfare; bullets which explode, expand or flatten easily in the human body; and certain explosive projectiles. The use of certain conventional weapons, such as nondetectable fragments, anti-personnel mines, booby traps and incendiary weapons, is prohibited. 6.3 The United Nations force is prohibited from employing methods of warfare which may cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, or which are intended, or may be expected to cause, widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. 6.4 The United Nations force is prohibited from using weapons or methods of combat of a nature to cause unnecessary suffering. 6.5 It is forbidden to order that there shall be no survivors. 6.6 The United Nations force is prohibited from attacking monuments of art, architecture or history, archaeological sites, works of art, places of worship and museums and libraries which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples. In its area of operation, the United Nations force shall not use such cultural property or their immediate surroundings for purposes which might expose them to destruction or damage. Theft, pillage, misappropriation and any act of vandalism directed against cultural property is strictly prohibited. 6.7 The United Nations force is prohibited from attacking, destroying, removing or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuff, crops, livestock and drinking-water installations and supplies. 6.8 The United Nations force shall not make installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dikes and nuclear electrical generating sta-

774 • 9 August 1999

tions, the object of military operations if such operations may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. 6.9 The United Nations force shall not engage in reprisals against objects and installations protected under this section. Section 7: Treatment of Civilians and Persons Hors de Combat

7.1 Persons not, or no longer, taking part in military operations, including civilians, members of armed forces who have laid down their weapons and persons placed hors de combat by reason of sickness, wounds or detention, shall, in all circumstances, be treated humanely and without any adverse distinction based on race, sex, religious convictions or any other ground. They shall be accorded full respect for their person, honour and religious and other convictions. 7.2 The following acts against any of the persons mentioned in section 7.1 are prohibited at any time and in any place: violence to life or physical integrity; murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment; collective punishment; reprisals; the taking of hostages; rape; enforced prostitution; any form of sexual assault and humiliation and degrading treatment; enslavement; and pillage. 7.3 Women shall be especially protected against any attack, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution or any other form of indecent assault. 7.4 Children shall be the object of special respect and shall be protected against any form of indecent assault. Section 8: Treatment of Detained Persons

The United Nations force shall treat with humanity and respect for their dignity detained members of the armed forces and other persons who no longer take part in military operations by reason of detention. Without prejudice to their legal status, they shall be treated in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, as may be applicable to them mutatis mutandis. In particular: (a) Their capture and detention shall be notified without delay to the party on which they depend and to the Central Tracing Agency of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), in particular in order to inform their families; (b) They shall be held in secure and safe premises which provide all possible safeguards of hygiene and health, and shall not be detained in areas exposed to the dangers of the combat zone;

(c) They shall be entitled to receive food and clothing, hygiene and medical attention; (d) They shall under no circumstances be subjected to any form of torture or ill-treatment; (e) Women whose liberty has been restricted shall be held in quarters separated from men’s quarters, and shall be under the immediate supervision of women; (f) In cases where children who have not attained the age of sixteen years take a direct part in hostilities and are arrested, detained or interned by the United Nations force, they shall continue to benefit from special protection. In particular, they shall be held in quarters separate from the quarters of adults, except when accommodated with their families; (g) ICRC’s right to visit prisoners and detained persons shall be respected and guaranteed. Section 9: Protection of the Wounded, the Sick, and Medical and Relief Personnel

9.1 Members of the armed forces and other persons in the power of the United Nations force who are wounded or sick shall be respected and protected in all circumstances. They shall be treated humanely and receive the medical care and attention required by their condition, without adverse distinction. Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered. 9.2 Whenever circumstances permit, a suspension of fire shall be arranged, or other local arrangements made, to permit the search for and identification of the wounded, the sick and the dead left on the battlefield and allow for their collection, removal, exchange and transport. 9.3 The United Nations force shall not attack medical establishments or mobile medical units. These shall at all times be respected and protected, unless they are used, outside their humanitarian functions, to attack or otherwise commit harmful acts against the United Nations force. 9.4 The United Nations force shall in all circumstances respect and protect medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick, as well as religious personnel. 9.5 The United Nations force shall respect and protect transports of wounded and sick or medical equipment in the same way as mobile medical units. 9.6 The United Nations force shall not engage in reprisals against the wounded, the sick or the personnel, establishments and equipment protected under this section.

10 August 1999 • 775 9.7 The United Nations force shall in all circumstances respect the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems. These emblems may not be employed except to indicate or to protect medical units and medical establishments, personnel and material. Any misuse of the Red Cross or Red Crescent emblems is prohibited. 9.8 The United Nations force shall respect the right of the families to know about the fate of their sick, wounded and deceased relatives. To this end, the force shall facilitate the work of the ICRC Central Tracing Agency. 9.9 The United Nations force shall facilitate the work of relief operations which are humanitarian and impartial in character and conducted without any adverse distinction, and shall respect personnel, vehicles and premises involved in such operations. Section 10: Entry into Force

The present bulletin shall enter into force on 12 August 1999.

9 August 1999 Letter (UN archives); presentation of credentials Internal note to the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, from Ralph Zacklin of the UN legal office. Included are handwritten initials by the Secretary-General to sign off on the document. NOTE TO MR. RIZA

Presentation of Credentials by Permanent Representatives

1. You have asked for advice on whether the Deputy Secretary-General may accept credentials of a Permanent Representative of a member State. 2. Resolution 257(III) of 3 December 1948 (copy attached) provides that “credentials of the permanent representatives shall be issued either by the Head of the State or by the Head of the Government or by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and shall be transmitted to the Secretary-General”. Resolution 52/12 of 19 December 1997 (copy attached) established the post of Deputy SecretaryGeneral and empowered the Deputy SecretaryGeneral to, inter alia, “act for the SecretaryGeneral at United Nations Headquarters in the absence of the Secretary-General and in other cases as may be decided by the Secretary-General” (Section A.1(b)). 3. The Deputy Secretary-General thus can receive credentials when the Secretary-General is away from Headquarters or if the Secretary-

General authorizes her to so do, either generally or in a specific case. 4. Although this is not a legal point, I do note that many Permanent Representatives view the presentation of credentials as a “photo opportunity” and the exercise of such power by the Deputy Secretary-General might be done only after consultation with the Mission concerned as a new Permanent Representative may well wish to await for an opportune moment to present credentials to the Secretary-General himself. —K.A. 10/8

10 August 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); Sierra Leone/Democratic Republic of Congo/Kosovo Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. ... Sierra Leone

All hostages are now free and safe in Freetown, Sierra Leone. Last night, four hostages were released. They were three Military Observers from the United Kingdom and one Sierra Leonean journalist. Twenty military officers from the Economic Community of West African States’ Monitoring Observer Group (ECOMOG) were still detained. The leader of our team, a military observer from Kyrgyzstan, volunteered to stay behind to ensure the safe release of the remaining hostages, which also included the children that the United Nations team had gone to secure the release of to begin with. They are now all released, including the children. The freed hostages have been debriefed and are receiving counselling. In addition to the hostages, 200 civilians, most of them these children I just referred to, are also being released. Several United Nations trucks are now shuttling to bring them from the location where they are back to Freetown. Statement attributable to Spokesman: “The Secretary-General is greatly relieved at the news that all United Nations and ECOMOG personnel detained by a rebel group in Sierra Leone have now been released. He pays tribute to the courage and patience of the detainees and wishes them and their families well. The Secretary-General gratefully acknowledges the crucial role played by the

776 • 10 August 1999

Government of Sierra Leone and in particular President Kabbah, as well as President Taylor of Liberia, President Obasanjo of Nigeria, and other regional leaders, as well as the RUF/SL led by Mr. Sankoh, in seeking a peaceful resolution to this situation. He also would like to thank the Government of the United Kingdom for its swift dispatch of a team of experts to support the Government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL).” . . . Secretary-General’s Bulletin on International Humanitarian Law

Yesterday, we put out embargoed copies of a new Bulletin issued by the Secretary-General on the applicability of international humanitarian law to United Nations peacekeeping forces. The document was issued this morning, so it’s no longer under embargo. And some of you might have just heard a background briefing by a senior official on the significance of this new text. The timing is no coincidence. This Bulletin will take effect on August 12th, which is exactly 50 years to the day since the adoption of the four Geneva Conventions. The Secretary-General will be in Geneva on that date to take part in commemorative events being organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). He wanted to publish this Bulletin in time for the fiftieth anniversary, which, I think, is a fitting demonstration of his personal commitment to the issue. In fact, some aspects of this Bulletin, pertaining to the very nature of peacekeeping operations and the authority of the Secretary-General, remain controversial. The Secretary-General says as much in a cover letter to ICRC President Cornelio Sommaruga transmitting the new Bulletin. That letter will be sent in the course of this afternoon. He says that he is convinced that this Bulletin “represents the fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law and that its promulgation and dissemination in times of peace will diminish the risk of violation in times of war”. . . . Democratic Republic of Congo

Preparations to eradicate polio are now under way in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the parties have stopped fighting in most areas of the country so that some 10 million children can be vaccinated against the disease during this coming weekend. This development follows a call by the Secretary-General for “Days of Tranquillity” for immunization activities. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has one of the most intense polio virus transmissions

in the world, and it is the single highest priority for eradication efforts. The Secretary-General had received assurances from President Laurent Kabila and rebel leaders controlling the eastern part of the country that they would lay down their weapons this week to permit the campaign to proceed. Even with continued localized fighting, relief agencies believe the campaign can reach over 95 per cent of the children under five years of age. The SecretaryGeneral has also reiterated his call for all parties to comply with the truce so that the campaign can take place. He said, “These vaccination campaigns are a platform for the peace-building process. They open windows of opportunity for dialogue between the different sides”. . . . Kosovo

More than three quarters of a million people have now returned to Kosovo, with returns from more than a dozen European countries continuing at around 1,000 per day, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). At the same time, the agency reported, nonAlbanians continue to leave the province, mainly for other parts of Serbia and Montenegro. UNHCR says that the situation of displaced people from Kosovo who have moved into other parts of Serbia as well as into Montenegro is becoming increasingly difficult. UNHCR’s special envoy, Dennis McNamara, will go to Belgrade this week to discuss the problem. . . . QUESTION: The document on East Timor must be based on the assumption that everything goes well. Do you have a contingency plan if something wrong happens? ANSWER: It is standard procedure in peacekeeping operations, as it is a standard military procedure everywhere, to have contingency plans. But no, we are not expecting things to go wrong in East Timor. On the contrary, we are very pleased with how this registration has gone and we are looking forward to a peaceful consultation on 30 August. ...

11 August 1999 Letter (EOSG); Angola Letter to the president of the Security Council, Martin Andjaba. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to the statement of the President of the Security Council dated 21

12 August 1999 • 777 January 1999 (S/PRST/1999/3) in which the Council requested me to report to it on the status of my consultations with the Government of Angola on a continued multidisciplinary presence of the United Nations in that country. As members of the Security Council are aware, the Secretariat had a series of exchanges with the Government of Angola on this issue, including the consultations conducted by the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Mr. Bernard Miyet, and my Special Representative for Angola, Mr. Issa B.Y. Diallo, in Luanda on 17 and 18 June 1999. Following these exchanges, I discussed the matter with the Minister of External Relations of Angola, Mr. Joao Bernardo de Miranda, during the Organization of African Unity summit in Algiers from 12 to 14 July 1999. I impressed upon the Minister that, pending further consultations between the United Nations and the Government of Angola, the new United Nations office should consist of 30 substantive professional staff, as well as the necessary administrative and other support personnel. In a letter addressed to me on 26 July 1999, a copy of which is attached, Minister de Miranda conveyed to me his Government’s positive assessment of the results of our meeting in Algiers. He indicated that conditions were now created for the signing of an agreement with the United Nations which would enable the United Nations Office to start operating in Angola. In my reply to Minister de Miranda dated 2 August, which is also attached, I express my intention to proceed soon with the establishment of the United Nations office in Angola, the mandate of which would be based on the relevant Security Council resolutions and presidential statements on Angola. The new multidisciplinary office would be staffed with the personnel necessary to liaise with the political, military, police and other civilian authorities, with a view to exploring effective measures for restoring peace. This office would also assist the Angolan people in the area of human rights and will coordinate other activities. The United Nations Humanitarian Assistance Coordination Unit (UCAH), the activities of which enjoy the full support of the Government, would continue to operate in its present configuration. Accordingly, I intend to initiate practical arrangements for the earliest establishment of the new office and the conclusion with the Government of Angola of a Status of Mission Agreement. The cost estimates for the office will be presented to the Council shortly.

I should be grateful if you would have this letter circulated as a document of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

12 August 1999 UN Will Continue to Find Guidance, Inspiration, and Courage in Geneva Conventions

Speech (OSSG, SG/SM/7095); Geneva Conventions Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, in Geneva. I am pleased and honoured to join you in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Geneva Conventions. Our meeting today, and the progress in the codification of international humanitarian law over the last 50 years, are vivid testimony to the continued significance of these Conventions to the conduct of armed conflict. While the United Nations Charter may be seen as a reflection of our experience, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights an expression of our ideals, the Geneva Conventions have for half a century represented humanity’s determination to ensure, even in the midst of war, a minimum of respect for humanitarian principles. However, in this final year of the decade in a century of war, genocide and immense suffering, we do not meet in celebration of the respect for these Conventions. We cannot say that civilian populations have been spared in the conflicts of the last decade. We should not, and we cannot, believe that the next 50 years will require any less determination and commitment on our part to limit the suffering of civilians in war. Indeed, the ethnic wars of the 1990s have been characterized by the abominable practice of making civilians the very targets of warfare, in campaigns of genocide and “ethnic cleansing.” It is not, therefore, merely a question of protecting civilians in armed conflict, but protecting civilians from armed conflict. These flagrant violations of international humanitarian law—the wholesale expulsion of an entire people from their native land, summary and arbitrary executions, mutilation, rape, forced displacement, denial of the right to food and medicines—have taken place not as the effect of war, but as the essence of warfare. Where we fear conflict, we must seek to pre-

778 • 12 August 1999

vent it. Where we witness conflict, we must seek to end it. And where we help end conflict, we must seek to prevent its recurrence. To these sacred duties of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions have added the obligation to respect international humanitarian law. By making palpable the concepts of accountability and individual criminal responsibility for war crimes, the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have invested the Geneva Conventions with new life and new relevance. But they have done more. They continue to remind us that in every conflict where civilians are targeted—whether in Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Kosovo or Sierra Leone—there are violators and there are victims. The creation of the International Criminal Court is further evidence of the commitment to ensuring global justice, and it is my hope that its statute will be ratified swiftly and universally. As the United Nations enters a new century, our commitment to ensuring respect for international humanitarian law and ending the culture of impunity will be at the heart of our efforts to promote peace and security. As we do so, we will continue to find guidance, inspiration and courage in the principles of the Geneva Conventions.

12 August 1999 Secretary-General Calls for Greater International Response to Humanitarian Crises in Africa

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7096); Africa The humanitarian needs of victims of war and natural disasters in many parts of Africa are nearing irrevocable crisis proportions, and the SecretaryGeneral is alarmed by the poor response of the international community. United Nations humanitarian agencies and their partners require $796 million to assist over 12 million needy people in Africa during 1999, yet only $352 million has been received. As a result, humanitarian programmes have had to be cut back and even lifesaving assistance in many instances is not being provided where it is urgently required. In Angola, it is estimated that 200 lives are being lost each day as the conflict between Government and National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) forces intensifies. Supplies to assist the 2 million people affected by this war are simply insufficient. In southern and

central Somalia, a combination of persistent conflict, grim prospects for the current harvest and the cumulative effect of six consecutive poor yields are threatening at least 1 million people with famine. In the Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well as in Ethiopia and Eritrea, there are also serious humanitarian needs that cannot be met due to inadequate donor response. The latter five countries have recently taken important steps towards establishing peace. These advances are tenuous and must be bolstered by the provision of aid. In the developed world many countries are experiencing unprecedented economic growth and robust budget surpluses. Yet, international aid budgets continue to stagnate or decline. The Secretary-General appeals to donors to make a special effort now to help the victims of conflicts and natural disasters in Africa.

24 August 1999 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo/Sierra Leone Note to S. Iqbal Riza, chief of staff for the Secretary-General, from Hedi Annabi of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, with the following draft letters to the president of the Security Council, Martin Andjaba. NOTE TO MR. RIZA

DRC and Sierra Leone: Draft Letters to the President of the Security Council

1. Please find attached draft letters from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council informing him of the identification by DPKO of troop-contributing countries for UNOMSIL in Sierra Leone and for the preliminary deployment in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 2. The letters were drafted following the usual consultations with potential troop-contributing countries. We have asked Mr. Okelo to inform the Government of Sierra Leone of the additional troop-contributing countries for UNOMSIL. We will also inform the Governments of the DRC, Rwanda, Uganda and the other signatory and neighbouring States that, pursuant to the resolution 1258 (1999), we intend to deploy personnel from the countries listed to their capitals. We envisage beginning the deployment as soon as we receive commitment authority. 3. The Secretary-General’s early approval and

27 August 1999 • 779 signature of the attached drafts would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. * * * 24 August 1999 Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to Security Council resolution 1260 (1999) of 20 August 1999 by which the Council authorized the provisional expansion of UNOMSIL up to 210 military observers along with the necessary equipment and administrative and medical support to perform the tasks set out in paragraph 38 of the seventh report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the United Nations Observers Mission in Sierra Leone (S/1999/836), and decided that these additional military observers should be deployed as security conditions permit and should operate for the time being under security provided by ECOMOG as indicated in paragraph 39 of the report. The countries currently contributing military observers to UNOMSIL are listed in the annex to document S/1999/836. Following the usual consultations, I propose that Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Indonesia, France, Nepal, Norway, Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand and Uruguay be added to the list of countries contributing military personnel to the Observer Mission. I should be grateful if you would bring this matter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. * * * 24 August 1999 Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to Security Council resolution 1258 (1999) of 6 August 1999, by which the Security Council authorized the deployment of up to 90 United Nations military liaison officers, together with the necessary civilian, political, humanitarian and administrative staff, to the capitals of the States signatories to the Lusaka Cease-fire Agreement and the provisional headquarters of the Joint Military Commission (JMC), and, as security conditions permit, to the rear military headquarters of the main belligerents in the Democratic Republic of Congo and, as appropriate, to other areas the Secretary-General may deem necessary, for a period of three months.

Following the usual consultations, I propose that Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Ghana, India, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Nepal, Pakistan, Poland, Senegal, Romania, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Sweden, Tanzania, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Zambia be included in the list of countries contributing military personnel to the preliminary deployment of United Nations liaison officers. I should be grateful if you would bring this matter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

26 August 1999 Secretary-General Appalled by Widespread Violence in Dili

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7109); East Timor The Secretary-General is appalled by the widespread violence in Dili today, including the loss of lives. He demands that the Indonesian authorities take immediate steps to restore and maintain law and order. The Secretary-General again reminds the Indonesian authorities of their obligations under the 5 May 1999 arrangements. It is crucial that, even at this late stage, concrete and effective steps be taken by Indonesia to control the militias who, it is increasingly clear, are intent on disrupting the popular consultation. Those who are responsible for planning and carrying out these acts of violence and lawlessness must be arrested. The Secretary-General is determined that the United Nations should fulfil its responsibilities to the people of East Timor, and should not be deterred by threats and intimidation from lawless elements.

27 August 1999 Letter (EOSG); Democratic Republic of Congo Letter from the president of the Security Council, Martin Andjaba. I have the honour to inform you that your letter dated 24 August 1999 concerning your proposal to include Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Ghana, India, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Mali, Nepal, Pakistan, Poland, Senegal, Romania, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Sweden, the United Republic of Tanzania, the United Kingdom

780 • 27 August 1999

of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Zambia to the list of Member States contributing military personnel to the preliminary deployment of United Nations liaison officers to the capitals of the States signatories to the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and the provisional headquarters of the Joint Military Commission (JMC) and, as security conditions permit, to the rear military headquarters of the main belligerents in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, as appropriate, to other areas the Secretary-General may deem necessary, for a period of three months, has been brought to the attention of the members of the Council. They agree with the proposal contained in your letter. Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration.

29 August 1999 Secretary-General Stresses Peace, Restraint, and Tolerance on Eve of East Timor Consultation

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7111); East Timor Text of the message to the people of East Timor on the eve of the country’s popular consultation. I wish to extend my warmest greetings to the people of East Timor on the eve of the consultation on your future. Allow me, first, to congratulate you for having registered in such large numbers, and having done so with such remarkable patience, courage and dedication to ensuring a better future for your children. I trust that you will follow up the successful registration process with a successful, inclusive and peaceful voting process at the 200 polling centres run by United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET). When I had the privilege of addressing you in June, in advance of the registration, I said that the “popular consultation is not about winning or losing a competition. It is your chance to settle the question of East Timor peacefully. It is your opportunity to launch a new era of reconciliation”. So far, the international community has been extraordinarily impressed with how you have seized on this chance to determine your future. It is important that the day of voting be a day of peace and calm so that you may all vote in secret, without any fear or hindrance. The Indonesian authorities, and in particular, the Indonesian police force are responsible for ensuring a peaceful, proper environment. I appeal to them to do their part to ensure a process that fulfils the commitments of

their Government to the United Nations and to the world at large. Let me remind you, as I did in June, that the secrecy of the ballot is a sacred obligation for the United Nations. The UNAMET will ensure that all the ballots are brought to Dili to ensure an orderly count, which may take up to seven days before all votes are verified, and results can be announced. I salute the leaders on both sides who have pledged to respect the outcome of the ballot, and expect them to match their words with deeds in the weeks to come. Restraint and tolerance are of critical importance during the period following the vote. Remember, above all, the choice before you is either acceptance or rejection of the autonomy proposal. Whatever the outcome, peace remains a prize that must be shared by all East Timorese. The UNAMET is committed to securing that peace today, and in the future. It will remain in East Timor after the ballot to carry out its responsibilities in ensuring the result of the vote is properly implemented. Of that, you can be assured. Ultimately, however, it is you, the people of East Timor, who must seize the opportunity of this consultation. You must embark on the process of reconciliation in order to ensure a better future, regardless of the outcome of tomorrow’s ballot.

30 August 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); East Timor Excerpts from the noon briefing by the deputy spokesman for the Secretary-General, Manoel de Almeida e Silva. East Timor

Good afternoon. We will start with East Timor, and I have a statement attributable to the SecretaryGeneral: I am pleased to report that the people of East Timor turned out in the hundreds of thousands on Monday, 30 August, to express their will as to their future. Despite the violence which had again threatened the process in the week preceding the poll, all 200 polling centres in the Territory were open on polling day, and the voters cast their ballots in a calm and dignified manner. While the last reports are still coming in to the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET), it is clear that the turnout has been extraordinary. Well over 90 per cent of all registered voters have cast their ballots.

30 August 1999 • 781 On the whole, polling proceeded smoothly, a testament to the determination and patience of the voters, despite some intimidation by militias outside some polling stations. It is with great dismay and sorrow that I have learned today of the murder of Joel Lopez Gomes, an East Timorese staff member of UNAMET, and am awaiting a full response. My heartfelt condolences go out to the family of Mr. Lopez Gomes. Despite this deplorable act of violence and other sporadic incidents, I wish to pay tribute to the efforts of the Indonesian authorities, and particularly of the police on polling day. The role of the security forces will be even more important in the coming days as ballot boxes are transported to the central counting station and the count begins. During this period, I call upon all East Timorese groups to exercise the utmost restraint and patience, to ensure that the will of the East Timorese people may be fully heard. The popular consultation represents a milestone in the implementation of the Agreements signed on 5 May by Portugal and Indonesia. I would therefore like warmly to congratulate both Portugal and Indonesia for the spirit of cooperation and collegiality with which they have brought the process thus far, as well as the staff of UNAMET for their courageous efforts. I very much look forward to working with both parties and the people of East Timor to implement the result of the ballot, which must be accepted with maturity as determining the future of East Timor. This was the statement of the SecretaryGeneral following the ballot day in East Timor. I would like to add some other information on this. As you have heard in the Secretary-General’s statement, over 90 per cent of the registered voters have cast their ballots. Incidents at seven polling stations caused their temporary closure during the course of the day for periods that ranged from 30 minutes to three hours. The last polling station closed at 6:30 in the evening, was in Kassa, Ainaro district, where polling was extended to compensate for a three-hour suspension of polling. The sealed ballot boxes will be transported to Dili by midday tomorrow. The process of counting, verification and certification is expected to take up to a week before a result is announced. As you know, in addition to the polling centres in East Timor and Indonesia, there were six others. Five of them are already closed for the day, or are about to close, given the different time zones. The one in New York opened at 9 o’clock this morning and will close at 6 in the evening. United Nations

staff and official observers witnessed the opening of the centre this morning. . . .

30 August 1999 Letter (UN archives); UN’s new challenges Internal note from Kieran Prendergast, under-secretary-general to the Department of Political Affairs, discussing a number of issues facing the UN. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Organizing for the Challenges Ahead

1. The United Nations faces a series of major new challenges in the political/military field. Apart from Kosovo and East Timor (with Phase II imminent and Phase III looming up), there is the enormously complex and difficult nexus of the DRC/Great Lakes, not to mention Ethiopia/ Eritrea. Our reputation depends critically on how competent and coherent our response is judged to be by the international community. 2. As you know from several recent conversations, I am far from persuaded that our current institutional arrangements are adequate to the challenge. The fact that you have had to ask the Deputy Secretary-General to chair task forces on Kosovo and now East Timor is evidence of that. DRC/ Great Lakes will be even more complex and demands a response that reflects this. My particular concern is that, just as you expect advice from DPKO based on their long experience in operational matters, so the advice you receive on the political and strategic aspects should fully reflect and respect the expertise and experience that has been built up over the years in DPA, as well as the mandate for peace-making/negotiating, peace-building and post-conflict peace-building given to DPA by the General Assembly. I would also like to be confident that the guidance sent to multi-disciplinary missions and the advice you receive—especially on key judgement calls—is based on broad consultation and reflects interdepartmental agreement (and disagreement where necessary). That is too often not the case at present. 3. The problem lies, in my view, in the way the “lead department” concept is being interpreted when it comes to political, peacemaking/negotiating and post-conflict peace-building issues. My concern is with the practice rather than the concept of the arrangement and has little to do with who should be in the lead (which, as you know, I believe would not matter greatly if there was genuine teamwork). There is, in fact, some merit in DPKO continuing to coordinate the

782 • 30 August 1999

inputs of all departments, funds and agencies; leading in operational and related matters; and providing a coherent channel for communication to and from missions. 4. The “lead department” concept seems to produce problems mainly between DPKO and DPA. Whereas OCHA is accepted as having primary responsibility for the humanitarian component of missions, OHCHR for the human rights, DPI for the information programme and DPKO, of course, on operational aspects, DPA’s primary responsibility for preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and post conflict peace-building is not reflected in the arrangements for the management and direction of peace-keeping missions. 5. The present arrangement is wasteful and leads to duplication. Whatever we may claim to ACABQ or the Fifth Committee, the current practice of the “lead department” concept produces an inevitable overlap and duplication between DPA and DPKO. Monitoring and analyzing developments in all countries and informing and advising the Secretary-General of any useful role that the UN can play is a core function of DPA. DPA has accordingly assigned desk officers for all countries including those where there are peace-keeping missions or are being planned. These assignments preceded the deployment of the missions and will outlive them. The responsibility that DPA has for a given country does not, and cannot, lapse or become suspended when a peace-keeping mission is established. Moreover almost all conflicts have a strong regional dimension. It is DPA that is responsible for cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations and arrangements as well as the countries that play the key role in efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts in their regions. 6. The cases of DRC and East Timor are particularly illustrative of the need for better arrangements than the present doctrine. The DRC conflict has three inter-linked political dimensions: internal, regional and international. The solutions that are being considered are political. The intra-Congolese conflict is to be resolved through a national dialogue leading to an inclusive transitional arrangement and elections. The regional dimension involves a substantial number of countries in southern and central Africa and the preferred political solution is a regional conference that will address their long-term peace and security concerns. The international dimension aims to provide support for regional efforts and to contribute to crucial postconflict peace-building activities and longer term reconstruction and rehabilitation needs.

7. Similarly, the implementation of the results of the referendum in East Timor (Phase II) and the transition to independence (Phase III), should it come to pass, are essentially political tasks. The main elements of Phase III would be the administration by the United Nations of a Non-Self Governing Territory focusing for the most part on issues of decolonization, governance, administrative reform and institution building. In short, the UN role would be primordially to engage in postconflict peace-building, an area for which you have designated DPA as the focal point. 8. I believe that it is time to work out new arrangements that reflect the respective competencies given by the General Assembly to the two departments. The present set up is not only a source of duplication but also leads to confusion and lack of continuity as well as tensions between DPA and DPKO. (It is, may I say, by some way my biggest professional frustration.) Cyprus and Georgia may provide a useful model. In Cyprus, DPA is responsible for the good offices mission of the SecretaryGeneral while DPKO manages the peacekeeping side. The same applies in Georgia/Abkhazia. This has not proved unduly cumbersome or inefficient. Much as the human rights, humanitarian, information and for that matter military and police components of missions report to their respective departments and offices for guidance, the political and, where they exist, the peace-building components of missions should be asked to report to DPA. 9. The classic response is that Cyprus and Georgia/Abkhazia are in the negotiating/peacemaking phase, whereas Kosovo, DRC etc are implementation. But that is an impossibly clumsy standard of measurement. In Kosovo and the DRC, there is, and will continue to be, much to negotiate about and much long term thinking to be done. In Western Sahara—theoretically in the implementation phase—the truth is that we have been negotiating with the Moroccans about implementation for the past two years. The same was true of Sierra Leone for more than a year. And in Angola, which less and less resembles a peace-keeping operation in any meaningful sense of the term, it is difficult to see what we are implementing. 10. It is evident that the success of any mission will also depend on the cooperation among its component parts. It will therefore be incumbent on all concerned departments, offices, funds and agencies to ensure the closest possible cooperation. This note is intended in that spirit. 11. I would welcome an opportunity to discuss all this with you.

3 September 1999 • 783 3 September 1999 Letter (EOSG); East Timor Letter to the president of the Security Council, Peter van Walsum. The letter was also sent to the president of the General Assembly, Didier Opertti. Dear Mr. President, As you are aware, on 5 May 1999 Portugal, Indonesia and the United Nations concluded a set of agreements intended to resolve the long-standing issue of East Timor. These 5 May Agreements requested the Secretary-General to determine, through a popular consultation based upon a universal, direct, and secret ballot, whether the East Timorese people would accept or reject a proposed special autonomy for East Timor within the unitary Republic of Indonesia. I am pleased to inform you that the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) has now completed the popular consultation. The results, and the consultation process as a whole, have also been duly certified by the Electoral Commission. I therefore have the honour to report to you that 94,388 (21.5%) votes were cast in favour of the proposed special autonomy framework and 344,580 (78.5%) votes were cast against it. Thus, Mr. President, the people of East Timor have rejected the proposed special autonomy and expressed their wish to begin a process of transition towards independence. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Council for the steadfast support it has given UNAMET since its inception. The 5 May Agreements call for a peaceful and orderly transfer of authority in East Timor to the United Nations. This task will be complex and difficult, especially given the current insecurity in the Territory. I am confident that the United Nations, and indeed the people of East Timor, can continue to depend upon the support of the members of the Council in the coming months. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

3 September 1999 Secretary-General Says People of East Timor Reject Proposed Special Autonomy

Presentation to Security Council (EOSG, SG/SM/7119, SC/6722); East Timor Presentation to the Security Council where the Secretary-General announces the result of the vote of the popular consultation in East Timor. On 5 May 1999, Portugal, Indonesia and the

United Nations concluded a historic set of agreements intended to resolve the long-standing issue of East Timor. These 5 May Agreements requested me to determine, through a popular consultation based upon a universal, direct, and secret ballot, whether the East Timorese people would accept or reject a proposed special autonomy for East Timor within the unitary Republic of Indonesia. To enable me to fulfil this request, the United Nations Security Council established on 11 June 1999 the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET), which proceeded to organize and conduct the popular consultation. It registered 451,792 voters in East Timor and around the world, in a registration process which the Electoral Commission, a body composed of three independent commissioners, deemed to be a sound basis for the conduct of the consultation. Thus, on 30 August 1999, in a show of courage and determination, the people of East Timor turned out in massive numbers to vote in the popular consultation, expressing their will as to the future of the Territory. The votes cast have now been counted and the Electoral Commission has assessed all outstanding complaints, and certified the results of the popular consultation process. Therefore, in fulfilment of the task entrusted to me by the 5 May Agreements, I hereby announce that the result of the vote is 94,388, or 21.5 per cent in favour, and 344,580, or 78.5 per cent, against the proposed special autonomy. The people of East Timor have thus rejected the proposed special autonomy and expressed their wish to begin a process of transition towards independence. After 24 years of conflict, East Timor now stands on the threshold of what we all hope will be a process of orderly and peaceful transition towards independence. The coming days, however, will require patience and calm from the people of East Timor. I hardly need stress how important it is for its leaders to exercise wisdom and reason. Now is the time for all concerned to seize the opportunity to lay a firm and lasting foundation for cooperation and peace, and to usher in an era of stability and prosperity for all future generations of East Timorese. Those who voted to accept the proposed special autonomy must not consider this outcome a loss. Nor indeed should the majority consider it a victory; for there are no winners and no losers today. Rather, this moment heralds the opportunity for all East Timorese to begin to forge together a common future in what is to become an independent East Timor.

784 • 3 September 1999

Today, I ask all parties to bring to an end the violence which for 24 years has caused untold suffering to East Timor. I ask them to begin in earnest a process of dialogue and reconciliation through the East Timor Consultative Commission. I call upon the Government of Indonesia, which made possible the consultation process through a statesmanlike initiative of the President of the Republic, to ensure its successful culmination by carrying out its responsibility to maintain law and order in the Territory. I should like to thank both Indonesia and Portugal for their commitment and perseverance in this process. I am confident that the Governments will fulfil their remaining obligations under the 5 May Agreements. Let me assure both Governments that the United Nations will continue to work with them to ensure the implementation of the results of the consultation through a peaceful and orderly process. Let me also assure the people of East Timor that the United Nations will not fail them in guiding East Timor in its transition towards independence.

6 September 1999 Letter (EOSG); East Timor Letter from the president of the Security Council, Peter van Walsum, with the names of Security Council members who will be part of a mission to East Timor to observe first-hand the outbreak of violence following the results of the referendum; see also the following terms of reference. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, Further to my letter of 5 September 1999, I have the honour to inform you that the members of the Security Council have agreed on the terms of reference (attached) of the Security Council mission. Following consultations with the members, it has been agreed that the composition of the mission is as follows: Namibia (Ambassador Martin Andjaba—Head of mission) Malaysia (Ambassador Agam Hasmy) Netherlands (Minister Alphons Hamer— Presidency of the Security Council) Slovenia (Ambassador Danilo Türk) United Kingdom (Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock) In view of the urgency of the situation, it is the intention of the mission to depart for Indonesia in the evening of 6 September 1999. To that end, I

would be most grateful if the Secretariat could make the necessary arrangements. Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration. * * * Terms of Reference for the Security Council Mission’s Presentation to Government of Indonesia

The Security Council commends the sustained efforts of the Government of Indonesia through the good offices of the Secretary-General to find a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution to the question of East Timor. It expresses its appreciation to the Government of Indonesia for its cooperation with the United Nations in this process. The Security Council is nevertheless seriously concerned about the deteriorating security situation in East Timor, particularly since the popular consultation. The Council welcomes the undertakings given by the Government of Indonesia that it will fulfil its obligations under the 5 May Agreements 1999. But the Government’s efforts so far have not been able to prevent an intensification of violence in the territory. The Security Council is particularly concerned at the campaign of violence against UNAMET in recent days. This has meant the closure of all but four of UNAMET’s regional offices; the Mission’s headquarters is now under a virtual state of siege. The Council deplores the murders of UNAMET local staff members and the attack on 4 September 1999 which left an international staff member seriously wounded. Reflecting the will of the international community, the Security Council is determined to see the 5 May Agreements 1999 implemented fully. The people of East Timor have made a clear choice in favour of independence; their will must be respected. For its part, the United Nations is bringing forward planning for phase III of the transition process. This will be done in consultation with the Government of Indonesia. The international community is looking forward to working with the Government of Indonesia in bringing East Timor to independence. The Security Council urges the . . . [remainder missing from original hardcopy].

6 September 1999 Remarks by the Secretary-General Upon Leaving the Security Council

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); East Timor

6 September 1999 • 785 QUESTION: On Friday at the time when you announced the vote of the referendum, you said that you were not in favor of a peacekeeping force during phase 2 of the transfer. Have you changed your mind about that under the current situation? SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think that what is important here is that we need to find ways and means of bringing law and order and to maintain peace in East Timor. Under the Agreement, Indonesia had the obligation to do that. As I said, I discussed with President Habibie further measures that need to be taken to do that. Obviously I am in touch with governments around the world from the list I have given you and we are going to monitor the situation very closely. The Council mission is going there and we will need to see what happens. If the situation does not improve, the international community will have to decide what other steps should be taken to assist the Indonesian Government in meeting its obligation. QUESTION: What other countries besides Australia have said they have troops standing by that could be UN troops—UN peacekeepers? S-G: I’m in touch with quite a few countries, and we are in discussions. Of course we will be sending in peacekeepers in phase 3, but here you are talking about if one has to go in and help the Indonesians. But obviously, this is something that we are following and looking at very, very closely. QUESTION: Do you really have the luxury of time? I mean, is time running against the UN in this situation? Things seem to be devolving rather quickly. S-G: No, I think it is a very urgent and worrying situation, and we are trying to move as fast as we can. I think it is not every day that a Security Council mission goes out, and as I said, I’ve been on the phone with lots of leaders and lots of countries, trying to pool our efforts to be able to assist the Indonesian Government and bring the situation under control. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, have you been told that martial law will be declared? S-G: It is on the table. QUESTION: And would this be enough, in your opinion, to stay any discussion about troops going in? S-G: I think if that were to be declared, obviously one will have to see what impact it has in the next 24–48 hours. I think if it were to be declared and it were to have an immediate, positive impact, we’ll be looking at a different situation. If the violence continues, then the international community

will have to consider what other measures it can take to assist the Indonesian Government in meeting that obligation. QUESTION: Ian Martin said about the acceleration of phase 3 planning . . . Does it mean the early transfer of administration from the Indonesian Government to the UN? S-G: I think the acceleration of phase 3 can only happen if the Indonesian Government were to take the decision, recognizing the results of the ballot before the October/November deadline. If they can advance it, of course you can accelerate phase 3. And these are some of the issues I hope the Council may be able to discuss while they are there. Thank you.

6 September 1999 Secretary-General Expresses Extreme Concern over Current Developments in East Timor

Press release statement (EOSG, SG/SM/7122); East Timor Yesterday evening, the Secretariat briefed the Security Council on the continuing deterioration of the situation in East Timor. The Council then decided to dispatch a mission to Indonesia to relay its serious concern to the Government of Indonesia regarding current developments. This mission will be leaving tonight and will be led by the Permanent Representative of Namibia. Its members will include the Permanent Representatives of Malaysia, Slovenia and the United Kingdom, as well as the Deputy Permanent Representative of the Netherlands. This afternoon, I provided the mission with a further briefing on developments in East Timor in the last 24 hours. I informed the team that I had been in telephone contact several times with President Habibie to discuss the importance of bringing the situation under control as soon as possible. I have also been in contact with President Clinton, Prime Minister Howard of Australia, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the President and Prime Minister of Portugal and other world leaders on this issue. In the meantime, my Personal Representative for East Timor, Jamsheed Marker, met in person with President Habibie in Jakarta today to follow up my concerns. President Habibie and I agreed on the need for further measures to be taken urgently to restore law and order in East Timor, and secure the safety of UNAMET personnel and all East Timorese. I hope that such steps will have an immediate posi-

786 • 6 September 1999

tive effect, for it is essential that militia violence and intimidation be brought under control. The present chaos in East Timor cannot be allowed to fester any longer. I am extremely concerned over recent and current developments in East Timor. I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, today’s attack on the Dili compound of the International Committee of the Red Cross and on the residence of Bishop Belo. I am also outraged that internally displaced persons are being forced by militias into trucks and taken away against their will to unknown destinations.

7 September 1999 Letter (UN archives); Middle East peace process Letter to Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization and president of the Palestinian Authority. Excellency, I am very pleased to learn of the signing in Sharm El-Sheikh on 4 September of the IsraeliPalestinian agreement on the memorandum of understanding related to the implementation of interim arrangements and the start up of final status talks. I am aware that this important agreement, which puts the Middle East peace process back on track, has been achieved through the goodwill, courage and persistent efforts of both parties. Let me extend my warmest congratulations to you on this significant achievement. I hope that the confidence regained between Israelis and Palestinians will help to further build mutual trust in the difficult search for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration and my best wishes for the Palestinian people.

8 September 1999 Report of the Secretary-General on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict

Report to the Security Council (EOSG, S/1999/957); protecting civilians Excerpts from a longer report on civilians in armed conflict, with specific recommendations shown here in italics (they are bold in the original document). I. Introduction

1. On 12 February 1999 the Security Council held an open meeting on the matter of the protection of civilians in armed conflict. The Council noted with

concern that civilians continued to be targeted in instances of armed conflict, in flagrant violation of international humanitarian and human rights law (S/PRST/1999/6). The Council requested that I submit a report with recommendations on how it could act to improve both the physical and legal protection of civilians in situations of armed conflict. I hereby submit the present report to the Security Council in response to that request. . . . 70. In this report I have provided concrete recommendations to the Council covering a very wide range of initiatives. It is my belief that each of them can contribute to the protection of civilians in some or all situations. However, I wish to draw particular attention to nine proposals which I believe to be of particular importance. First are two recommendations intended to permanently strengthen the capacity of the Council and the Organization to protect civilians in armed conflict. These are: 1. Take steps to strengthen the Organization’s capacity to plan and deploy rapidly. This includes enhancing the participation in the United Nations Stand-by Arrangements System, including by increasing the numbers of civilian police and specialized civil administration and humanitarian personnel. Rapidly deployable units of military and police are also required. Also essential is the capacity to quickly deploy a Mission headquarters. (Recommendation 28) 2. Establish a permanent technical review mechanism of United Nations and regional sanctions which can use information provided by Council members, relevant financial institutions, the Secretariat, agencies and other humanitarian actors to ascertain the probable impact of sanctions on civilians. (Recommendation 23) 71. Second are four recommendations which could be employed by the Council upon receipt of information indicating that the outbreak of violence aimed at civilians may be imminent. These are: 3. Impose arms embargoes in situations where civilians and protected persons are targeted by the parties to the conflict, or where the parties are known to commit systematic and widespread violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, including the recruitment of child soldiers; and urge Member States to enforce these embargoes in their own national jurisdictions. (Recommendation 26) 4. Consider deployment in certain cases of a preventive peacekeeping operation, or of another

8 September 1999 • 787 preventive monitoring presence. (Recommendation 12) 5. Make greater use of targeted sanctions to deter and contain those who commit egregious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, as well as those parties to conflicts which continually defy the resolutions of the Council, thereby flouting its authority. (Recommendation 22) 6. Deploy international military observers to monitor the situation in camps for internally displaced persons and refugees when the presence of arms, combatants and armed elements is suspected; and if such elements are found and national forces are unable or unwilling to intervene, deploy regional or international military forces that are prepared to take effective measures to compel disarmament of the combatants or armed elements. (Recommendation 35) 72. Finally, I put forward three recommendations intended to alleviate the suffering of civilians in situations where conflict has already broken out and where civilians are being targeted. These are: 7. Underscore in its resolutions, at the onset of a conflict, the imperative for civilian populations to have unimpeded access to humanitarian assistance and for concerned parties including nonstate actors, to cooperate fully with the United Nations humanitarian coordinator in providing such access, as well as to guarantee the security of humanitarian organizations, in accordance with the principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality, and insist that failure to comply will result in the imposition of targeted sanctions. (Recommendation 18) 8. Ensure that, whenever required, peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations are authorized and equipped to control or close down hate media assets. (Recommendation 16) 9. In the face of massive and ongoing abuses, consider the imposition of appropriate enforcement action. Before acting in such cases, either with a United Nations, regional or multinational arrangement, and in order to reinforce political support for such efforts, enhance confidence in their legitimacy and deter perceptions of selectivity or bias toward one region or another, the Council should consider the following factors: (a) The scope of the breaches of human rights and international humanitarian law, including the numbers of people affected and the nature of the violations; (b) The inability of local authorities to uphold

legal order, or identification of a pattern of complicity by local authorities; (c) The exhaustion of peaceful or consentbased efforts to address the situation; (d) The ability of the Security Council to monitor actions that are undertaken; (e) The limited and proportionate use of force, with attention to repercussions upon civilian populations and the environment. (Recommendation 40) 73. Despite the precedence of law, norms and principles, physical security often needs to be assured before legal protection. The Council must act rapidly to make this principle a reality. I welcome the Council’s call for this report. I sincerely hope that the Council will give its full attention to consideration of all the recommendations in it. It will be important to establish an agreed mechanism and timetable for follow-up and review. I stand ready to report regularly to the Council on progress achieved.

8 September 1999 Secretary-General’s Statement to the Press on East Timor

Press conference (OSSG); East Timor Good morning. I’ve just briefed the Council with my colleague Kieran Prendergast, and we’ve shared with them our conversations overnight. Kieran was in touch with Ian Martin, who, together with his section chiefs, made a recommendation that we withdraw the UN staff in East Timor. I did authorize the withdrawal, subject to certain conditions—that they will be able to get out safely, and that we’ll be able to arrange the evacuation. We are not only concerned about our staff. But we are also concerned about the East Timorese, particularly the 2,000 internally displaced persons in our compound. That is why I am taking measures to try and see if we can thin out rather than withdraw completely, so that we can maintain our premises, on the understanding that the military around the building will continue to provide protection. I have had a long series of conversations with President Habibie and Prime Minister Howard of Australia. The Council is now discussing the situation. The Security Council mission is now in Jakarta. It has had several meetings. President Habibie told me he’ll be meeting them this afternoon. And I am sure they will press some of the points which are of concern to us. I maintain my position and I’ve also discussed with the Indonesian President that if they are unable to maintain law and order then they will have to invite and accept international

788 • 8 September 1999

assistance to bring order into East Timor. I’m sure that this is also something that the Council members will press. QUESTION: The military said that your 48-hour deadline was a joke, and one of the military leaders said, referring to your 48-hour deadline, “This is not like flushing the toilet.” What do you think about this kind of response to . . . SECRETARY-GENERAL: I am not discussing or negotiating with the military on this. I’m negotiating with the President of Indonesia. QUESTION: Do you consider that we need the consent from Jakarta to allow an international force to act immediately? S-G: I think the governments that I have been in touch with who are prepared to make troops available would all want to see Indonesian consent. If that is the case then we have to bring our collective pressure to bear on the Government to allow us to go in. QUESTION: Sir, reports out of Jakarta indicate that the reason UNAMET had to pull out of Dili is because it’s being cut off—water and food supplies are being cut off—not just by the militia, but also by the Indonesian military. Can you confirm that? S-G: It is correct that they are concerned about water, they are concerned about supplies. The place is in chaos. The economy has collapsed. The communication is very bad, and they need to be able to get out. In my discussions with the President he assured me that the military will restore these facilities. We will wait to see if this is done. But of course you cannot have that many people in the compound who cannot get out, who have been hearing shootings outside, and not do something about it. QUESTION: On May 5th, in retrospect, do you feel that trusting the Indonesian command structure to fulfill the promise that they made was a gamble? That gamble has been a failure? S-G: I think you have to look at the facts. That Indonesia has been controlling that territory for about 25 years. Indonesia has been responsible for law and order. Indonesia has shown the international community that it has the capacity to maintain law and order in East Timor. And the international community expected it and demands that it maintains law and order. Obviously, it is not working, and this is why the question of allowing an international group to go in and assist them is absolutely crucial. The question is, when you say was it a gamble, I wouldn’t put it as a gamble. I would put it as an expectation which was genuine.

The Indonesians gave their word that they would do it. Even at that point international troops were not going to be allowed to go in until phase 3. Of course, the other issue that we have suggested to Indonesia that they could do, is to advance the decision on accepting the results of the ballot which will accelerate phase 3. QUESTION: Your advisors have been sending notes to the Security Council saying that the Indonesian military and the police have been participating in the violence. Is it your opinion that the Indonesian military and the Indonesian police have been actively organizing, participating in, or orchestrating the violence? S-G: There have been allegations to that extent, and what I will say is that they have failed. They have failed totally to maintain law and order, both the military and the police. The President assures me that, with this new group of soldiers going in, coming in from outside, and with the withdrawal of those who are in East Timor, things are going to be different. Will it happen? I don’t know . . . Only time will tell. But this is why we need to go ahead with our own contingency planning of what the international community can do to assist them. And I would urge the Indonesians that, if this fails, they invite the international community to help restore order. I think there is too much killing, and we cannot stand by and allow the people of East Timor to be killed. The Council and the UN is determined, and I [think] the international community is with us, in implementing fully the results of the ballot of 30 August, and to implement the agreement of May 5. Thank you very much.

9 September 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); East Timor Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. East Timor

The Secretary-General’s Special Representative in East Timor, Ian Martin, told journalists this morning that he will remain in Dili, and that a significant number of the United Nations international staff had volunteered to stay behind with him. On entering the building this morning, the Secretary-General said, “We will maintain our premises in East Timor.” The thinning out exercise will begin tomorrow morning. Meanwhile, the remnants of the United

9 September 1999 • 789 Nations Mission in East Timor said that the situation around the compound was “the quietest yet” last night and that things had marginally improved today. However, attempts to reach the Mission’s warehouse in the port area again today were thwarted by militia who fired over the heads of United Nations staff despite the presence of an Indonesian military escort. However, supplies did come in by air from Australia, replenishing stocks of food, fuel and water. Sanitary conditions within the compound are good, largely thanks to the cooperation of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) who’ve worked hard to keep things clean. Water, electricity and communications in the compound were restored today. A number of those IDPs, however, did slip out of the compound during the night, possibly fearing a United Nations pullout. President Habibie today told members of the Security Council mission visiting Jakarta that he would welcome any form of international assistance to deal with East Timor except military. Rejecting the Council mission’s offer of a multinational force to help restore law and order to the Territory, the President repeated assurances that the Indonesian authorities would get the situation under control. The mission also met with East Timorese resistance leader Xanana Gusmão, who made an emotional appeal for international intervention with or without Indonesia’s consent. The Security Council mission is scheduled to meet with Indonesian Military Chief General Wiranto on Friday and they agreed with President Habibie that the mission would visit East Timor on Saturday, if security permits. Ian Martin met this morning with the new Indonesian military commander for East Timor, who told him he thought the violence had peaked. However, much of downtown Dili has been looted and burned, a significant percentage of the population has been displaced and hundreds may have been killed. A number of militia have reportedly moved into West Timor, where they are driving around in United Nations vehicles, harassing foreigners. The United Nations top humanitarian official, Sérgio Vieira de Mello, has dispatched an emergency response team to Jakarta to support the efforts of the United Nations country team there and ensure the provision of relief assistance to displaced populations. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations

High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Programme (WFP) are among the agencies participating in the mission. UNHCR and WFP say they have pre-positioned relief items to rush to the victims on short notice. Meanwhile, Francois Fouinat of UNHCR, whose team came under attack in a displaced persons camp in West Timor earlier this week, met today with Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Ali Alatas, who assured him the UNHCR would be given security guarantees to resume work in East and West Timor. UNHCR says it would resume work on condition that its staff receive a clear signal that the situation had changed. Security Council

The Security Council met this morning on the situation in Western Sahara. At 11:30 a.m., the Council suspended its discussion of Western Sahara to hear a briefing by Under-SecretaryGeneral for Political Affairs, Kieran Prendergast, on the subject of East Timor. He reported on the Secretary-General’s conversation last night with Indonesian President Habibie, as well as his own conversation this morning with Ian Martin. The Council was then scheduled to resume its consultations on Western Sahara and, following that, return to other matters. William Eagleton, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Western Sahara, introduced the report on the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) (document S/1999/954), which was issued today. The report cites positive indications that the Moroccan Government and POLISARIO intend to maintain the progress made towards the holding of the referendum. As far as the timetable for completing the process goes, the Secretary-General says that the identification of the remaining members of the “contested tribes” could be finished by the end of December. The Mission will continue to keep some of its appeals centres open until 18 September, as planned, and after that hearings will be held to complete the appeals process. Still, the SecretaryGeneral says he will not be in a position to give the Council a revised timetable until early December, so in the meantime, he recommends that the Mission’s mandate be extended through 14 December. QUESTION: How many UNAMET staff are volunteering to stay on? SPOKESMAN: That is a moving target. They put out a piece of paper, a sign-up sheet. It filled up

790 • 9 September 1999

quickly and then I think they closed it off after a while. At least half of the 200 people who were in the compound had volunteered to stay. QUESTION: Marginal improvement in the security situation in Dili has been reported. Have you noticed any improved willingness of the military in cooperating with UNAMET to bring the situation under control? SPOKESMAN: We’ve had repeated assurances from President Habibie on down that they are serious to get the situation under control. They have sent in additional troops. They’ve rotated out some of the troops who have been there during the worst abuses and it sounds quieter. Although, as I mentioned, we still had that disturbing incident as we went to our warehouse this morning. It is still a mixed picture, but “marginal improvement” is how we described it. QUESTION: The Secretary-General said this morning that he wanted some kind of evidence that the situation was under control within the next 48–72 hours. What kind of evidence is he looking for? SPOKESMAN: I think we would like to see an end to the harassment with weapons that our people have been subjected to. We would like to see an end to the burning of buildings. We would like to see an end to young militia members with weapons parading around in public, harassing people by their very presence. These are things that have to be brought under control. You have to have normal security forces—police, backed up if necessary by military—overseeing law and order. Not these militia parading around unchecked. QUESTION: How does the Secretary-General feel about Portuguese concern that this mission gets drawn out more and more and maybe is an exercise in buying time because there is such a reluctance to say that Indonesia is not cooperating and therefore there may be a need for the United Nations to act without Indonesia’s approval? SPOKESMAN: We have seen the beginning of improvement of the situation. Indonesia has appealed to us to give them a bit more time. The Secretary-General’s time-frame shifted from 48 to 72 hours, I think in response to that appeal. The Mission on the ground postponed its planned evacuation of yesterday. In the course of the day the Secretary-General began talking about “thinning out” rather than pulling out. Today we made a firm decision to leave a number of our people there. We are responding to the situation on the ground. If it is beginning to go in the right direction, I think there is a more credible basis for giving Indonesia

a bit more time to get the situation under control. I think everyone’s preference was that Indonesia just do what it said it would do under the agreement and that, because they fail to do that, the next step would then be to bring in international troops. Why bring in international troops if the Indonesians can do the job? The question is: will they? And, as I said, we are beginning to see some improvement, so let us give it a little bit more time. QUESTION: Was there an initial reaction from the Secretary-General or members of the Security Council to Indonesia’s rejection of the dispatch of an international force? SPOKESMAN: No. He spoke, as I said, to President Habibie tonight, who informed him of his position on this. The Secretary-General told the Security Council yesterday that, if an intervention force were necessary, and because the countries willing to contribute troops to that force would do so only if Indonesia consented, that we would all have to work together to put pressure on Indonesia to change its position and say they would allow international assistance. For the moment they are saying, we can do it. Give us a little bit more time to show that we can and in the meantime, let’s not talk about foreign troops.

9 September 1999 Remarks by the Secretary-General Upon Entering UN Headquarters

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); East Timor QUESTION: The Indonesian Government is saying that they are not accepting foreign troops at this point. What options does the world community have to respond to this crisis right now? SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think the attitude of the Indonesian Government is that it will be capable of bringing law and order into East Timor, that the Martial Law is just taking force and that with a bit of time they will be able to bring the situation under control. You will notice that the APEC ministers meeting in Auckland also discussed this issue and supported the efforts that have been made at the United Nations to find a solution. In my discussions with President Habibie and the Indonesian authorities and the Council, I have indicated that if they are not able to bring the situation under control in a relatively short time, all efforts must be made to convince them to accept help from the international community in maintaining law and order and that we cannot allow the chaotic situation in East Timor to continue. Reports from our people indicate that last night

10 September 1999 • 791 was relatively quiet, perhaps the quietest as they’ve had, but it is only one day at a time. We cannot say that it means that the situation has changed dramatically. But I have indicated that we may thin out our staff but we will maintain our premises in East Timor. QUESTION: how long do we wait? S-G: Wait for what? QUESTION: for the Martial Law to take effect? You said given the short amount of time, how much time do you give them? S-G: Well, I discussed it with the Council and of course the Security Council mission is also in East Timor and we are waiting for them to come back and to report fully. I don’t think it should be open-ended. I don’t think it should be extended. Initially I had told them we needed to review the situation in 48–72 hours and obviously we do not have a satisfactory situation yet and the Council is fully seized of the issue.

10 September 1999 Secretary-General Says the World Faces an Increasing Vulnerability to Natural Disasters

Op-ed (OSSG); development Article by the Secretary-General that appeared in the International Herald Tribune. The tragic earthquake in Greece and the enormous devastation and suffering wrought by the recent earthquake in Turkey are reminders of one of the most pressing challenges of our times—the extraordinary increase in the number and extent of natural disasters. The facts are startling. The costs of weatherrelated disasters in 1998 exceeded the costs of all such disasters in the decade of the 1980s. Tens of thousands of mostly poor people died during the year, tens of millions have been temporarily or permanently displaced. In the Caribbean, the hurricanes designated George and Mitch killed more than 13,000 people, with Mitch being the deadliest Atlantic storm in 200 years. A much less publicized cyclone in India in June caused damage comparable to Mitch and an estimated 10,000 deaths. Major floods hit India, Nepal, Bangladesh and much of East Asia, with thousands killed. Two-thirds of Bangladesh was inundated for months, leaving millions homeless: More than 3,000 people died in China’s catastrophic Yangtze River flood, millions were displaced, and the financial cost is estimated at an astonishing $30 billion. Fires ravaged tens of thousands of square kilo-

meters of forest in Brazil, Indonesia and Siberia, with devastating consequences for human health and local economies. In Afghanistan earthquakes killed more than 9,000 people, while the exact toll of the horrific earthquake in Turkey is still unknown. We know that human communities will always have to face natural hazards, whether floods, droughts, storms or earthquakes: But today’s disasters owe as much to human activities as to the forces of nature. Indeed the term “natural” is increasingly misleading. A wide variation in the number and intensity of natural hazards is normal and to be expected. What we have witnessed over the past decades, however, is not nature’s variation but a clear upward trend caused by human activities. There were three times as many great natural disasters in the 1990s as in the 1960s, while disaster costs increased more than nine-fold in the same period. We know why the trend is upward. Ninety percent of disaster victims worldwide live in developing countries, where poverty and population pressures force growing numbers of people to live in harm’s way—on flood plains, in earthquake-prone zones and on unstable hillsides: Unsafe buildings compound the risks. The vulnerability of those living in risk-prone areas is perhaps the single most important cause of disaster casualties and damage. Second, we know that unsound development and environmental practices exacerbate the problem. Massive logging operations and the destruction of wetlands reduce the soil’s ability to absorb heavy rainfall, making erosion and flooding more likely. It is not just the costs of natural disasters that are exacerbated by human action. Many scientists believe that the recent upsurge of weather-related natural disasters is the product of increased global warming, much of which is caused by human activity. While the earth has always experienced natural cycles of warming and cooling, the 14 hottest years since measurements first began in the 1860s have occurred in the past two decades. 1998 was the hottest year on record. Given that the pressures of poverty and population growth continue to increase, the disaster trend is likely to worsen if we do not take disaster prevention more seriously. More effective prevention, as the dedicated staff of the UN International Decade of Natural Disaster Reduction have tirelessly argued, requires better early warning of impending disasters to give vulnerable populations time to move out of harm’s way. It also requires more effective disaster response policies. But

792 • 10 September 1999

above all it requires that we reduce the vulnerabilities that cause the damage in the first place. Our tasks are clear. Development, land use and habitation policy must be informed by a thorough understanding of the scientific and technical requirements of prevention. Disaster reduction legislation is crucial, but not sufficient. The best laws are useless if not effectively and impartially enforced. Above all we must never forget that it is poverty, not choice, that drives people to live in riskprone areas. Equitable and sustainable economic development is not only a good in its own right, but also one of the best forms of disaster insurance. There are some reasons for optimism. Radical improvements in wide-area satellite surveillance is revolutionizing disaster early warning, while the Internet can provide instant dissemination of the satellite and other warning data. These developments have been particularly important with respect to weather-related natural disasters. But successful disaster prevention is not dependent on access to advanced technologies. Last year in one Honduran village, the hurricane designated Mitch claimed more than 150 lives. In an equally exposed village nearby, where a disaster reduction pilot program was in place, there were no deaths. In China, where extensive disaster control policies have been introduced over the years, the death toll from floods has fallen dramatically. Flooding cost more than 3,000 lives in China in 1998, but similar floods in 1931 and 1954 cost 140,000 and 33,000 lives respectively. Prevention strategies saved tens of thousands of lives: While much can be done at the local level with modest financial resources, some major risk reduction and disaster prevention programs require levels of funding that many poor countries simply cannot afford. International assistance is both critical and cost-effective here. We now know what has to be done, what is needed is the political will to do it.

10 September 1999 Press Conference at UN Headquarters

Press conference (SG/SM/7124, EOSG); East Timor The Secretary-General: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It has been a difficult couple of weeks for all of us, but before the eyes of the world the people of East Timor are being terrorized and massacred because they exercised their right of selfdetermination in a ballot organized by the United

Nations under an agreement reached with my help between Portugal, the former colonial Power, and Indonesia, the currently occupying Power. This agreement was supported by the East Timorese leaders. Under that agreement, Indonesia had the responsibility to maintain order and security in the Territory during and after the ballot until the results had been accepted by the new Indonesian Parliament. Regrettably, Indonesia has failed to fulfil that responsibility, even with the introduction of martial law in the last 72 hours. East Timor is descending into anarchy. The anti-independence militias, who were overwhelmingly defeated at the ballot box, have engaged in an orgy of looting, burning and killing. I have been in frequent contact with the President of Indonesia, urging him to bring the situation under control, but it continues to deteriorate. Hundreds of thousands of East Timorese have had to abandon their homes. Many of them have been forcibly relocated to West Timor and other parts of Indonesia. The fate of many others is unknown. The United Nations Mission in East Timor has been forced, on security grounds, to evacuate 12 of its 13 regional centres and to concentrate its remaining presence in Dili. In the process, UNAMET has been subjected to repeated threats. Several of our local staff have been murdered; one of our civilian police has been wounded. Live rounds have been fired into our premises in Bacau at body height. It was for that reason that I authorized Ian Martin, the head of the Mission, to move all local staff, with their dependents, and nonessential international staff from Dili to Darwin. They were evacuated successfully yesterday. Last night, there was a new incident at our compound and at the adjoining school compound. Militias fired their weapons in the air and threatened to invade the UNAMET compound itself. Yet the Indonesian forces who were supposed to be protecting the compound did nothing. So far, they have been either unable or unwilling to take effective steps to restore security. Therefore I am remaining in hourly contact with Mr. Martin while awaiting the outcome of the Security Council mission tomorrow. We are keeping the situation under constant review, and I am ready to take any decision necessary to ensure the safety of United Nations personnel. At the same time, I remain deeply concerned about the fate of the internally displaced persons who are still in the UNAMET compound and the adjoining school compound. We shall continue to

10 September 1999 • 793 examine urgently what can be done to ensure the security of this unfortunate group. I know, not least because of the thousands of messages I have received from all over the world in the past few days, that many people believe that the United Nations is abandoning the people of East Timor in their hour of greatest need. Let me assure you most emphatically that this is not the case. But the situation has clearly got far beyond what a small mission, which was sent to organize a popular vote and never equipped, or mandated, to enforce law and order, can possibly be expected to do. The time has clearly come for Indonesia to seek help from the international community in fulfilling its responsibility to bring order and security to the people of East Timor and to allow those who have been displaced to return home in safety. A number of Governments in the region, including Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and Malaysia, have assured me of their willingness to participate in an international force for this purpose. Australia, in particular, has made a very substantial commitment and at my request has also agreed to take the lead. I am deeply grateful to Prime Minister Howard and indeed to all of the Governments involved. I urge the Indonesian Government to accept their offer of help without further delay. If it refuses to do so, it cannot escape the responsibility of what could amount—according to reports reaching us—to crimes against humanity. In any event, those responsible for these crimes must be called to account. East Timor is at a moment of great crisis, danger and uncertainty. But let us not forget that its people have been enabled to register and vote in overwhelming numbers to decide, for the first time in their history, what they want their future to be. The international community has a responsibility to see that their wishes are respected and that violence is not allowed to dictate the outcome. QUESTION: After all we have seen in the past few weeks in East Timor, are we about to see an intervention of the sort that is taking place in Kosovo? SECRETARY-GENERAL: That is an interesting question. So far, the Governments whom I have discussed are not thinking along those lines, but I think we should all put collective pressure on Indonesia, given that it has failed in its commitment to assure security, to accept assistance from the international community to stop the killing. I appeal honestly to the Government of Indonesia to accept this offer.

I know you are making comparisons with what happened in Kosovo and what has happened elsewhere, and I do not think your analogy is completely irrelevant. QUESTION: Would you say that the Indonesian Government or military appears to be unwilling or unable to maintain law and order? The United States President said today that it is now clear that the Indonesian military is aiding and abetting in the East Timorese violence. Are you prepared to reach the same conclusion? Is the United Nations prepared to drop the “unable” and to keep the “unwilling”? S-G: I think what is important here, and in my statement it was very clear by stating that, even when the compound was attacked, the military did nothing. I think that statement speaks for itself. This is why I feel they have failed in their duty and they should accept help. QUESTION: The work here at the United Nations to get this vote has been painstaking and took a long time. There was a lot of hard work. Do you think, looking back, that there was anything else that could have been done to try to create a different outcome from what’s happening right now? S-G: Let me say that the United Nations was not naive about the history of violence in East Timor during the past 24 years. As part of the agreement, the Indonesian Government insisted— a Government that has occupied the Territory for 24 years—that it had the capacity to assure security, that it would not accept a peacekeeping force and that it would do it by itself. We saw, on the day of the vote, on 30 August, that they were able to assure security for the vote to go forward. Why haven’t they maintained that effort for one to be able to move on to effective implementation of the results of the ballot? I know there are people who, in hindsight, are saying one should have gone in with a force, that the United Nations should not have accepted the word of the Indonesians that they would maintain law and order. When you are moving forward in this sort of negotiation, where you have had 24 years of impasse, you get to the stage where, for example, if we had not accepted and insisted that they should maintain order, we probably would never have had the vote. Everybody thought they would deliver. Nobody in his wildest dreams thought that what we are witnessing could have happened—I don’t think even the press or anyone. I know that we knew it was going to be difficult. We knew there were security problems, but not the

794 • 10 September 1999

carnage and the chaos we have seen, with the military and police totally unable or incapable of doing anything. I can assure you that, if those who were putting together the deal—and you must remember that the agreement was signed by Portugal and Indonesia, with the support of the leaders, unanimously endorsed by the Council—if any of us had an inkling that it was going to be this chaotic, I don’t think anyone would have gone forward. We are no fools. QUESTION: You said that the analogy was not appropriate between what had happened . . . S-G: No, I did not say it was not appropriate. I said that the comparison may be appropriate. I did not say it was inappropriate. QUESTION: What I would like to ask is another thing. What seems to be the case here is that there is a dichotomy between the civilian authority in Indonesia and the military authorities. The latest issue of The Nation magazine says that the emissary who was sent to Washington, a military man, gave completely the wrong message to the Indonesian military—that they basically said: “Go in and do what you have to do.” Given this fact—and given also the fact that the Pakistanis have a dichotomy between the civilian and the military authorities—is this a fact that the United Nations ought to recognize? When getting a signed document, perhaps you should get the military to sign? S-G: I think we are aware of the possible divisions between them. In fact, in this effort, we have worked both levels. I have been working at the political level with President Habibie and others have been working on General Wiranto. Not just the United Nations staff, but other governments with influence have been asked to work on General Wiranto. And so, in effect, we have been pushing both the military and the political leaders to deliver. The Indonesian army has lots of equipment. Lots of governments have sold equipment to them. They are supposed to be well trained and should have been in a position to contain a situation like what is happening in East Timor. Obviously, there are concerns that what is happening in East Timor may affect other regions like Aceh and Irian Jaya, but we are not out there to really try and undo Indonesia. Our main concern is East Timor, and I think East Timor has a different history. The others have always been part of Indonesia; East Timor has not. And we know the history of how Indonesia came to occupy East Timor.

QUESTION: For a few days now, over 72 hours, you have been appealing to the Indonesian Government at least to consider two suggestions: either to accept help from the outside or to accept the results of the referendum at an earlier date. So far: nothing. Now, do you think that actions such as the one taken by Washington is the sort of action that you are hoping will exert pressure on Indonesia to respond to you? Do you support these unilateral actions in terms of the pressure you are hoping to exert on the Government of Indonesia? S-G: Let me say that I was encouraged by President Clinton’s statement and I notice that, today, several other leaders are coming out. I have seen the wires indicating that Prime Minister Blair has spoken. The Pope has spoken. I would also encourage some of the leaders in the region, and I know that some of them have been doing it discreetly behind the scenes. But perhaps we should all double our efforts to encourage and push and press the Indonesian authorities to seek help, because their own reputation and international image are on the line, if not in tatters already. QUESTION: I meant the action taken by Washington in terms of the military ties between the two countries. S-G: I reflected that. I said that I’m encouraged by what the President said. Obviously, we need to make sure that we do not break all contacts and that we have a way of pressuring them to do what is right. QUESTION: Since there is a sort of dead end on both sides, are there any other, for want of a better term, “creative” ideas coming up, like, for example, an unarmed humanitarian convoy or some other thing that the Indonesians might be able to live with? S-G: We have talked about that. In fact, I did discuss this with President Habibie two days ago, that we would want to come back with our humanitarian assistance. He was receptive to the idea, but I did raise the question of security. The aid workers going in must be able to operate in a secure environment which Indonesia would either provide or allow a security unit to come in to protect them. At that point he said, “I think we are going to be able to bring it under control with the martial law.” That has not worked. But at least the idea of humanitarian assistance and the humanitarian workers going in is still open. I would hope that our own staff, who have been withdrawn but who have not left the mission area—there is temporary redeployment to Darwin—will be able to go back

10 September 1999 • 795 as soon as the situation improves and their security can be assured. But we are pursuing the humanitarian angle very actively. QUESTION: You mentioned the possibility that some of the acts committed in East Timor constitute crimes against humanity. Would you be willing at this stage to recommend to the Security Council the creation of an ad hoc tribunal to investigate the possibility of crimes against humanity? S-G: I think that that may be a bit premature. As I indicated, I am basing my statement on reports reaching us. But one will have to do further investigation to be able to do that. But that may not be excluded. But at this stage I am not ready to do that. QUESTION: Can you shed more light for us on exactly what the Security Council mission is doing in Indonesia at this point? S-G: The Security Council mission has had several meetings. They have met with President Habibie, General Wiranto and Foreign Minister Alatas. They have also had the chance to talk to some of the opposition leaders including Mrs. Megawati. They are assessing for themselves the situation on the ground. I should say they have also spoken to Xanana Gusmão, whom I also spoke to last night. They are going to go to Dili tomorrow if the situation permits. I would hope they will also be able to visit our headquarters, assess the situation with our staff and come back and report to the full Council. I probably expect them to be back here on Monday or Tuesday. QUESTION: Are you ready to push the Security Council to approve a resolution [inaudible] force? You say that certain countries of the region are ready to act. Are other countries, in Europe and the United States, [inaudible] President Clinton? S-G: Yes, I have had conversations with President Clinton, and I think you also heard him yesterday. I think that in Washington they are having consultations and I do not think a decision has been taken as to the nature of United States participation—if it decides to participate. But I have spoken to the President and I know he supports the idea of an international force going in to assist. I have given you the list of those Governments that have made direct commitments to me, and Australia, which I approached some time ago to take the lead. And, as I said, they will make a major commitment. My sense is that other governments will come forward if it gets to a “go” situation. QUESTION: There is some indication that the words of President Clinton—after several days of

relative silence—are maybe having some effect. Do you feel that they should ratchet up the pressure now and include cutting off arms sales to Indonesia? My second question is, do you feel personally betrayed by the Indonesian Government? S-G: I do not know if I can advise Washington about cutting off arms sales. But I think that, indeed, has been done. If they are going to cut off all military relationships, I presume that it would include arms sales, which is a crucial . . . QUESTION: [inaudible]. S-G: It is not included? Well then, if it does not include arms sales, it is a bit surprising, because quite frankly the question of military relationships between countries—apart from security arrangements—often depends on military sales and the supply of military equipment. So I hope that they will look at that. QUESTION: My second question is: do you feel betrayed by the Indonesians, personally? S-G: I do not know if betrayal is the right word. I am shocked by what has happened, and I think we are all amazed that this could happen and that a Government with such a large army is so unable to bring the situation under control, and that a Government that has occupied that Territory for 24 years and knows the region, knows the people, knows their tendencies is not able to do this. I am pained and I am deeply disappointed that this has happened, above all for the East Timorese people, who for the first time in 24 years got a chance to express themselves and speak eloquently and loudly as to what they want their destiny to be. Suddenly they are in a sea of violence and in a very chaotic situation. I feel very sorry for them. Their leader is now in the British Embassy. This is the time when he should be there, talking to his people and preparing for the future. That is why I believe we should not allow the militia and their supporters, whoever they may be, to undo the results of the ballot with violence. The people have voted, and the results must stand. It should not be undone with violence. QUESTION: Why are we still seeking the consent of Indonesia? Under international law the country in charge of this Territory is still Portugal. Why is it not possible, given all these facts, just to tell Indonesia in a simple resolution to leave East Timor, to respect the will, freely expressed, of that people, and allow an international force to go in? Why cannot we do that? Could you comment on the words of the Portuguese representative in Jakarta, who said that, behaving so, the Council is being an accomplice?

796 • 10 September 1999

S-G: Let me say that not even Portugal has suggested what you are suggesting: that Portugal is the country in charge at this stage in history and that all that we need is either Portuguese permission or to say that Indonesia does not have a legitimacy in its claim over East Timor. The fact is that for 24 years it has run East Timor. De facto, it is a Government in East Timor. And if that was not the case we would not have gone through the exercise that we went through with the ballot, trying to [find out if they wanted to] separate from Indonesia. So we have accepted that they are the authority in East Timor. The question of not just going in is very simple. To go in, you must have a force, and Governments must be prepared to go in. We all talk of the United Nations and the international community. The international community is Governments—Governments with the capacity and the will to act. The Governments have made it clear that it will be too dangerous to go in. And they will not do it without—if you wish—the consent of Indonesia. That is why I believe that Indonesia must be pressured to change its mind and let them come in. That is the only way you are going to be able to get the troops to go in to be able to assist: we have to bring collective pressure to bear. Indonesia has to admit it has failed and it needs help . . . [missing words from original document].

10 September 1999 Statement on East Timor

Press conference (OSSG); East Timor Before the eyes of the world, the people of East Timor are being terrorised and massacred because they exercised their right of self-determination, in a ballot organized by the United Nations under an agreement reached, with my help, between Portugal, the former colonial power, and Indonesia, the currently occupying power. This agreement was supported by the East Timorese leaders. Under that agreement, Indonesia had the responsibility to maintain order and security in the territory during and after the ballot, until the results have been accepted by the new Indonesian parliament. Regrettably, Indonesia has failed to fulfil that responsibility, even with the introduction of martial law in the last 72 hours. East Timor is descending into anarchy. The anti-independence militias, who were overwhelmingly defeated at the ballot box, have engaged in an orgy of looting,

burning and killing. I have been in frequent contact with the President of Indonesia, urging him to bring the situation under control, but it continues to deteriorate. Hundreds of thousands of East Timorese have had to abandon their homes. Many of them have been forcibly relocated to West Timor and other parts of Indonesia. The fate of many others is unknown. The United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) has been forced on security grounds to evacuate 12 of its 13 regional centres and to concentrate its remaining presence in Dili. In the process, UNAMET has been subjected to repeated threats. Several of our local staff have been murdered. One of our civilian police has been wounded. Live rounds have been fired into our premises at Bacau at body height. It was for that reason that I authorized Ian Martin, the head of the mission, to move local staff with their dependents, and non-essential international staff, from Dili to Darwin. They were evacuated successfully yesterday. Last night, there was a new incident at our compound, and at the adjoining school compound. Militias fired their weapons in the air and threatened to invade the UNAMET compound itself. Yet, the Indonesian forces who are supposed to be protecting the compound did nothing. So far, they have been either unable or unwilling to take effective steps to restore security. Therefore I am remaining in hourly contact with Mr. Martin, while awaiting the outcome of the Security Council mission tomorrow. We are keeping the situation under constant review, and I am ready to take any decision necessary to ensure the safety of UN personnel. At the same time, I remain deeply concerned about the fate of the internally displaced persons who are still in the UNAMET compound and the adjoining school compound. We shall continue to examine urgently what can be done to ensure the security of this unfortunate group. I know, not least because of thousands of messages I have received from all over the world in the past few days, that many people believe the United Nations is abandoning the people of East Timor in their hour of greatest need. Let me assure you most emphatically that that is not the case. But the situation has clearly got far beyond what a small mission, which was sent to organize the popular vote and never equipped or mandated to enforce law and order, can possibly be expected to cope with. The time has clearly come for Indonesia to seek the help of the international community in

11 September 1999 • 797 fulfilling its responsibility to bring order and security to the people of East Timor, and to allow those who have been displaced to return home in safety. A number of governments in the region, including Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and Malaysia, have assured me of their willingness to participate in an international force for this purpose. Australia in particular has made a very substantial commitment, and has agreed to take the lead. I am deeply grateful to Prime Minister Howard, and indeed to all the governments involved. I urge the Indonesian government to accept their offer of help without further delay. If it refuses to do so, it cannot escape responsibility for what could amount, according to reports reaching us, to crimes against humanity. In any event, those responsible for these crimes must be called to account: Ladies and Gentlemen, East Timor is at a moment of great crisis, danger and uncertainty. But let us not forget that its people have been enabled to register and vote in overwhelming numbers and to decide for the first time in their history what they want their destiny to be. The international community has a responsibility to see that their wishes are respected, and that violence is not allowed to dictate the outcome. Thank you.

11 September 1999 Time Has Come for Indonesia to Seek International Community’s Help

Presentation to Security Council (EOSG, SG/SM/7127, SC/6725); East Timor A week ago in this chamber I informed the Council that the people of East Timor had voted overwhelmingly to reject an offer of autonomy from the Indonesian Government, and in favour of a transition towards independence. The conditions under which the Popular Consultation took place on 30 August were far from ideal. But the extremely large turnout, and the judgement of the international observers and the Electoral Commission, left no doubt as to the integrity and validity of the ballot. The international community should therefore now be proceeding, without any hesitation, to implement the result of the ballot. Unhappily, no sooner had the result of the ballot been announced than East Timor began a descent into chaos. The scale of the violence, death and destruction has been far beyond what any international

observers anticipated. As I said in my press conference yesterday, what is happening in East Timor may well fall into various categories of international crime. The individuals who have ordered and carried out these crimes must be held accountable. During the last week, my colleagues and I have given the Council regular and detailed briefings on these sad developments. There has been an overwhelming international public response to the plight of the people of East Timor in their hour of darkness. Members of the Council have been preoccupied with the crisis, as have my colleagues and I in the Secretariat. In addition, I have been in constant telephone contact with many Heads of State and other world leaders from all parts of the globe. In particular, I have spoken throughout the week to President S.J. Habibie in Jakarta. My goal has been to create conditions that would enable the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) to carry out the mandate with which the Council has entrusted it. The first such condition is the restoration of law and order, which under the 5 May Agreements is the responsibility of the Government of Indonesia. The Council has dispatched its own mission to Indonesia to emphasize directly to the leaders of that country at the highest levels the urgency of the situation and the necessity for immediate action. Despite all of our efforts, the security situation has steadily deteriorated and the United Nations Mission in East Timor has been forced to close all but one of its offices. Yesterday UNAMET relocated all non-essential staff, including 280 UNAMET local staff and their families, out of East Timor. Only 86 international personnel remain in the headquarters compound in Dili. Lawlessness and disorder have reigned in Dili this week despite a significant presence of Indonesian police and military who are unwilling or unable to control the situation. As I said in a public statement yesterday, faced with this grave situation the future of the UNAMET’s presence in East Timor remains under hourly review. On Tuesday, Indonesia declared martial law in East Timor, but neither this nor the presence of extra troops has had the effect of restoring order. As you know, on Wednesday and Thursday UNAMET convoys were attacked by armed militias, despite having an escort of Indonesian troops, and yesterday soldiers of the Indonesian army tasked with guarding the compound joined the pro-

798 • 11 September 1999

integration militia who were terrorizing those inside. Approximately 1,000 East Timorese have taken refuge in the United Nations compound. The conditions under which they are being accommodated are precarious. The plight of these unfortunate innocent victims is but one aspect of an unfolding humanitarian disaster in East Timor. The vast majority of the population has been forcibly displaced. With access to all of East Timor now denied to the international community, we cannot be certain of the full dimensions of the humanitarian crisis, or of the requirements for survival of the population that has been uprooted. But it is clear that extremely urgent action is required to provide for the basic needs of food, water and health care. Food is fast running out in the places of known concentration inside East Timor. The problem of the bulk of the population, now believed to have fled or been forcibly moved to West Timor, is equally pressing. I am glad to say that UNAMET reports the situation in Dili today as being very quiet. Earlier today the Security Council Mission visited East Timor to see for themselves the conditions on the ground and the impediments being faced by UNAMET and its courageous staff. I understand that they were able to visit the whole city, and see for themselves the extent of the destruction. Like you, I look forward to receiving the full report of the Council’s Mission within the next day or two. But I believe it is worth remarking at this point that the ability of the Indonesian armed forces to maintain calm in Dili during the Mission’s visit further emphasizes their responsibility for the security situation as a whole. As I said yesterday, the time has come for Indonesia to seek the help of the international community in fulfilling its responsibility to bring order and security to the people of East Timor— which must include guaranteeing the safety and protection of the civilian leaders of the pro-independence camp. Once again, I urge Indonesia to agree without further delay to the deployment of an international force. The international community is asking for Indonesia’s consent to the deployment of such a force. But I hope it is clear, Mr. President, that it does so out of deference to Indonesia’s position as a respected member of the community of States. Regrettably, that position is now being placed

in jeopardy by the tragedy that has engulfed the people of East Timor. I sincerely hope this open debate in the Council will contribute to the ending of that tragedy. The meeting of the Council today symbolizes the determination of its members, and that of the United Nations membership as a whole, to fulfil their obligations under the Charter.

13 September 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); East Timor Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. East Timor

Good afternoon. Following the announcement by President Habibie of Indonesia that the Indonesian Government accepts the offer of the international community to assist it in restoring peace and security in East Timor, Foreign Minister Ali Alatas is arriving in New York today and will meet with the Secretary-General at 3:30 this afternoon here at Headquarters. Before that meeting, in fact as we speak, the Secretary-General is discussing the situation in East Timor with the five Permanent Members of the Security Council. The Council will hold consultations at 4:30. They will hear the report of the Council delegation that went to Jakarta and Dili last week and that is returning to New York today. Meanwhile in Dili, while the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) reported another quiet day, the humanitarian crisis is becoming increasingly dramatic. UNAMET went around Dili today and recorded between 5,000 and 8,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) camped in an area stretching from the Governor’s Mansion to the port. The heliport has been ransacked, hotels Makhota and Turismo have been burned down, the UNAMET transport workshop has been burned with most vehicles destroyed, and the warehouse of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Bishop Belo’s compound have been burned to the ground. Initial estimates are that 70 to 80 per cent of Dili’s business area has been destroyed and 50 per cent of all homes have been burned. For the record, I would like to mention that the Secretary-General welcomed Sunday morning the decision of the Indonesian Government to accept the offer of the international community to assist it

13 September 1999 • 799 in restoring peace and security in East Timor. He also called on the Indonesian authorities to do their utmost to maintain order and security in East Timor until the arrival of the international force. He said he was confident that through this cooperation between the Government of Indonesia and the United Nations the desire of the East Timorese people to become independent would be realized. On Saturday, the Security Council Mission visited Dili. The Mission went to two internally displaced camps and they saw the very poor conditions of the IDPs. They also attended a briefing at the Indonesian Military Headquarters and following this, they visited the UNAMET compound, where they were briefed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and other UNAMET senior officials. During the humanitarian briefing they heard a description of the forced relocation programme in which IDPs were taken first to police stations and then trucked and shipped out of the Territory. They were also told that the IDPs in Falintil cantonment sites, in Dare and in the hills and forests were rapidly running out of food. While at the UNAMET compound, the Security Council mission also met with IDPs who sought refuge in the compound and who today number about 1,300. During their stay in Dili they were able to see destruction everywhere they went. Few buildings, except for some government structures, were intact. The city is virtually deserted and all its shops have been looted. Meanwhile in New York on Saturday, the Security Council held a public meeting on East Timor. Fifty-two speakers and the SecretaryGeneral took the floor. The Secretary-General opened the debate. He described the conditions in which the East Timorese popular consultation process evolved, the recent wave of violence, death and destruction, and his efforts in search of a solution. The Secretary-General reiterated that “what is happening in East Timor may well fall into various categories of international crime. The individuals who have ordered and carried out these crimes must be held accountable.” QUESTION: Does the Secretary-General anticipate any difficulty on the question of non-Asian troop-contributing countries? SPOKESMAN: President Habibie told him, and I understand that the Foreign Minister was in the room with the President at the time that that phone conversation took place, that there would be no conditions. And he said, when he came in this

morning, that it is up to the United Nations and the Security Council to decide the composition of the force. QUESTION: Doesn’t the host country normally have some say in this matter? SPOKESMAN: In theory, no. In practice there is usually some consultation with the host country. But we have our own guidelines on who would be an appropriate troop contributor and who would not be. I mean, we have been doing this for a long time. QUESTION: So you anticipate no difficulties on this question? SPOKESMAN: I don’t know what to anticipate. President Habibie did not have any of the details or did not want to discuss any of the details with the Secretary-General over the phone. He said the Foreign Minister would be coming here to do that. We don’t know what will be on the Foreign Minister’s agenda. We are hoping that there will be no obstacles. I think everyone wants to see quick deployment of the force. QUESTION: President Habibie said he did not want Australia on the force. SPOKESMAN: I haven’t seen that statement and that is not our understanding of their position. QUESTION: Does the Secretary-General support Mary Robinson’s call for an inquiry? SPOKESMAN: We only just saw that announcement that she made concluding her visit to the region. He did say on two occasions, including what I just announced this morning, that those guilty should be brought to justice, so I assume he would support this. QUESTION: He said the other day that this was premature. Does he still think it is premature? SPOKESMAN: I think the question was on the creation of an ad hoc tribunal. I don’t think he was prepared to speculate about that. QUESTION: The ASEAN countries decided during a meeting that Asian countries should take the lead of the international force. Does this affect United Nations plans? SPOKESMAN: I understand that ASEAN countries are among those that have volunteered to contribute troops, I think not only to the multinational force that we are talking about now, but also to the peacekeeping force that we envisage for the third phase after the Indonesian parliament formally changes the status of East Timor. But at this point I don’t want to speculate about what countries will be contributing. As I have already said, there will be a substantial number of Asian countries, but it will not be an exclusively Asian force. QUESTION: President Habibie was talking

800 • 13 September 1999

about a peacekeeping force. Is there a confusion of the terms, because the force we are talking about is not a Blue Helmet force. SPOKESMAN: There isn’t a final decision by the Security Council yet as to whether this would be a peacekeeping force or a multinational force. There is a strong preference, including on the part of the Secretariat, for a multinational force, because it is simpler and quicker. That would be our hope. But again, we are waiting to hear first from the Foreign Minister of Indonesia. Also the Foreign Minister of Portugal is flying in. We hope that there might be a tripartite meeting with the Secretary-General before the end of the day. And the Foreign Minister of Australia is also in the air now, coming to New York, arriving late tonight. So I think there will be a lot of consultations by the end of today and we’ll see how far we can get as far as deciding which kind of force it will be. SPOKESMAN: A peacekeeping force would be recruited by the United Nations, the military leadership would be appointed by the United Nations, the logistical support, transport, housing, food, all the rest, would be supplied by the United Nations. And the cost would be divided among the 185, soon to be 188 Member States of the United Nations. With a multinational force, the Council authorizes a group of nations, and usually specifies a lead nation, to organize a force and carry it out. The logistics then are handled by the lead nation, and the costs are borne by the countries who contribute. You can see that the second option is simpler and quicker. It is under the United Nations flag, one way or the other. QUESTION: How long will it be before the United Nations staff in Darwin can go back after the multinational force goes into East Timor? SPOKESMAN: We would like to rotate people back in as soon as possible after the MNF arrives. Not so much our political people, as the humanitarian workers. As I have already mentioned, the fresh concern now is the condition of people camped out in Dili, living up in the hills, driven into exile in West Timor. They need food, they need shelter and we want to provide it. We want to get in the people who can do that as quickly as possible. I hope that at least the planners would arrive at the heels of the MNF. I have already mentioned to you that there is a High Commissioner for Refugees person and an OCHA person, Kevin Kennedy, in the Dili compound, negotiating with the Indonesian military now on access to the IDPs. So, as quickly as possible. QUESTION: Could you give us a list of the

countries who are willing to contribute troops to a multinational force? SPOKESMAN: That list remains confidential until the Security Council authorizes the force and we are prepared then to finalize the list of the participants. We need to know the number that the Council will approve and then we can finalize the list and make it public. But we don’t make these offers of contributions public until we are ready to announce the final composition of the entire force. QUESTION: Is the Secretary-General concerned about the bigger ramifications beyond East Timor? Especially for the next time that the United Nations has to organize a referendum? How can people believe the United Nations when the United Nations was not there to prevent the bloodshed in East Timor? SPOKESMAN: We did organize a vote in East Timor. People did turn out in record numbers and it was done peacefully and successfully. Where it broke down was in the security arrangements for after the vote, but before the transition to independence. At the time everybody thought this was the best agreement we could get: leaving Indonesia responsible for peace and security. It was signed by Portugal, as well as Indonesia. The East Timorese resistance accepted the deal; the Security Council blessed the deal. Everyone thought it was the best opportunity for a referendum when that happened. Will we take a closer look at security aspects of future votes? Maybe. QUESTION: How long will there be between the acceptance of a resolution by the Security Council and the sending of troops? SPOKESMAN: I don’t know, but given that some of the countries that have publicly declared that they were offering troops have also publicly declared that they could deploy in a matter of days, and I assume that the Council could act quickly, I think we are talking about days rather than weeks. QUESTION: You said the troops would be under the United Nations flag. During the Gulf War the troops were authorized by the Security Council but not under United Nations flag. Is this going to be different. SPOKESMAN: It is a bit different in that for a potential multinational force the Secretariat, indeed the Secretary-General himself, has been deeply involved in the recruiting of the troops. There are shades of difference. Whether physically there will be a United Nations flag flying, or not flying if it is a multinational force, I don’t know, but the main thing is that the Security Council will

15 September 1999 • 801 authorize the force. They will be going in with the approval and the blessing of the Council.

13 September 1999 Secretary-General Meets with the Foreign Minister of Indonesia

Press release statement, (OSSG); East Timor The Secretary-General and Ali Alatas, the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, discussed the decision yesterday by Indonesian President Habibie to invite international assistance to help restore law and order to East Timor. They agreed it was an important step and that we must now move ahead as quickly as possible. The Foreign Minister raised no conditions to the deployment of a UN-authorized force. With the Foreign Ministers of Portugal and Australia now en route to New York, the Secretary-General hopes to work out all the details in the next 24 hours or so.

15 September 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); East Timor Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. East Timor

Good afternoon. After many hours of deliberations, the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, adopted shortly after 2 a.m. today resolution 1264, authorizing a multinational force to restore peace and security in East Timor, to protect and support the UN Mission in carrying out its tasks and, within force capabilities, to facilitate humanitarian assistance operations. The resolution also authorizes the State participating in the multinational force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate. The Council welcomed the commitment of Indonesia to cooperate with the multinational force. It also welcomed Australia’s acceptance of the leadership of the multinational force. The resolution was adopted unanimously and six member States took the floor. Three of them—Indonesia, Portugal and Australia—were represented by their Foreign Ministers. The session was over at 3 a.m. For those of you who do not have it yet, copies of the text of the resolution are available in the Spokesman’s Office. As Foreign Minister Downer said yesterday, Australian and Indonesian senior military have

been in contact to discuss details of the multinational force deployment. The United Nations has been facilitating these contacts and we will continue to coordinate closely with them. For more details on developments regarding the multinational force, Australian Foreign Minister Downer will speak to the press at 1:20 p.m. in the stakeout area outside the Security Council. As we speak, the Secretary-General is starting a meeting with the Foreign Ministers of Indonesia and Portugal. They are expected to review phase 2 of the East Timor popular consultation process in light of the most recent developments and the humanitarian crisis in the Territory. Prior to the meeting with the Ministers, the Secretary-General met with José Ramos Horta from the East Timorese resistance leadership. United Nations staff in Dili today travelled about 10 kilometres south to the town of Dare, where a priest told them some 50,000 residents of Dili, roughly half of Dili’s population, were hiding in the mountains. They brought with them six metric tonnes of rice, which were then trekked up into the hills. The rice was part of a daily ration that had been provided to an Indonesian priest in Dare by the Indonesian military in Dili. The displaced people, according to the priest, lacked food, especially milk for the children and medical supplies to deal with diarrhea and malaria. The World Food Programme (WFP) announced today that it is preparing to air drop emergency food supplies into East Timor, using for the first time the innovative “snowdrop” technology. Packages of high-energy biscuits are shaped into wings, allowing them to float and circle to the ground, landing softly. The WFP is also contracting commercial helicopters to deliver food to 30,000 people in the hills around Dili. (A WFP press release is available in the Spokesman’s Office with more details.) The acting head of the United Nations Mission, Brigadier General Rezaqul Haider (Bangladesh), is expected to visit the town of Baucau tomorrow. The UNAMET personnel, who are now staying in the Australian Consulate in Dili, visited their compound last night and found that windows of vehicles had been broken and radios in those vehicles stolen. The Indonesian military had also stolen office equipment from the compound as we reported to you yesterday. On returning to the compound today, however, UN personnel found that some of the radios had been clumsily reinstalled. . . .

802 • 15 September 1999 DPI/NGO Conference

The annual Department of Public Information/ Non-governmental Organization (DPI/NGO) Conference is now taking place in the General Assembly Hall. The keynote speakers at this year’s event were Queen Noor al-Hussein of Jordan and Nobel Laureate Oscar Arias of Costa Rica. They addressed the challenge of finding new directions in a globalized world. The Secretary-General welcomed all the participants, especially the over 100 Ghanaians who represent the largest developing-country presence at the Conference. He said, “I am glad my compatriots have come in such numbers and are taking this issue so seriously.” Looking to the future, the Secretary-General stressed the importance of next May’s Millennium Forum at the United Nations, which will bring together NGOs from around the world in advance of the Millennium Assembly in September 2000. He urged the NGOs to bring their concerns to the Forum, saying, “Please, for all our sakes—for the sake of the international community—keep up the fight.” . . . QUESTION: The Vatican and other aid agencies have expressed concern that food drops might endanger East Timorese refugees since they could be located and attacked by anti-independence militias. How is the United Nations addressing this issue? SPOKESMAN: There was a considerable amount of discussion about those food drops and whether they could pose a security problem. I have to assume they must have concluded the threat of the shortage of food was greater than the threat of the attention that might be called to their presence. So, I’m sure that these things were taken into account in making the decision.

16 September 1999 Secretary-General Says Plight of Civilians in Armed Conflict Can No Longer Be Neglected

Presentation to Security Council (EOSG, SG/SM/7134, SC/6729); protection of civilians I am pleased to have the opportunity to present to the Security Council my report on “The Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict”. This report takes as its starting point the worst acts of humankind and calls for our best efforts to defend civilians where they are most imperilled. More than just the victims of crossfire, civilians have themselves become targets in today’s con-

flicts. During the past decade, many millions have been killed. Over 30 million have been displaced. Countless men, women and children have been denied access to life-saving food and medicine. These statistics are made all the more shocking by the calculated methods used by so many belligerents. We have observed, in each of the five continents, that belligerents are increasingly taking care to avoid direct confrontation with each other. Instead, their favoured strategy to gain ground is the exercise of terror against defenceless civilians. Their actions, regardless of any reason that may motivate their struggle, demonstrate a shocking disregard for human life and human values. The Emergency Relief Coordinator addressed this issue in January in a meeting of the Security Council. Eight months later, it is fair to ask whether the situation has changed. Has there has been any improvement? Since January, conflicts have erupted or have been re-ignited or intensified, in Angola, Colombia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and East Timor. Each of these situations reminds us, in different ways, of the scale of commitment needed to transform a fragile cease-fire into a secure and stable peace. Years of careful work in Angola have been undone by the desire of warring parties to control economic resources. The Lusaka Protocol has collapsed and the civilian population is paying dearly for this failure. Many have lost their lives and hundreds of thousands are again displaced. In Sierra Leone, too, the quest for power and control over economic resources has driven belligerents to acts of depravity. The mutilation of so many people demonstrates that international law means nothing without effective measures to back it up. In East Timor, the international community is faced with another situation where human rights have become a casualty of aggression. Militia groups are attempting, by a campaign of terror, to overturn the result of a democratic poll in which they were overwhelmingly defeated. None of these countries at present have the institutions or the democratic political culture necessary for peace to take hold. They all require sustained and comprehensive efforts to support those who favour peace over war, stability over banditry. To ensure that these crises are brought to an end, the United Nations must be ready to respond with more than meetings, speeches and reports. It must take action in the name of the principles of the Charter and the values of humanity.

17 September 1999 • 803 The essence of the United Nations work is to establish human security where it is no longer present, where it is under threat, or where it never existed. This is our humanitarian imperative. We are at the end of a century that has seen the creation and refinement of much of the corpus of international law. Yet civilians have rarely been so vulnerable. That the conventions of international humanitarian and human rights law are being disregarded so willfully by combatants—and are being enforced only sporadically by the international community—is deeply disturbing. Contained in this report are a total of forty concrete recommendations, which I believe can help to improve the security of civilians in armed conflict. These recommendations provide the Council with tools and strategies, which it can use to respond to particular situations. To make best use of these tools, the Council may wish to set up a standing mechanism through which it can seek expert advice on specific issues. Such a mechanism would allow the Council to develop a range of responses to deal with issues of legal protection, prevention of conflicts, and physical protection. The Council should make use of this expertise, not simply for briefings on humanitarian situations, but as a source of concrete solutions to the problems being confronted. For example, recommendation 39 refers to humanitarian zones and security zones. In situations where such options are being considered, expert advice should be sought from the Secretariat. All the recommendations but the last one could help to prevent future hostilities and assist in the protection of civilians already in armed conflict. Tragically, they will not always be enough. If they are not, the final recommendation, enforcement action, will need to be undertaken. There must, of course, be objective criteria to determine the threshold for any form of intervention, but its use must always be on the table. There is no doubt that enforcement action is a difficult step to take—it often goes against political or other interests—but there are universal principles and values which supersede such interests, and the protection of civilians is one of them. I have given high priority to the protection of civilians in armed conflict and I am willing to work in close support of the Council. I am prepared to use my good offices to put in place a system for monitoring progress in the implementation of all forty of these recommendations, and to report back to the Council on a regular basis. The

Council should then be able to measure its progress and evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts. Those who founded the United Nations believed that despite a bloodied history, humanity was ultimately redeemable. Yet we see that civilians are still forced from their homes, driven to borders which are open one minute and closed the next, forced into hiding, separated from their families, made to act as human shields, stripped of their identities and callously killed. The plight of civilians is no longer something which can be neglected or made secondary because it complicates political negotiations or interests. It is fundamental to the central mandate of the Organization. Failure to address these issues will erode respect for the Council’s resolutions and so diminish the authority of the United Nations as a whole. More important, it will take away the one thing that sustains the many millions who have lost all in conflict: the hope that something called the international community is willing to uphold the basic dignity of humankind.

17 September 1999 Letter (UN archives); Department of Peacekeeping Operations Internal note to the under-secretary-general of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Bernard Miyet, from Elisabeth Lindenmayer, assistant to the Secretary-General. NOTE TO MR. MIYET

Briefing for the Secretary-General on Current Issues

The Secretary-General would like to be briefed on the following issues and to discuss them with you and relevant DPKO staff, tentatively at some point over the weekend of 25/26 September (to be confirmed): • DRC • East Timor (including the relationship between the multinational force and the TNI, the relationship between the current phase and phase III, and the operational plans for implementing phase III) • Ethiopia-Eritrea, (especially plans for implementing the peace agreement) • Sierra Leone

804 • 17 September 1999

I would be grateful if you could arrange for briefing papers to be prepared for the SecretaryGeneral on the above subjects, to reach me by close of business on Thursday 23 September. Thank you.

17 September 1999 International Community Has Benefitted from Values That Have Been Created at UN

Speech (EOSG); UN staff Speech delivered by the Secretary-General on the occasion of Staff Day at UN headquarters, in New York. My dear friends and colleagues, all of you here in this hall, those who are participating through teleconference and our colleagues and friends all around the world, I want to thank you, the staff, for the wonderful work you have done in the past year. It has not been easy. We have been required to do more with less. We are constantly reforming and, as I have indicated, reform and the search for excellence is an ongoing process. I know that in our search for effective measures, we have taken steps which have not always pleased you, the staff. But I assure you that this has been done with the best interest of the Organization and your interest at heart. As I travel around the world, whether in a peacekeeping operation, or to a development project, or to a UNICEF project or UNHCR staff receiving refugees at the border of this or that country, I see colleagues and friends who give of themselves in a selfless and tireless manner and they really do us proud. They are the faces of the United Nations outside headquarters. They are the ones on the ground in these difficult situations that people see as the United Nations. They are the United Nations and those of us at Headquarters who work with them, who back them up or often go to the field ourselves and then return to our desk in New York, are part of this universal organization and our effort to bring comfort and support to those in need. We saw recently in East Timor how courageous our staff had been under very difficult circumstances, holed up at the UN compound, unable to get out. They took in over two thousand local residents who were scared and frightened from the killings and chaos the militias had created. And they lived there and shared whatever they had there with them. There were moments when they were running out of food and water. They never complained. They never said: “These people are

eating our rations.” They were prepared to share with them and indeed some even said: “We will not leave until the local people, who are here with us, are protected and we know what will happen to them.” You will be surprised to know that when I got the recommendation that we should pull out the staff, and we were of course worried about what would happen to the several thousand East Timorese in our compound if we were to leave completely, I sent a message to my special representative on the ground and said, “Ask for volunteers”. And in no time, we had almost a hundred volunteers who said: “We will stay. We know you are trying to reduce the risks by taking some of the people out.” And these were soldiers, military observers, policemen, and many civilian staff, young and old, who offered to stay and put themselves at risk. I have seen a similar example in Kosovo, where staff had to leave at very short notice when the agreement was accepted by President Milosevic in his discussions with President Ahtisaari and former Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. These staff members left on fortyeight-hours’ notice and rushed in to work side by side with KFOR to ensure that we moved quickly to try to establish administration and essential services for the Kosovars and to prepare for the return of the Albanians. And as you know about 800,000 of them have returned. We have problems on the ground. Attempting to build a multiethnic society in Kosovo is not easy. We see the departure of the Serbs, almost like ethnic cleansing in reverse. We have not been able to encourage them to stay and I hope that once security was established they would come back and that the multiethnic Kosovo that we have all struggled for will be a reality. It is not just East Timor and Kosovo. As we look around the world, from Congo to Angola, to Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Georgia and the Middle East, our staff members are working for peace. In other areas they are working for development, they are working to strengthen government institutions. In my visits around the world I have seen those of you on the ground, who are trying to make the UN dream a reality. I have visited many UN Houses that were established as part of the reform process requiring all UN agencies to share headquarters, to pool their efforts, to work as a team, to have an impact on the governments in the countries in which we are there to help. And I must say I never fail to be surprised by the energy, the selflessness

17 September 1999 • 805 and determination of our colleagues to bring to life the UN ideal. I know we all heard our President of the Staff Council refer to some of the difficulties here in the administration. She referred to adequate compensation for the demands we put upon you. I agree there must be career development and career prospects and I think here the prospects are not all that bad. We have many retirements coming up in the next decade. And I really look forward to the rejuvenation of this organization, whereby the young and dynamic staff members are promoted and move up and we also bring in dynamic individuals, fresh blood from outside, to really make this organization a dynamic one. We are also concerned about training and I think a lot has been done about staff training at the moment, not just in the substantive fields but also in the managerial areas. We are going to delegate a bit more and I think delegation is essential. But delegation does not mean abdication. I will remain responsible for what the managers do or don’t do. I think we’ve heard enough about us and them, staff and management. We are one team and I think we should really cooperate in our efforts to fulfill our mandates. I would also want to say a word about the risks our staff run in the field. We have seen in recent years many UN casualties. It is not just the UN that is suffering casualties in these conflicts. Unfortunately, civilians have become the targets. What happens to civilians in these civil wars is not incidental. They are deliberately targeted. Yesterday, the Security Council discussed a report I provided to them on civilians in armed conflict. It is unbelievable the brutality, the chaos, man’s inhumanity to man, what we do to each other, including women and children. And particularly women, where in some of these conflicts rape is used as a weapon of war. And people are deliberately displaced. People are deliberately prevented from getting food and medicine that has been sent in by the outside world. And we have our colleagues in the humanitarian area risking their own lives and prepared to deliver food to the needy but they are often not allowed access to get food to the people. And so famine and deprivation are used as part of warfare. In this atmosphere, where we go into situations where there is basically no peace to keep, we run risks, and yet our staff often volunteer to do this. In the last two years, we have lost 34 people, 15 of them by plane crashes. We are determined to do whatever we can to better protect our staff and also

to get the word out, as far as the general civilian population is concerned, that impunity will not be allowed to stand and that those who commit these atrocities will be made to account. And I believe that with all the efforts that the Council is making that the Member States are also trying to help. Here I would want to give you a bit of good news. It is not much good news, but it is an indication of the concern the Organization and its Member States feel for the staff. On Tuesday, there will be a memorial stamp issued by the UN to commemorate the staff, particularly those in difficult situations. I hope the proceeds from the sale of the stamp could be reserved for us to use to train our staff and strengthen their protection in these difficult situations. Let me conclude by saying that we are fortunate and privileged to be working for this Organization, an organization that was born out of war and has given lots of hope and aspiration to lots of people. Today, we talk a lot about “international community”. Each community, wherever there is a village, a school, an institution like ours, or a town or a country, needs shared values, values that bind the group and the individuals together. I think that when we talk of an international community, that community has benefited from values that have been created here: from this podium and in this house. Values that are enshrined in our Charter, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and many other documents that the United Nations has put forward. These are the values that we all relate to and that should bind us as an international community. I would hope as we move forward and recognize our interdependency, we would also encourage governments to take a broader view of what constitutes national interest, because in today’s world what happens in the country next door or even far away is likely to have an impact on ours. We do not live in isolation and I think we are fortunate to be part of this great enterprise. It may be a work in progress but it’s an exciting work. When I go out and see individuals, whether in Sierra Leone, or Angola, or Bosnia, you look into their eyes as they talk to you about the UN and their expectations from the UN, from you and me, what they expect us to do for them is very moving. Let me share with you some of my conversations. Recently on a visit to Sierra Leone, I met a man. Apparently he was 100, rather spry for a hundred years old. And as he spoke I realized he was a very shrewd and political gentleman. He looked

806 • 17 September 1999

at me and he said: “I am really happy that you have come here, that the United Nations has come here, that you have come as head of the United Nations. Not only are you head of the United Nations, you are one of us. You are African like us. With your help and your presence here and the support of your organization, I believe our problems would be over. And if you cannot help get over our problems, then the situation is hopeless and we are all finished.” When I talked to Xanana Gusmão, the East Timorese leader, who is a very calm and really a good leader of his people, he looks at the UN, he thanks us for what we did for the elections. And even during the difficult crisis where the militia were creating chaos in his country, he told his supporters to restrain themselves. And again, he was looking to the UN to help bring the situation under control, to help restore order, for the UN to make sure that violence will not be used to negate the results of the popular ballot by the people. The East Timorese have spoken clearly and loudly and have indicated what they want their destiny to be. And we the United Nations and the international community owe it to them to help lead them to that destiny. And I think tomorrow, the forces will be landing in East Timor. We’ve had very long and constructive conversations with the Indonesians. We expect them to cooperate. Obviously, this is still a dangerous mission. One cannot expect it to be without complications, but we are determined to make sure that the results of the ballot are implemented and the 5 May agreement is implemented completely. So, my friends, those of you here in New York and around the world, whether you are working in East Timor or Angola, or in Burundi, or in Ethiopia, or El Salvador, I want you to know that you are part of a great enterprise. We are proud of the work you are doing. We have many more years ahead of us to make a difference, but time is not always on our side. As we move into the next millennium, next year we will have our millennium summit. We hope we will be able to reflect on our organization, on this United Nations, and make some judgements as to what type of United Nations we would want, what we would want to put into it to make it possible, and how we are going to tackle some of the major challenges ahead of us. We are all going to be part of that enterprise and part of that future. So, congratulations for what we have achieved so far, but we still have a lot to do. And as a team, as colleagues, we can do it and we can make a differ-

ence. So, thank you very much and go out there and make your difference. Thank you.

18 September 1999 Current Crises Show Need for Timely Intervention by International Community

Op-ed (OSSG); humanitarian intervention Article by the Secretary-General that appeared in The Economist. The tragedy of East Timor, coming so soon after that of Kosovo, has focused attention once again on the need for timely intervention by the international community when death and suffering are being inflicted on large numbers of people, and when the state nominally in charge is unable or unwilling to stop it. In Kosovo a group of states intervened without seeking authority from the United Nations Security Council. In Timor the council has now authorised intervention, but only after obtaining an invitation from Indonesia. We all hope that this will rapidly stabilise the situation, but many hundreds—probably thousands—of innocent people have already perished. As in Rwanda five years ago, the international community stands accused of doing too little, too late. Neither of these precedents is satisfactory as a model for the new millennium. Just as we have learnt that the world cannot stand aside when gross and systematic violations of human rights are taking place, we have also learnt that, if it is to enjoy the sustained support of the world’s peoples, intervention must be based on legitimate and universal principles. We need to adapt our international system better to a world with new actors, new responsibilities, and new possibilities for peace and progress. State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined—not least by the forces of globalisation and international co-operation. States are now widely understood to be instruments at the service of their peoples, and not vice versa. At the same time individual sovereignty—by which I mean the fundamental freedom of each individual, enshrined in the charter of the UN and subsequent international treaties—has been enhanced by a renewed and spreading consciousness of individual rights. When we read the charter today, we are more than ever conscious that its aim is to protect individual human beings, not to protect those who abuse them. These changes in the world do not make hard political choices any easier. But they do oblige us

18 September 1999 • 807 to think anew about such questions as how the UN responds to humanitarian crises; and why states are willing to act in some areas of conflict, but not in others where the daily toll of death and suffering is as bad or worse. From Sierra Leone to Sudan, from Angola to Afghanistan, there are people who need more than words of sympathy. They need a real and sustained commitment to help end their cycles of violence, and give them a new chance to achieve peace and prosperity. The genocide in Rwanda showed us how terrible the consequences of inaction can be in the face of mass murder. But this year’s conflict in Kosovo raised equally important questions about the consequences of action without international consensus and clear legal authority. It has cast in stark relief the dilemma of socalled “humanitarian intervention”. On the one hand, is it legitimate for a regional organisation to use force without a UN mandate? On the other, is it permissible to let gross and systematic violations of human rights, with grave humanitarian consequences, continue unchecked? The inability of the international community to reconcile these two compelling interests in the case of Kosovo can be viewed only as a tragedy. To avoid repeating such tragedies in the next century, I believe it is essential that the international community reach consensus—not only on the principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights must be checked, wherever they take place, but also on ways of deciding what action is necessary, and when, and by whom. The Kosovo conflict and its outcome have prompted a debate of worldwide importance. And to each side in this debate difficult questions can be posed. To those for whom the greatest threat to the future of international order is the use of force in the absence of a Security Council mandate, one might say: leave Kosovo aside for a moment, and think about Rwanda. Imagine for one moment that, in those dark days and hours leading up to the genocide, there had been a coalition of states ready and willing to act in defence of the Tutsi population, but the council had refused or delayed giving the green light. Should such a coalition then have stood idly by while the horror unfolded? To those for whom the Kosovo action heralded a new era when states and groups of states can take military action outside the established mechanisms for enforcing international law, one might equally ask: Is there not a danger of such interventions undermining the imperfect, yet resilient, security system created after the second world war,

and of setting dangerous precedents for future interventions without a clear criterion to decide who might invoke these precedents and in what circumstances? Nothing in the UN charter precludes a recognition that there are rights beyond borders. What the charter does say is that “armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest.” But what is that common interest? Who shall define it? Who shall defend it? Under whose authority? And with what means of intervention? In seeking answers to these monumental questions, I see four aspects of intervention which need to be considered with special care. First, “intervention” should not be understood as referring only to the use of force. A tragic irony of many of the crises that go unnoticed or unchallenged in the world today is that they could be dealt with by far less perilous acts of intervention than the one we saw this year in Yugoslavia. And yet the commitment of the world to peacekeeping, to humanitarian assistance, to rehabilitation and reconstruction varies greatly from region to region, and crisis to crisis. If the new commitment to humanitarian action is to retain the support of the world’s peoples, it must be—and must be seen to be—universal, irrespective of region or nation. Humanity, after all, is indivisible. Second, it is clear that traditional notions of sovereignty alone are not the only obstacle to effective action in humanitarian crises. No less significant are the ways in which states define their national interests. The world has changed in profound ways since the end of the cold war, but I fear our conceptions of national interest have failed to follow suit. A new, broader definition of national interest is needed in the new century, which would induce states to find greater unity in the pursuit of common goals and values. In the context of many of the challenges facing humanity today, the collective interest is the national interest. Third, in cases where forceful intervention does become necessary, the Security Council—the body charged with authorising the use of force under international law—must be able to rise to the challenge. The choice must not be between council unity and inaction in the face of genocide—as in the case of Rwanda—and council division, but regional action, as in the case of Kosovo. In both cases, the UN should have been able to find common ground in upholding the principles of the charter, and acting in defence of our common humanity. As important as the council’s enforcement power is its deterrent power, and unless it is able to

808 • 18 September 1999

assert itself collectively where the cause is just and the means available, its credibility in the eyes of the world may well suffer. If states bent on criminal behaviour know that frontiers are not an absolute defence—that the council will take action to halt the gravest crimes against humanity—then they will not embark on such a course assuming they can get away with it. The charter requires the council to be the defender of the “common interest”. Unless it is seen to be so—in an era of human rights, interdependence and globalisation—there is a danger that others will seek to take its place. Fourth, when fighting stops, the international commitment to peace must be just as strong as was the commitment to war. In this situation, too, consistency is essential. Just as our commitment to humanitarian action must be universal if it is to be legitimate, so our commitment to peace cannot end as soon as there is a ceasefire. The aftermath of war requires no less skill, no less sacrifice, no fewer resources than the war itself, if lasting peace is to be secured. This developing international norm in favour of intervention to protect civilians from wholesale slaughter will no doubt continue to pose profound challenges to the international community. In some quarters it will arouse distrust, scepticism, even hostility. But I believe on balance we should welcome it. Why? Because, despite all the difficulties of putting it into practice, it does show that humankind today is less willing than in the past to tolerate suffering in its midst, and more willing to do something about it.

20 September 1999 Letter (UN archives); Middle East Internal note marked priority to S. Iqbal Riza, the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, from under-secretary-general of political affairs, Kieran Prendergast. Included is a handwritten note by the Secretary-General. Secretary-General’s Meeting with Government Representatives from the Middle East and Mr. Terje Rød-Larsen

1. I should like to suggest that, space permitting, the Secretary-General invite Mr. Terje RødLarsen to attend his meetings with ministers from the following countries: Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine Liberation Organization/ Palestinian Authority, Syria and Tunisia (member of the ad-hoc liaison for assistance to the Palestinian people). 2. While most of these ministers know Mr.

Rød-Larsen well, his inclusion in the SecretaryGeneral’s party would signal the SecretaryGeneral’s personal backing for Mr. Larsen’s endeavours in the Middle East as his new envoy there. Approved, but as discussed ask KP [Kieran Prendergast] to reconsider his participation in the Israeli meeting. —K.A. 22/89

20 September 1999 Letter (UN archives); US State Department Internal memo from the under-secretary-general of the Department of Management, Joseph Connor. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

To: The Secretary-General From: Joseph E. Connor Subject: Meeting with Deputy Chief of Staff to the President of the USA Mr. Steve Ricchetti— 20 September 1999 1. A meeting was arranged by the State Department, with encouragement from Ambassador Holbrooke, for me to meet with the above individual in the White House today. Mr. Ricchetti has been given responsibility by the President to see that the regular budget assessment and arrears gets through Congress (he has also given this responsibility to Ambassador Holbrooke). 2. I told Mr. Ricchetti there were two issues that right now were a problem: first, the near term issue is for the United States to avoid Article 19. In this connection I informed Ricchetti, and the State Department representative agreed, that the new legislation, consisting of the regular appropriations and the Helms-Biden arrears, does not have enough money that can be paid by the end of the calendar year 1999 to avoid Article 19. Only $200 million seems likely to be both legislated and made payable for the current year’s appropriation and $100 million for the arrears. The total of $300 million falls short of the $337 million which must be paid. 3. I suggested to Mr. Ricchetti that there were ways of curing the situation in the Conference Committee, namely, changing the benchmark year for zero nominal growth to 1998–1999 instead of 2000–2001. The meeting participants thought that this would be the easiest way to make the change which will ensure that the United States does not fall under Article 19.

20 September 1999 • 809 4. Secondly, I told him that the second and third years of the Helms-Biden package are heavily laden with benchmarks, several of which the Member States seem not willing to accept. These are the transfer of some $500 million in prior assessments in a “frozen arrears account”, and the decrease in the United States scale of assessment for the regular budget from 25 per cent to 22 per cent, and then to 20 per cent. I told Mr. Ricchetti that the political will to agree to such arrangements by a large number of Member States is simply not there so far as the Secretariat can determine. 5. I also pointed out that these numerous benchmarks do not come into play until the second and third years of the arrears package. I left open the possibility that these benchmarks could be changed a year from now if the political climate changed. Mr. Ricchetti was non-committal relative to a change in those benchmarks. [Handwritten initials.] —K.A. 21/9

20 September 1999 Secretary-General Presents His Annual Report to General Assembly

Presentation to General Assembly (EOSG, SG/SM/7136, GA/9596); humanitarian intervention In his presentation of the annual report to the General Assembly, the Secretary-General speaks about the controversial issue of humanitarian intervention. I am deeply honoured to address this last General Assembly of the twentieth century, and to present to you my annual report on the work of the Organization. The text of the report is before you. On this occasion, I shall like to address the prospects for human security and intervention in the next century. In light of the dramatic events of the past year, I trust that you will understand this decision. As Secretary-General, I have made it my highest duty to restore the United Nations to its rightful role in the pursuit of peace and security, and to bring it closer to the peoples it serves. As we stand at the brink of a new century, this mission continues. But it continues in a world transformed by geo-political, economic, technological and environmental changes whose lasting significance still eludes us. As we seek new ways to combat the ancient enemies of war and poverty, we will succeed only if we all adapt our Organization to a

world with new actors, new responsibilities, and new possibilities for peace and progress. State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined by the forces of globalization and international cooperation. The State is now widely understood to be the servant of its people, and not vice versa. At the same time, individual sovereignty—and by this I mean the human rights and fundamental freedoms of each and every individual as enshrined in our Charter—has been enhanced by a renewed consciousness of the right of every individual to control his or her own destiny. These parallel developments—remarkable and, in many ways, welcome—do not lend themselves to easy interpretations or simple conclusions. They do, however, demand of us a willingness to think anew—about how the United Nations responds to the political, human rights and humanitarian crises affecting so much of the world; about the means employed by the international community in situations of need; and about our willingness to act in some areas of conflict, while limiting ourselves to humanitarian palliatives in many other crises whose daily toll of death and suffering ought to shame us into action. Our reflections on these critical questions derive not only from the events of last year, but from a variety of challenges that confront us today, most urgently in East Timor. From Sierra Leone to the Sudan to Angola to the Balkans to Cambodia and to Afghanistan, there are a great number of peoples who need more than just words of sympathy from the international community. They need a real and sustained commitment to help end their cycles of violence, and launch them on a safe passage to prosperity. While the genocide in Rwanda will define for our generation the consequences of inaction in the face of mass murder, the more recent conflict in Kosovo has prompted important questions about the consequences of action in the absence of complete unity on the part of the international community. It has cast in stark relief the dilemma of what has been called humanitarian intervention: on one side, the question of the legitimacy of an action taken by a regional organization without a United Nations mandate; on the other, the universally recognized imperative of effectively halting gross and systematic violations of human rights with grave humanitarian consequences. The inability of the international community in the case of Kosovo to reconcile these two equally

810 • 20 September 1999

compelling interests—universal legitimacy and effectiveness in defence of human rights—can only be viewed as a tragedy. It has revealed the core challenge to the Security Council and to the United Nations as a whole in the next century: to forge unity behind the principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights—wherever they may take place—should not be allowed to stand. The Kosovo conflict and its outcome have prompted a wide debate of profound importance to the resolution of conflicts from the Balkans to Central Africa to East Asia. And to each side in this critical debate, difficult questions can be posed. To those for whom the greatest threat to the future of international order is the use of force in the absence of a Security Council mandate, one might ask—not in the context of Kosovo—but in the context of Rwanda: If, in those dark days and hours leading up to the genocide, a coalition of States had been prepared to act in defence of the Tutsi population, but did not receive prompt Council authorization, should such a coalition have stood aside and allowed the horror to unfold? To those for whom the Kosovo action heralded a new era when States and groups of States can take military action outside the established mechanisms for enforcing international law, one might ask: Is there not a danger of such interventions undermining the imperfect, yet resilient, security system created after the Second World War, and of setting dangerous precedents for future interventions without a clear criterion to decide who might invoke these precedents, and in what circumstances? Mr. President, In response to this turbulent era of crises and interventions, there are those who have suggested that the Charter itself—with its roots in the aftermath of global inter-State war—is ill-suited to guide us in a world of ethnic wars and intra-State violence. I believe they are wrong. The Charter is a living document, whose high principles still define the aspirations of peoples everywhere for lives of peace, dignity and development. Nothing in the Charter precludes a recognition that there are rights beyond borders. Indeed, its very letter and spirit are the affirmation of those fundamental human rights. In short, it is not the deficiencies of the Charter which have brought us to this juncture, but our difficulties in applying its principles to a new era; an era when strictly traditional notions of sovereignty can no longer do justice to the aspirations

of peoples everywhere to attain their fundamental freedoms. The sovereign States who drafted the Charter over half a century ago were dedicated to peace, but experienced in war. They knew the terror of conflict, but knew equally that there are times when the use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace. That is why the Charter’s own words declare that “armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest”. But what is that common interest? Who shall define it? Who will defend it? Under whose authority? And with what means of intervention? These are the monumental questions facing us as we enter the new century. While I will not propose specific answers or criteria, I shall identify four aspects of intervention which I believe hold important lessons for resolving future conflicts. First, it is important to define intervention as broadly as possible, to include actions along a wide continuum from the most pacific to the most coercive. A tragic irony of many of the crises that continue to go unnoticed and unchallenged today is that they could be dealt with by far less perilous acts of intervention than the one we witnessed recently in Yugoslavia. And yet, the commitment of the international community to peacekeeping, to humanitarian assistance, to rehabilitation and reconstruction varies greatly from region to region, and crisis to crisis. If the new commitment to intervention in the face of extreme suffering is to retain the support of the world’s peoples, it must be—and must be seen to be—fairly and consistently applied, irrespective of region or nation. Humanity, after all, is indivisible. It is also necessary to recognize that any armed intervention is itself a result of the failure of prevention. As we consider the future of intervention, we must redouble our efforts to enhance our preventive capabilities—including early warning, preventive diplomacy, preventive deployment and preventive disarmament. A recent powerful tool of deterrence has been the actions of the Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. In their battle against impunity lies a key to deterring crimes against humanity. With these concerns in mind, I have dedicated the introductory essay of my annual report to exploring ways of moving from a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention. Even the costliest policy of prevention is far cheaper, in lives and in resources, than the least expensive use of armed force. Second, it is clear that sovereignty alone is not

20 September 1999 • 811 the only obstacle to effective action in human rights or humanitarian crises. No less significant are the ways in which the Member States of the United Nations define their national interest in any given crisis. Of course, the traditional pursuit of national interest is a permanent feature of international relations and of the life and work of the Security Council. But as the world has changed in profound ways since the end of the cold war, I believe our conceptions of national interest have failed to follow suit. A new, more broadly defined, more widely conceived definition of national interest in the new century would, I am convinced, induce States to find far greater unity in the pursuit of such basic Charter values as democracy, pluralism, human rights, and the rule of law. A global era requires global engagement. Indeed, in a growing number of challenges facing humanity, the collective interest is the national interest. Third, in the event that forceful intervention becomes necessary, we must ensure that the Security Council, the body charged with authorizing force under international law—is able to rise to the challenge. The choice, as I said during the Kosovo conflict, must not be between Council unity and inaction in the face of genocide—as in the case of Rwanda, on the one hand; and Council division, and regional action, as in the case of Kosovo, on the other. In both cases, the Member States of the United Nations should have been able to find common ground in upholding the principles of the Charter, and acting in defence of our common humanity. As important as the Council’s enforcement power is its deterrent power. Unless it is able to assert itself collectively where the cause is just and where the means are available, its credibility in the eyes of the world may well suffer. If States bent on criminal behaviour know that frontiers are not the absolute defence; if they know that the Security Council will take action to halt crimes against humanity, then they will not embark on such a course of action in expectation of sovereign impunity. The Charter requires the Council to be the defender of the common interest, and unless it is seen to be so—in an era of human rights, interdependence, and globalization—there is a danger that others could seek to take its place. Let me say that the Council’s prompt and effective action in authorizing a multinational

force for East Timor reflects precisely the unity of purpose that I have called for today. Already, however, far too many lives have been lost and far too much destruction has taken place for us to rest on our laurels. The hard work of bringing peace and stability to East Timor still awaits us. Finally, after the conflict is over, in East Timor as everywhere, it is vitally important that the commitment to peace be as strong as the commitment to war. In this situation, too, consistency is essential. Just as our commitment to humanitarian action must be universal if it is to be legitimate, so our commitment to peace cannot end with the cessation of hostilities. The aftermath of war requires no less skill, no less sacrifice, no fewer resources in order to forge a lasting peace and avoid a return to violence. Kosovo—and other United Nations missions currently deployed or looming over the horizon— presents us with just such a challenge. Unless the United Nations is given the means and support to succeed, not only the peace, but the war, too, will be lost. From civil administration to policing to the creation of a civil society capable of sustaining a tolerant, pluralist, prosperous society, the challenges facing our peacekeeping, peacemaking and peace-building missions are immense. But if we are given the means—in Kosovo and in Sierra Leone, in East Timor—we have a real opportunity to break the cycles of violence, once and for all. Mr. President, We leave a century of unparalleled suffering and violence. Our greatest, most enduring test remains our ability to gain the respect and support of the world’s peoples. If the collective conscience of humanity—a conscience which abhors cruelty, renounces injustice and seeks peace for all peoples—cannot find in the United Nations its greatest tribune, there is a grave danger that it will look elsewhere for peace and for justice. If it does not hear in our voices, and see in our actions, reflections of its own aspirations, its needs, and its fears, it may soon lose faith in our ability to make a difference. Just as we have learned that the world cannot stand aside when gross and systematic violations of human rights are taking place, so we have also learned that intervention must be based on legitimate and universal principles if it is to enjoy the sustained support of the world’s peoples. This developing international norm in favour

812 • 20 September 1999

of intervention to protect civilians from wholesale slaughter will no doubt continue to pose profound challenges to the international community. Any such evolution in our understanding of State sovereignty and individual sovereignty will, in some quarters, be met with distrust, scepticism, even hostility. But it is an evolution that we should welcome. Why? Because, despite its limitations and imperfections, it is testimony to a humanity that cares more, not less, for the suffering in its midst, and a humanity that will do more, and not less, to end it. It is a hopeful sign at the end of the twentieth century. Thank you.

22 September 1999 Letter (UN archives); humanitarian intervention Internal note from the Secretary-General’s chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, regarding the SecretaryGeneral’s 20 September report to the General Assembly. 1. Your statement of Monday continues to reverberate. 2. Ambassador Fowler called to say that the Canadian Foreign Minister’s statement would propose the establishment of mechanisms to study means for furthering the ideas raised in your statement. For this purpose he would propose the establishment of a “Friends of Protection” group. (This title of the group is not very pretty, but it certainly is less controversial than “Friends of Intervention”. Bob Fowler is searching for an alternative title.) 3. Ambassador Fowler asked whether we would have any difficulty with their proposal and I said I did not see any. Your confirmation requested. 4. The Canadian statement would also contain reference to the Council’s responsibilities in the protection of civilian populations. Thank you. Great. Thanks. —K.A. 23/9

24 September 1999 Secretary-General Says International Community Must Reverse Global Proliferation of Small Arms

Presentation to Security Council (EOSG); arms control

I am pleased to join you today in this effort to tackle one of the key challenges in preventing conflict in the next century. Small arms and light weapons are primary tools of violence in many conflicts taking place in the world. The proliferation of small arms, ammunition and explosives has also aggravated the violence associated with terrorism and organized crime. Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability. These, in turn, have damaged development prospects and imperilled human security in every way. Indeed, there is probably no single tool of conflict so widespread, so easily available, and so difficult to restrict, as small arms. Not only are they the primary instrument of the murder of civilians who are increasingly targeted in the wars of our era. Unlike their victims, small arms survive from conflict to conflict, perpetuating the cycle of violence by their mere presence. Many of these weapons are even recycled, passed on from one area to another or from one conflict to another by unscrupulous arms merchants, who in many cases take advantage of legal loopholes or exploit inadequate national monitoring and enforcement structures. In an era where the world will no longer stand by in silence when gross and systematic violations of human rights are being committed, the United Nations is dedicated to addressing both the supply and demand aspects of the trade in small arms. From the Balkans to East Asia and to Africa, small arms have become the instrument of choice for the killers of our time. We must do our part to deny them the means for murder. The United Nations has played a leading role in putting the issue of small arms firmly on the international agenda. The Report on Small Arms, which I submitted to the General Assembly in 1997, has served as a catalyst for a wider series of initiatives. Last December, I was very pleased to note that the General Assembly decided to convene a conference on all aspects of illicit arms trafficking no later than 2001. The Security Council has also been seized with the small arms issue, initially in the context of the implementation of my report on Africa. Since then, in the context of Angola, as well as those of children in armed conflict and the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the Council has shown wisdom in focusing on the need to reverse

25 September 1999 • 813 the proliferation of small arms if any of these issues is to be successfully resolved. In my report to the Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, I stated that controlling the easy availability of small arms is a prerequisite for a successful peace-building process, as it is for conflict prevention. I appealed to the Council to devote greater attention to conflict prevention and provide effective leadership in this area. In addition, I wish to stress the importance of including in peace agreements and mandates of all United Nations peacekeeping operations, specific measures for disarmament and demobilization. While great challenges still await us, we should take note of a number of positive developments in the struggle against small arms proliferation, and particularly illicit arms trafficking. In Africa, through an initiative led by Mali, the Economic Commission of West African States (ECOWAS) declared a moratorium on the production and transfer of small arms, covering 16 countries. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is assisting ECOWAS in implementing that moratorium. The Organization of African Unity has also moved forward in deciding to hold a regional conference on small arms in preparation for the international conference on illicit arms trafficking. In Europe, joint action by the European Union in preventing and combating illicit trafficking in conventional arms is another promising step. More specifically, in Albania, the UNDP, in close collaboration with the Department for Disarmament Affairs, has been engaged in a “Weapons for Development” project. The success of that pilot project has encouraged the Albanian Government to invite similar projects in other parts of Albania. And in the Americas, the Organization of American States adopted in November 1997 the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials. The momentum for combating small arms proliferation has also come from civil society, which has been increasingly active on this issue. The establishment early this year of the International Action Network on Small Arms has helped to sharpen public focus on small arms, which has helped us gain the public support necessary for success. The international community must seize the opportunity provided by the international confer-

ence in the year 2001 to demonstrate its political will and its commitment to reversing the global proliferation of small arms. Our larger efforts to promote peace and security—whether through conflict prevention, development, diplomacy or, when necessary, intervention—depend to a great extent on how we tackle the smaller, more specific challenges of limiting the tools of war and violence. In the struggle against small arms, there is a realistic, achievable goal that can be met through foresight, action, and cooperation. With the leadership of the Security Council, and the active efforts of your governments, I am confident that we can succeed.

25 September 1999 Secretary-General Says World Economy Should Generate 2 Billion Jobs

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/7147, SAG/57); economy Speech delivered by the Secretary-General at the International Monetary Fund–World Bank seminar, in Washington, D.C. I am very grateful for this opportunity to speak to such a distinguished audience, containing many of the leading economic policy-makers in the international system. For the last two years, I know, many of you who work in the Bretton Woods institutions have been preoccupied with the better management of capital flows, after we saw how grave the destabilising effect of unmanaged or ill-managed flows can be. The issue is a very important one, and I hope you will not lose sight of it just because the worst of that particular crisis seems now to be behind us. But this afternoon, I want to remind you of another perspective, which in the long run may be even more decisive for the success or failure of globalisation—namely, its effect on the poor, and specifically its power to create jobs. Next month, the world’s population will pass the six billion mark. Let us not forget that five out of those six billion live in developing countries, and that for many of them the great scientific and technical achievements of our era might as well be taking place on another planet. The progress that we celebrate has by-passed the poorest countries and the poorest people. In many cases, inequalities—both between and within nations—have even widened. There is so much to do—and yet millions, per-

814 • 25 September 1999

haps billions, of able-bodied people are either unor under-employed. This is worse than a crisis. It is a scandal. Overcoming it must be our top priority in the first decades of the new century. Let me start by reminding you that, at this moment, there are nearly 1.3 billion people in the world struggling to survive on less than one dollar a day. The majority of such people still live in the countryside. But the world’s urban population is growing faster and faster. Already, about 40 per cent of people in the developing world live in cities—where the cost of living is higher. The urban poor cannot grow their own food: they have to buy it, which means they need to earn money. Yet many of them cannot find jobs. The poor must be able to work their way out of poverty. The fact that so many of them cannot do so today is a bleak condemnation of development strategies over the past half century. According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), there are only 150 million fully unemployed people in the world, in a labour force of three billion—and 40 million of them are in developed countries. That does not sound so bad, but it is very misleading. Large parts of the world economy are outside the modern, organized sectors covered by employment surveys. Also, as the great Swedish scholar Gunnar Myrdal said thirty years ago, unemployment is a luxury that only the better off members of the working population in developing countries can afford. The real magnitude of the world-wide unemployment crisis is observable in three related phenomena. One is widespread under employment; the second is high rates of youth unemployment; and the third is the increase in the number of working children. Nearly 1 billion people, or one third of the economically active population in the developing countries, are under-employed. They are working either in subsistence agriculture or in informal sector activities which do not provide a living wage. More than 70 per cent of the poor in subSaharan Africa and South Asia live in rural areas and work in subsistence agriculture. But in Africa food production is not keeping pace with population growth. The rural poor lack the income and assets needed to produce enough food for themselves, or to buy or barter it from others.

In Latin America and East Asia, where industrial development is more advanced, people forced off the land have a better chance of finding jobs in the informal sector. But in Latin America, over the past two decades, the implementation of Structural Adjustment Programmes, privatization and enterprise restructuring have resulted in increasing unemployment. In East Asia, for three decades up to 1997, job opportunities expanded, and poverty declined. But then, in a mere six months, the financial crisis of 1997–98 wiped out more than 25 million jobs. At the best of times, the informal sector provides only “survival employment”—very low pay for very long hours. But in many developing countries there is not enough of even this low-productivity work to absorb the ever-growing mass of young people. There are, at present, one billion people in the world between the ages of 15 and 24. Eighty-five per cent of these—nearly nine hundred million young people—live in developing countries. And more than half of those are neither at school nor at work. Youth unemployment is also a problem for the developed countries. Young people make up half the 40 million unemployed in the developed world as a whole. Moreover, most of them are long-term unemployed, whose chances of finding work diminish with every passing month. Many give up even registering as job seekers. This is a terrible waste of human potential. In developing countries, some young people eventually do find low-productivity jobs in the informal sector—or they engage in illegal activities, or join militias. Only when most young people find regular, productive jobs can a society hope to solve many of its other problems, from poverty in general to drug abuse, criminality and emigration. In theory, migration may not be a bad thing: there is a large body of evidence that immigrants become net contributors to production in the countries where they settle. But often they become a source of social tension and clashes with other disadvantaged groups in those countries. Politically, immigration is seldom popular. Meanwhile, back home, the working poor can only manage—in so far as they manage at all—by relying on multiple sources of income. All members of the family have to contribute, including—unhappily—children. No parent wants

25 September 1999 • 815 this, but children have to work, for their own survival and that of their families. In Venezuela—a country which has received enormous oil revenues over the last quarter-century—there are still half a million children and teenagers who are not enrolled in schools. In the next two years, that number is likely to rise to eight hundred thousand. In Bangladesh, a much poorer country, young girls work as maids from the age of ten. To survive, many children leave their families for a precarious existence on the streets. World-wide, the ILO estimates that no fewer than two hundred and fifty million children aged between five and fourteen are working in the fields or sweatshops, instead of attending school. Such missed learning opportunities will have a serious impact, not only on these young people as individuals but on the whole future of their societies. It is vital that all of us—international institutions, national authorities, the private sector and civil society at large—join forces to put an end to child labour at least in its worst forms, such as slavery, debt bondage, forced labour, the sale and trafficking of children and their use for prostitution, pornography or other illicit activities. All these have been clearly condemned by a new international convention adopted just three months ago. The problem of mass unemployment and under employment—especially of young men and women—affects countries all across the globe. In the European Union, the unemployment rate has been over 10 per cent for the past decade. In the countries of the former Soviet Union, widespread unemployment has been an unfortunate by-product of economic restructuring programmes. In Latin America, rising production has brought a rise in the demand for skilled labour, but also a decline in the demand for unskilled labour. Urban unemployment is in double digits in most Latin American and Caribbean countries. In Africa, more and more rural households are headed by women, as the men leave to look for work in the cities or the mines. In South Asia, more and more people are moving into the cities, but even so, the number of landless people in the countryside goes up and up. The economies of East Asia are showing signs of recovery, but it will take a long time to recover the jobs that have been lost and to absorb the newcomers into the labour force. In short, this is a world-wide problem. Solutions to it must be found mainly at the nation-

al level, but the international environment also plays an important part. The present size and age pyramid of the world’s population provides a dramatic picture of what lies ahead. More than half of the 5 billion people now living in developing countries are under 25. During the next 25 years, the labour force in those countries will increase by 1 billion, to reach a total of 3.5 billion. The challenge for the next two decades is to absorb the large number of young people that are joining the labour force. Next year, the number of 15-year olds in the 10 largest developing countries will total 65 million. Even if 30 million of these young people can stay in school, 35 million jobs will be needed for the others. And these young people, my friends, are not just statistics. Every one of them has a name and a story. They want what we want for our own children: the chance to lead productive lives, to fulfil their potential. In the words of a South African community leader: “The poor are not expecting highly paid jobs, company cars, flushing toilets, tarred roads and street lights. They are hoping for the opportunity to send their children to school, to be able to have a few containers of water without having to walk many miles, to have enough money to feed their children and to get a piece of land to work on”. And yet, somehow, we seem to have lost sight of these core concerns. Yes, it is important to remove barriers to trade and financial flows, and to give the private sector a bigger role in the economy. But these are means to an end, not an end in themselves. The aims of economic policy must be to ensure that everyone who wants to work has the chance to do so, and to provide for the basic needs of all the population. Market based reforms have had many successes but more needs to be done. So far, they have not contributed significantly to the growth of employment worldwide. In many cases, they have even widened the gap between rich and poor. Somehow, the world economy has to generate 2 billion new jobs, at productivity levels sufficient to keep working families out of abject poverty, and to absorb the ever-growing number of job seekers. What is needed is not just growth, but growth that creates jobs. And this requires major policy changes, with

816 • 25 September 1999

the political will to sustain them, from three groups of decision-makers: those in the developing countries themselves, those in the developed countries, and those in the multilateral financial institutions. First, the developing countries need to re-orient their development strategies towards job creation. • Since agriculture employs 70 per cent of the working population, this means giving higher priority to raising the rate of growth of output and investment in the agricultural sector. • This in turn requires a redistribution of assets, particularly land, to give the poor the means of earning their livelihood. Widening income inequalities result in a lack of social cohesion and political instability. But, of course, reversing this trend will not be easy. Building the necessary consensus requires skillful leadership. At the same time, agriculture must become more productive— and thus, more rewarding to the individual farmer or farm-worker. Private capital can supply only part of the investment needed to improve the technology of tropical agriculture, to provide irrigation, fertilizer and new seeds, to build rural roads and markets, to provide water supply, education, conservation and soil management. The public sector has an important role to play in providing many of these services. • More must be spent on basic education and health, and less on defence and security. The quality and availability of education and training at all levels—primary, secondary, technical and vocational—is of decisive importance in the struggle against unemployment in every society. It is those with appropriate skills who find jobs, and those without them who do not. • And more must be done to mobilize domestic resources for investment—especially by strengthening regulatory and financial systems and promoting good governance. Foreign capital is more likely to flow into countries where political stability is based on the consent and participation of the governed, and where society as a whole shows itself committed to sound macro economic policies and the efficient use of capital. But few, if any, developing countries can hope to lift their people out of poverty purely by their own unaided efforts. Foreign capital inflows and improved access to overseas markets also have a crucial role to play. • Perhaps the most important thing that developed countries, particularly those in Europe, could do for the developing world would be to achieve

higher rates of growth themselves. This would lead to a more balanced pattern of world growth, and higher employment worldwide. • International financial mechanisms also need to be strengthened, to facilitate the flow of long term capital from the developed countries, which have high rates of investment and low returns, to the developing countries, which at present have low rates of investment in spite of high returns. • For the very poorest countries, however, something more is needed: an increased flow of long-term capital at concessional rates. • To achieve this, developed countries should be prepared to consider bold new initiatives, such as a comprehensive restructuring of developingcountry debt. A few months ago, we all welcomed the statement on debt relief made by the Group of Seven at their meeting in Cologne. Let us hope we shall see it followed by action, before the Jubilee Year begins in less than a hundred days’ time. • At the same time, as I said at the beginning, the momentum to reform and strengthen the international financial system must be maintained, so as to reduce the volatility of private capital flows and instability in the currency markets, which did so much damage to developing countries in the crisis of 1997–98. Incentives must be created to encourage a shift in private flows—away from short-term portfolio investments, which simply inflate the prices of existing assets, and into productive investments which create jobs. • The developing countries must also be given wider access to developed-country markets for their exports. So far, trade liberalization has been slowest in those commodities where the developing countries are most competitive: in agriculture, textiles and light manufactured goods. Lastly, I come to the role of multilateral institutions such as those which are our hosts today. • It is up to them, surely, to find ways of increasing long term capital flows to the poorest countries, so as to support higher levels of investment. • They should also take initiatives to support private flows to countries and sectors where market signals are weak. African countries, which have transformed their economies through structural reform programmes still receive only a tiny share of global private investment. • Within developing countries, the multilateral institutions should be able to help guide capital inflows towards those sectors and projects that create most jobs.

27 September 1999 • 817 • And in assessing a country’s economic performance and social development, they should surely assign higher priority to job creation. • Finally, multilateral institutions have a vital role to play in co-ordinating the efforts of all the different actors—international, national and local—who are struggling to tackle the extraordinarily complex problems of youth unemployment. The world economy has never been more prosperous. We have the resources—financial, technical and human—to get the job done. We even know, more or less, what it is that needs doing. Already in 1995 at the Social Summit—117 Heads of State and Government pledged themselves to put “the creation of employment, the reduction of unemployment, and the promotion of appropriately and adequately remunerated employment” at the centre of their strategies and policies. Since then, the United Nations system has been addressing that goal through its main political forums, and through the expertise of the ILO. But much, much more remains to be done. The young people who need jobs are not a projection that could be wrong. They exist. They are already born. I said just now that progress had bypassed the poorest countries and the poorest people. But that does not mean they are unaware of it. Many of the poorest and least educated people on this planet have glimpsed, through film and television, the life styles of the most affluent. That makes it naive to imagine that people in the remotest villages or the worst urban shanty towns regard their own deprivation as anything but exceptional, unnecessary, and—above all—profoundly unjust. We have a choice: we can give them the tools they need to fulfil their human potential, or we can leave them to nurse their sense of frustration, misery and grievance. It is up to us.

27 September 1999 Letter (UN archives); Administrative Committee on Coordination Internal note from Patrizio Civili and Shaukat Fareed of the UN Secretariat. Included is a handwritten not by the Secretary-General. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Subject: 1999 Fall Session of ACC, New York, 29–30 October

1. The dates you have approved for the Fall session of ACC in New York are Friday and Saturday 29 & 30 October. We will ensure that we conclude the meeting before lunchtime on Saturday (to give you a bit of the weekend). 2. The session would open on Friday (29th October) at 10 a.m. with the ‘private meeting’ lasting perhaps till 11:30 a.m. We assume that you would wish to give the customary briefing on recent political developments, including Kosovo and East Timor. You might also wish to highlight the dialogue you have initiated through your opening statement at the 54th General Assembly session on the right of ‘intervention’ and the responses so far from governments. The theme of “prevention” you have stressed in your Annual Report is also very relevant to the ACC membership and might be touched on during the private meeting and pursued throughout the session. Should you wish any other Executive Head to provide a briefing on a particular issue, we would initiate the necessary consultations to ensure that she/he is informed well before the meeting. 3. The formal session that will follow has two principal items on the agenda (apart from a range of issues on which ACC wishes to be informed on follow-up actions being taken) namely: (a) The demands placed on national and international systems by the new global environment. The institutional and programmatic capacity of the UN system to respond flexibly and effectively to the challenges of the next century; and (b) Follow up to the Beijing Platform for Action and gender mainstreaming. 4. On the latter, there will be a Note prepared by the Division for the Advancement of Women as well as a draft statement, to be issued by ACC, which has been prepared through inter-agency processes. 5. In the context of the former, as agreed by ACC members, the Committee will attempt to bring to conclusion, with some practical recommendations, the discussion initiated at the Spring session and continued at the retreat in regard to the challenges before the international community at the beginning of the new millennium and the ability of the UN system to address them. The note, summarizing the discussions at the retreat, forwarded by you to the Executive Heads, has elicited a very positive—in some cases (FAO) very detailed—response. In order to ensure a concrete outcome of these discussions, a number of steps have been initiated:

818 • 27 September 1999

(a) We have been consulting with John Ruggie on ways to arrange for a number of studies under preparation, which are expected to provide inputs into your Millennium Assembly Report, to be fed into the preparations for the ACC session. In this regard, we have asked Mr. Wolfgang Reinicke who is working on behalf of Better World Foundation on a project on “Issue Management”, to prepare a short paper for the consideration of ACC. Following your report on reform, this matter has been of interest to ACC members many of whom addressed it also during the retreat. Indeed, the Director-General FAO has specifically requested that it be taken up in the context of the forthcoming ACC discussions. Should you agree, we could invite Mr. Reinicke to make a presentation to ACC immediately following lunch and before ACC concludes its discussion on this agenda item. (b) With regard to improvements in the functioning of the ACC machinery, (follow up on Dr. Idris’ proposal and the discussions at the retreat) as you indicated, we consulted with Mr. Franklin Thomas who has agreed to join Messrs. Blix and Rafee Ahmed to review the current state of affairs and prepare a paper for the consideration of ACC next year. A letter informing the Executive Heads of these arrangements is attached for your approval. (c) The “review team”, in order to pursue its work, would require to consult with ACC members. However, such interaction should preferably take place outside the formal sessions of ACC. In this context, we have been considering the possibility of a breakfast meeting devoted to this issue prior to the opening of ACC on 29 October and wonder whether you would be available to host it. Alternately, if you are unable to host the breakfast, either Mr. Mayor or Mr. Somavia could be requested to host it jointly with Dr. Idris. In addition, and subject to your approval, we could invite the team to the ACC lunch to pursue the discussions with the Executive Heads at different tables. 6. The Organizational Committee will be meeting at the end of this week to finalize the ACC agenda and its annotations. We shall look forward to an opportunity to brief you on the agenda, programme of work and other arrangements, prior to the ACC meeting. In the meantime, we would greatly appreciate your guidance, in particular, on the following: (a) the letter to Executive Heads (attached) informing them on the arrangements for the review of the functioning of ACC and its machinery. (b) the proposal to invite Mr. Reinicke to intro-

duce his paper on “Issues Management” to the ACC during the afternoon session on 29 October. (c) the proposed breakfast meeting to enable the “review team” to consult ACC members and its attendance at the lunch to be hosted by you for the Executive Heads on Friday 29 October. The agenda as proposed in para 3 seems short and straightforward but when read in conjunction with para 5, then the program appears overburdened. Please review and streamline. Members of ACC Review [Board] must be given initial terms of reference, which could be amplified following the full session. Without this basic document they cannot have a meaningful dialogue with members whether at lunch or breakfast. —see page 2 Reinicke may be invited but shouldn’t be in the context of [para] 3(a) rather than studies for the Millennium Report. I trust you have vetted the report on the approach and you are certain of its relevance to ACC’s work. —K.A. 10/8

27 September 1999 Secretary-General Speaks to General Assembly on the Status of Women in the Secretariat

Report to the General Assembly (GA, A/54/405); women Conclusions from a longer report to the General Assembly. IMPROVEMENT OF THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE SECRETARIAT

... Conclusions

39. Since the submission of the last report of the Secretary-General to the General Assembly on the improvement of the status of women in the Secretariat, notable progress has been made in improving the representation of women at the D-1 level. However, the progress in improving the representation of women overall is still limited, owing to the lower rate at which women are recruited into the Secretariat and the relatively small number of appointments made each year compared to the size of the staff population. While the majority of staff appointed at the P-2 level are women, women continue to account for less than 50 per cent of the appointments made at the remaining grade levels, with the exception of the D-2 level. 40. In view of the limited progress made in improving women’s representation in the Secretariat, the Secretary-General decided in 1998 to develop departmental action plans to supplement the strategic plan of action for the improve-

27 September 1999 • 819 ment of the status of women in the Secretariat (1995–2000) (A149/587). The decision to develop plans at the level of individual departments and offices was made, in view of the importance of managerial commitment and accountability to the achievement of the gender equality goals of the Organization. Although a number of strategies had been pursued successfully under the strategic plan, in particular, efforts to develop and implement gender mainstreaming and gender sensitivity training, it became clear with the passing of time that additional concrete strategies requiring the active participation and visible commitment of managers were required. 41. As indicated in section III of the present report, work has begun on the development of action plans on human resources management for individual departments and offices. One of the objectives set jointly by the Office of Human Resources Management and heads of departments and offices in those plans relates to improving gender balance. The performance of departments under the plans will be monitored by the Office of Human Resources Management and, with respect to gender, by the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women. It is intended that specific targets will be established for improving gender balance in individual departments and offices. An assessment will also be made of the adequacy of the pool of women candidates for projected vacancies within individual departments and across departments by occupation. Reports on progress made in meeting the goals set out in the plans will be submitted to the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General has also decided to institute quarterly reviews by the Senior Management Group of progress made in meeting gender equality goals in departments of the Secretariat and in United Nations funds and programmes. 42. The establishment and monitoring of targets for the improvement of women’s representation in individual departments and offices is one component of the Secretary-General’s strategy for the achievement of gender balance in the Secretariat. Other elements that will be pursued in the coming year include the review of the pool of women candidates within the Secretariat for projected vacancies by departments and occupations and the identification of external sources of women candidates, particularly in Member States which are unrepresented or under-represented in the Secretariat, in developing countries and in countries with economies in transition and in occupations in which women are presently under-repre-

sented. Attention will also be paid to the further development of policies and practices to support the reconciliation of staff members’ work and family responsibilities with the aim of attracting and retaining the best qualified staff and enhancing their morale and productivity. 43. Moreover, the framework for action must include the following elements if the goal of gender equality is to be achieved and sustained in the early years of the next century: (a) The Office of Human Resources Management must lend effective support to programme managers through the design of innovative recruitment strategies to identify and attract women candidates, particularly those from underrepresented and developing countries and countries with economies in transition; (b) The Office of Human Resources Management and the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women must continue to monitor closely the implementation of the special measures for women and the progress made by departments in meeting the goal of gender balance, including through the development of mechanisms to effectively encourage, monitor and assess the performance of programme managers in meeting targets for improving women’s representation as referenced in paragraph 41 above; (c) Women candidates, both internal and external, must be encouraged to submit applications for posts for which they are qualified, and women staff members must take the lead in improving their career prospects by broadening their skills and experience; (d) Member States should be apprised of forthcoming vacancies and encouraged to nominate qualified women for those positions, as well as for appointment to intergovernmental, judicial and expert bodies, such as the International Court of Justice, the Joint Inspection Unit, the International Tribunals and the International Civil Service Commission. Member States should also be encouraged to identify and propose national recruitment sources which will assist the Secretary-General in identifying suitable women candidates for posts with the Organization. 44. As noted in the introduction to the present report, significant progress has been made in improving the status of women in the Secretariat since the item was first addressed by the General Assembly in 1970. Milestones include the elimination of provisions discriminatory to women from

820 • 27 September 1999

the Staff Rules; the establishment of policies governing the equal treatment of men and women in the Secretariat; the introduction of gender sensitivity and gender mainstreaming training; and the institution of special measures governing the recruitment, placement and promotion of women. While, clearly, much work remains to be done to ensure the full and equal participation of men and women in all activities of the United Nations, the contribution of women to the effective design, management and implementation of the Organization’s programmes is recognized. This recognition is owing, in large part, to the growing number of women in decisionmaking positions who serve as powerful catalysts for changing the manner in which individual men and women perceive women’s roles and opportunities in the Organization. 45. The challenge for the early years of the new century will be to build upon this foundation by ensuring that women participate fully at all levels and in all programmes and activities of the United Nations. This will require the continued commitment and leadership of senior management. Managers at all levels must redouble their efforts to achieve the goals of gender equality, including through full implementation of the special measures for women and achievement of targets for improving gender balance in individual departments and offices.

28 September 1999 Letter (EOSG); Comprehensive NuclearTest-Ban Treaty Letter to Yuji Ikeda, permanent representative of Japan to the UN. Dear Mr. Ambassador, I wish to thank you for your letter, dated 24 September 1999, on behalf of the Ratifying States of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), requesting me, in my capacity as Depositary, to convene the Conference on Facilitating the Entry Into Force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-TestBan Treaty from 6 to 8 October 1999 in Vienna, in accordance with Article XIV of the Treaty. I also warmly welcome the nomination of the President and would like to assure him of my fullest support in order for the Conference to achieve a positive outcome. I had already nominated Mr. Wolfgang Hoffmann as Secretary of the Conference and this was conveyed to you by Mr. Jayantha Dhanapala, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, on my behalf, in his letter of 22 September 1999.

In accordance with your wishes, I have circulated letters of invitation and related documents to all Ratifying and Signatory States, as well as the nonSignatory States. Intergovernmental organizations, entities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have also been informed of the Conference. Please accept, Mr. Ambassador, the assurances of my highest consideration.

28 September 1999 Remarks by the Secretary-General Upon His Arrival at UN Headquarters

Off-the-cuff (OSSG); East Timor QUESTION: What is your next step? SECRETARY-GENERAL: I thought you were here this morning, waiting for my guest. I think, obviously, the Commission has asked for an inquiry, which we are going to set up fairly quickly to try and ascertain the facts so that those responsible would be made accountable. QUESTION: Mr. Kofi Annan, there are very pitiful reports from West Timor telling that even little babies and pregnant women are being killed now in West Timor. Do you know about that? S-G: Well, we are concerned about the situation in West Timor and we are trying to increase our presence in the region. The High Commissioner for Refugees is increasing the number of staff; the International Red Cross is; and we are in touch with the Indonesian authorities, both military and political, to give us access, which they have, and to work with us in ensuring that those are protected and the militia are separated from the bona fide displaced or refugees who are in the region and to help us get them back into East Timor. And we are hoping to be able to do that. QUESTION: About the talks this afternoon, between Portugal and Indonesia. S-G: As you know, both of them signed the agreement and they’ve been following very, very closely developments on the ground. And so we will be assessing where we are and then, of course, we’ll talk about Phase 3. QUESTION: Will you speed up Phase 3? S-G: It is quite likely. But of course, that depends on—we, on our side, are speeding up planning and implementation of Phase 3. But the key decision has to be taken in Jakarta, on the question of—they will have to accept the results of the ballot, which I trust they will, given what has happened and the size of the “yes” vote. Then, we will be moving on formally to Phase 3. QUESTION: The American Ambassador yester-

29 September 1999 • 821 day said that United Nations is moving very slowly concerning East Timor, and America wants to put more pressure for the United Nations to move faster. S-G: More pressure or are they going to give us more troops and resources? QUESTION: Will you raise with Mr. Alatas the question of the international inquiry, or will your discussions today concentrate on the transition process? S-G: As a group, we will concentrate on the transition process, but I will have a chance, on one-on-one, to talk to him about the investigation. Thank you very much.

28 September 1999 Daily Press Briefing of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

Noon briefing (OSSG); East Timor Excerpts from the noon briefing by the spokesman for the Secretary-General, Fred Eckhard. ... The guest at today’s briefing is Ian Martin, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for East Timor. Secretary-General Meets with Xanana Gusmão

As you know, the Secretary-General met this morning with East Timorese independence leader Xanana Gusmão. The Secretary-General opened that meeting by saying “you’ve been through a lot, and we’ve been through a lot together”. They talked about the need for the East Timorese leadership in the diaspora to return home now and organize with the United Nations the rebuilding of East Timor and the preparation for the transition to independence. And it is on the implementation of the 30 August ballot that this afternoon the SecretaryGeneral will hold bilateral meetings with the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, Ali Alatas, at 5 p.m., then with the Portuguese Foreign Minister, Jaime Gama, at 5:15, and then there will be a trilateral meeting at 5:30. . . . Kouchner Condemns Grenade Attacks in Kosovo

In a statement just issued in Pristina, the SecretaryGeneral’s Special Representative Bernard Kouchner strongly condemned the grenade attack today in a market place in the predominantly Serb town of Bresje close to Kosovo Polje. The United Nations Mission in Kosovo

(UNMIK) police said two grenades were thrown into a market place, killing two people and injuring more than 35 others. Four arrests were made in connection with the attacks. Two Kosovar Albanians were arrested by UNMIK police and KFOR detained two others of undetermined ethnicity. “This outrageous act against innocent civilians”, said Kouchner, “puts in danger all efforts at democracy in Kosovo. I deplore this crime which occurred in an area where our efforts at retaining a multi-ethnic society in Kosovo has been so intensely focused.” . . . The Security Council is holding consultations this morning. On the agenda are the reports of the Secretary-General on Sierra Leone and Kosovo which will be introduced by Assistant SecretaryGeneral for Peacekeeping Hedi Annabi. A draft resolution on Sierra Leone was also circulated among Council members. Under other matters, the Council is expected to be briefed by Assistant Secretary-General Annabi on the elections in the Central African Republic. ... Office of Iraq Programme

We have the weekly report from the Office of the Iraq Programme. So far this phase, Iraq has exported $4.56 billion worth of oil. The update notes that with current prices and the current rate of export, Iraq would be able to export $7.17 billion worth of oil in the current phase, which ends on 21 November. As you know, resolution 1242 of this year authorizes Iraq to export up to $5.25 billion, but also indicates the Council’s intention to review that ceiling if the need arises. This afternoon, Executive Director of the Office of Iraq Programme Benon Sevan will brief an informal meeting of the 661 Committee—that is the sanctions committee—on the current revenue situation and the outlook for the rest of Phase VI. Press Conferences

Immediately after this—you will be given a double whammy on East Timor today—there will be a press conference by Xanana Gusmão at 12:30 in this room. . . .

29 September 1999 Secretary-General Highlights Positive Changes in Africa

Presentation to Security Council (EOSG, SG/SM/7153, AFR/177); peacekeeping/Africa Text of the Secretary-General’s speech to the min-

822 • 29 September 1999

isterial-level meeting of the Security Council on Africa. Nearly a year and a half ago, I submitted to the Security Council a report on one of the most pressing challenges of our times: how to achieve durable peace and sustainable development in Africa. I have been encouraged by the lively response to the report, within and outside the United Nations system. The Security Council established a working group to review the report’s peace and security aspects and has adopted a number of significant resolutions and statements. The General Assembly, too, has established a working group to monitor implementation of the report’s recommendations. Research and academic institutions, civil society groups and individuals have joined the debate. But then again, a shortage of proposals and ideas has never been the problem. The need is for real results that bring positive change into people’s lives. My follow-up report is in your hands. Today, I would like to offer some general observations, in the hope of assisting the Council as it considers this new report and grapples with the crucial question of what more the Council can do to enhance peace and security in the African region. As befits a continent of such great human, cultural and natural diversity, a snapshot of Africa on the eve of the new millennium reveals a combination of accomplishments and unresolved problems, of opportunities seized and chances missed. There are places where governments and rebel groups persist in spending money on weapons they can ill afford for wars they should not fight. There are places where whole economies have come to depend on the perpetuation of war; where political power has been attained by violent, undemocratic means; where poor governance deprives people of basic needs; where silence about AIDS exacerbates the epidemic; where corruption thwarts economic growth; where crushing debt burdens, trade barriers and declining international aid make it extremely hard for African nations to attract investment and stave off marginalization from the global economy. There are, in short, places where the widely held view of Africa as a region in perpetual crisis is not just an image, but an all-too-grim and painful reality. But there are also places, more than is commonly recognized, where we are witnessing dramatic changes for the better. Many African nations are liberalizing trade

and exchange controls, privatizing moribund State industries, building up communications infrastructures, and reforming their legal and regulatory frameworks. Africa possesses land and labour resources that foreign investors find attractive. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) recently published a study showing that investment in Africa brings a higher return to American and Japanese companies than any other region of the world. Africans are also taking charge of their political fortunes—and they are willing to acknowledge past mistakes. A majority of Africans now live under democratic systems. South Africa has just seen its second peaceful and democratic presidential election, and Mozambique will have its second presidential poll next month. The return to civilian rule in Nigeria has transformed that nation’s prospects. Both Liberia and Mali have carried out large-scale destructions of small arms. Algeria is taking important steps to move away from the civil strife that has paralysed its development and caused so much suffering. And at this year’s Organization of African Unity (OAU) summit in Algiers, Africa’s leaders insisted—in a welcome change from an earlier era—on the principle that governments which came to power through unconstitutional means could no longer expect to be received as equals in an assembly of elected heads of State. I am sure the day will come when the General Assembly of the United Nations will follow Africa’s lead, and apply similarly stringent standards to all its members. But until Africa gets a handle on its conflicts, such progress will remain tenuous, even in nations far from the fighting. Few African countries can match Angola’s natural wealth, or, sadly, the poverty of its war-weary people. Yet, the parties there persist in fighting long past the time when either should be placing faith in a military solution. The people of the Sudan have also suffered far too much for far too long, yet, there are few signs that their ordeal will end any time soon. Ethiopia and Eritrea have allowed new enmities to shatter what had been a very promising break with the past. We must ensure access for humanitarian relief to the victims of these crises. But this is no substitute for the political and military engagement—both African and international—needed to bring stability and address the root causes of these upheavals. Sierra Leone provides an important example

29 September 1999 • 823 of Africans taking the lead in conflict resolution. The Community of West African States sent peacekeepers to Sierra Leone and patiently brokered the Lomé Agreement bringing an end to the conflict there. The agreement is far from perfect. But it responds to the real desire for peace in that country and gives it a new lease on life following some of the most stark and brutal human rights violations the world has seen in recent years. Another successful, albeit fragile, Africanled mediation effort has resulted in the signing of the Lusaka peace agreement for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Last week, President Chiluba of Zambia provided the Security Council with a comprehensive briefing on this effort, which he carried out on behalf of the States of the Southern African Development Community. The parties to both of these agreements must now live up to their commitments. The United Nations facilitated this diplomatic work. Last week, I proposed to the Council the deployment of an up-to-6,000-strong peacekeeping operation to Sierra Leone. With the initial deployment of liaison officers to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I am now studying further steps that could be taken to encourage peace in that country. I should also like to mention the situation in Somalia. In my report to the Council last month, I stated that as a country without a central government, Somalia remained unique. Yet, anarchy does not reign in much of Somalia. There are areas where the absence of law and order has attracted criminals and subversives. A UNICEF doctor was murdered recently and humanitarian agencies temporarily suspended their operations. But there are also areas where ordinary Somalis, tired of warlords and the violence they breed, are seeking reconciliation. Regions of relative stability and coherent leadership are emerging in the north-west and north-east. The international community is beginning to acknowledge these gains. Indeed, they are examples for other regions to follow, and, if carefully nurtured, they could lead to broader national reconciliation. You will not be surprised to hear me say that many Africans, remembering the failure to intervene effectively in Rwanda to stop the genocide, at times regard this Council as indifferent to the continent’s plight. They are closely watching the Council’s deliberations on the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone. In recent weeks, Africans have seen the

Council approve a far-reaching operation for Kosovo and respond to the violence in East Timor. They have listened while many world leaders, as well as myself, have welcomed, albeit cautiously, an evolving understanding of sovereignty that allows the international community to intervene more readily to halt massive and systematic violations of human rights. As you move closer to your decision on these situations, I hope you will also keep the broadest possible picture in view. Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo need more than humanitarian palliatives. Each crisis situation in the world is different, and must be decided on its own merits. But for the United Nations, and this Council in particular, to retain their credibility and the support of the world’s peoples, the commitment to peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and other such action must be applied fairly and consistently, irrespective of region or nation. Whether we are speaking of peace and security issues or closely related questions such as social development, environmental protection, human rights and human resources, it is essential to think in terms of partnerships with Africa—partnerships with the OAU, with regional and subregional organizations, with civil society groups and individuals. Those nations making good-faith efforts and adopting enlightened policies deserve much greater support than they are now getting. Where the international community is committed to making a difference, it has shown that significant transformation can be achieved. There is no excuse for not doing what is reasonable and doable. It is reasonable, for example, to provide more resources for humanitarian assistance and post-conflict peace-building. It is reasonable to act more rapidly and more decisively on debt. It is reasonable to increase official development assistance. But what is “reasonable and doable” is far from a question of money alone. Training, technology, political engagement—there are many paths for partnership to follow. The over-arching point is that, by combining African efforts with those of the international community, we can give the cause of peace and development in Africa decisive new momentum. “Afro-pessimism” is a dead end. “Africa fatigue” is an affront to the very idea of a responsible international community. I said in my report last year that our work with Africa was both a process and a shared partnership. However imper-

824 • 29 September 1999

fectly, Africans have provided many important signs of their yearning for peace, stability and development and their willingness to work for it. The right kind of support now, carefully directed to those best able to use it, could help Africans turn a corner and set the stage for a brighter future. Let us seize this moment. Thank you very much.

1 October 1999 Letter (UN archives); HIV/AIDS/Africa Internal note from the Secretary-General’s adviser, John Ruggie. Included is a handwritten note by the Secretary-General. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL

The Security Council debate on Africa demonstrated yet again that political leaders on the continent feel that the UN has not paid sufficient attention to its problems. The regional hearings in Addis on the Millennium Assembly expressed a similar sentiment. There is a great urgency in our continuing to push for African initiatives. One area in which I feel we could do much more than we have been doing concerns HIV/AIDS. This pandemic is already ravaging a large number of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and all indications are that it will get worse over the course of the next decade. I realize that many African leaders are themselves reluctant to deal with the problem openly, but that is all the more reason for the UN to step in. In this connection, I met earlier this week with Stephen Lewis, at his request. Stephen would be very interested in the possibility of being appointed as a Special Representative (or some similar such office) for HIV/AIDS. While such an appointment would have a universal scope, in the near term it could concentrate on the problem in Sub-Saharan Africa, where it is most severe. Stephen would bring extraordinary qualities to such an appointment: long experience in African matters; a great interest in and concern with the issue of HIV/AIDS and its consequences; and a superior ability to articulate a vision and to mobilize resources behind it. Stephen is also convinced that one can make a difference in the battle against HIV/AIDS, that there are resources out there and partnerships to be forged that can arrest and ultimately reduce this very costly disease—costly in human terms as well as financial. As you know, Stephen will be leaving

UNICEF by the end of the month. International AIDS Day is 1 December; if you are interested in making an AIDS initiative, that would be a good target date. Thank you. The DSG has been elaborating a major programme for HIV/AIDS with Peter Piot of UNAIDS and I have given my full support to the endeavour. Would [Stephen] Lewis work with them or separately? Do seek the views of [illegible]. —K.A.

4 October 1999 Secretary-General Encourages Sierra Leone Peace Process

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7156); Sierra Leone The Secretary-General has noted the arrival of Foday Sankoh and Johnny Paul Koroma today in Freetown, almost three months after the Lomé Peace Agreement was signed. He trusts that they will both work resolutely towards the implementation of that Agreement, in the interest of peace and of the people of Sierra Leone. The SecretaryGeneral also wishes to express his appreciation for the important role played by regional leaders, including President Charles Taylor of Liberia, in support of the peace process in Sierra Leone.

4 October 1999 Letter (EOSG); humanitarian intervention Letter sent to Theo-Ben Gurirab, president of the General Assembly; Francesco Paolo Fulci, president of the Economic and Social Council; Yves Doutriaux, president of the Trusteeship Council; Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, president of the Internatinal Court of Justice; and Sergey Lavrov, president of the Security Council. Dear Mr. President, I am pleased to invite you to the second annual meeting of the Heads of the Principal Organs of the United Nations. This year’s meeting will be convened on Tuesday, 26 October 1999 at twelve noon in my office. I have the pleasure, as last year, also to invite you and our colleagues to lunch at 1 p.m. In addition to a brief review of developments by the Head of each Principal Organ, I would suggest that the meeting also review some general topics of importance to the United Nations. In this connection, you may wish to send me suggestions for such topics which I would share with the other

824 • 29 September 1999

fectly, Africans have provided many important signs of their yearning for peace, stability and development and their willingness to work for it. The right kind of support now, carefully directed to those best able to use it, could help Africans turn a corner and set the stage for a brighter future. Let us seize this moment. Thank you very much.

1 October 1999 Letter (UN archives); HIV/AIDS/Africa Internal note from the Secretary-General’s adviser, John Ruggie. Included is a handwritten note by the Secretary-General. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL

The Security Council debate on Africa demonstrated yet again that political leaders on the continent feel that the UN has not paid sufficient attention to its problems. The regional hearings in Addis on the Millennium Assembly expressed a similar sentiment. There is a great urgency in our continuing to push for African initiatives. One area in which I feel we could do much more than we have been doing concerns HIV/AIDS. This pandemic is already ravaging a large number of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and all indications are that it will get worse over the course of the next decade. I realize that many African leaders are themselves reluctant to deal with the problem openly, but that is all the more reason for the UN to step in. In this connection, I met earlier this week with Stephen Lewis, at his request. Stephen would be very interested in the possibility of being appointed as a Special Representative (or some similar such office) for HIV/AIDS. While such an appointment would have a universal scope, in the near term it could concentrate on the problem in Sub-Saharan Africa, where it is most severe. Stephen would bring extraordinary qualities to such an appointment: long experience in African matters; a great interest in and concern with the issue of HIV/AIDS and its consequences; and a superior ability to articulate a vision and to mobilize resources behind it. Stephen is also convinced that one can make a difference in the battle against HIV/AIDS, that there are resources out there and partnerships to be forged that can arrest and ultimately reduce this very costly disease—costly in human terms as well as financial. As you know, Stephen will be leaving

UNICEF by the end of the month. International AIDS Day is 1 December; if you are interested in making an AIDS initiative, that would be a good target date. Thank you. The DSG has been elaborating a major programme for HIV/AIDS with Peter Piot of UNAIDS and I have given my full support to the endeavour. Would [Stephen] Lewis work with them or separately? Do seek the views of [illegible]. —K.A.

4 October 1999 Secretary-General Encourages Sierra Leone Peace Process

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7156); Sierra Leone The Secretary-General has noted the arrival of Foday Sankoh and Johnny Paul Koroma today in Freetown, almost three months after the Lomé Peace Agreement was signed. He trusts that they will both work resolutely towards the implementation of that Agreement, in the interest of peace and of the people of Sierra Leone. The SecretaryGeneral also wishes to express his appreciation for the important role played by regional leaders, including President Charles Taylor of Liberia, in support of the peace process in Sierra Leone.

4 October 1999 Letter (EOSG); humanitarian intervention Letter sent to Theo-Ben Gurirab, president of the General Assembly; Francesco Paolo Fulci, president of the Economic and Social Council; Yves Doutriaux, president of the Trusteeship Council; Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, president of the Internatinal Court of Justice; and Sergey Lavrov, president of the Security Council. Dear Mr. President, I am pleased to invite you to the second annual meeting of the Heads of the Principal Organs of the United Nations. This year’s meeting will be convened on Tuesday, 26 October 1999 at twelve noon in my office. I have the pleasure, as last year, also to invite you and our colleagues to lunch at 1 p.m. In addition to a brief review of developments by the Head of each Principal Organ, I would suggest that the meeting also review some general topics of importance to the United Nations. In this connection, you may wish to send me suggestions for such topics which I would share with the other

6 October 1999 • 825 colleagues. For my own part, I would suggest that a brief discussion be held on the theme of Humanitarian Intervention. I look forward to seeing you on the 26th of October. Warm regards.

6 October 1999 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter to the president of the Security Council, Sergey Lavrov, with the following letters from Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to convey the attached communication from Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency dated 6 October 1999. I should be grateful if you would bring it to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration. * * * Dear Mr. Secretary-General, I would be grateful if you could arrange to transmit the attached letter to the President of the Security Council. Yours sincerely, Mohamed ElBaradei

semi-annual declarations were due on 15 January 1999 and 15 July 1999. As I have previously reported, there is no technical impediment to the Agency’s full implementation in Iraq of its plan for the ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under the relevant resolutions and, as part of the plan, to continue to follow up on the few remaining questions and concerns relating to Iraq’s clandestine nuclear programme and any other matter which may come to the Agency’s attention. The Agency maintains an operational plan for the resumption of its verification activities in Iraq and would be able to respond, at short notice, to a request from the Security Council to resume those activities in Iraq, under the relevant resolutions. I would take this opportunity to stress that for the Agency to fully implement the mandate entrusted to it by the Security Council, it is essential that the Agency retain its right to unrestricted access provided for in the relevant resolutions and as specified in the Agency’s OMV plan. Further, I would reiterate the importance of the necessary provisions being made for adequate, longer-term funding for the Agency’s implementation of that mandate—paragraphs 26–28 of my report, document S/1999/127, dated 9 February 1999, refer. Please arrange for the distribution of this letter as a Security Council document. Yours Sincerely, Mohamed ElBaradei

* * * Dear Mr. President, In paragraph 16 of resolution 1051 (1996) the Director General of the IAEA is requested to submit consolidated progress reports every six months to the Council, commencing 11 April 1996. As the Council is aware, the Agency has not been in a position, since 16 December 1998, to implement its mandate in Iraq under the relevant Security Council resolutions and is thus unable to provide any measure of assurance of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under those resolutions. In this context, I should record that the Agency has not received from Iraq the semi-annual declarations required by paragraph 22 and Annex 2 of the Agency’s ongoing monitoring and verification (OMV) plan. These semi-annual declarations are the principal means for the provision of information, by Iraq, regarding the current use, and any changes in use, of certain facilities, installations and sites and the inventory and location of certain materials, equipment and isotopes. The

6 October 1999 Letter (EOSG); Israel and Palestine Letter from the president of the Security Council, Sergey Lavrov. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, The members of the Security Council view with interest the recent developments in the Middle East region. The members of the Security Council welcome the signing of the Sharm El-Sheikh Memorandum between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization as an important step forward in the Middle East peace process. They express their belief that the new agreement opens the way for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace within a reasonable time frame in the entire region based on all relevant Security Council resolutions, in particular 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973. They condemn vigorously all acts of terrorism and vio-

826 • 6 October 1999

lence in the region. They call upon all parties to implement in full their commitments under existing agreements and to refrain from actions that pre-empt the negotiations and worsen both the political and the economic situation in the Palestinian territories, and to abide scrupulously by their obligations under international law. The members of the Security Council continue to be determined to keep developments under review and to provide the necessary backing, giving full support to the agreements reached, as well as to the timely and speedy implementation of those agreements. Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration.

8 October 1999 Secretary-General Says Poverty Eradication Not Only Political Priority, but Sacred Duty

We have taken a step forward by setting out a clear plan for the coming century. The great conferences of the 1990s gave us the guidelines we must follow to ensure sustainable development for all the world’s peoples. Practically all governments have set targets and time limits. The United Nations recently launched a worldwide campaign to halve the number of people living in absolute poverty by 2015. The private sector is also becoming increasingly involved. But actions speak louder than words. We must see poverty eradication not only as a political priority, but as a sacred duty. What is at stake is the dignity of all human beings: those for whom poverty is their daily lot, but also, and especially, those who have the means to help them to escape it. Together we must prove, by our actions, that we intend to wage war on poverty without respite.

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7163); poverty

12 October 1999

Text of the statement by the Secretary-General on the occasion of the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, to be observed on 17 October.

Letter to the president of the Security Council, Sergey Lavrov.

In the past century, there have been all too many opportunities to reflect on the problem of poverty and the profound inequities it represents, both nationally and internationally. How many times have we proclaimed our desire to put an end to poverty? How many times have we said that it was incompatible with human dignity? But billions of people are still trying to survive on less than three dollars a day, with no drinking water, health care, or access to education, still denied the jobs that would help them escape their impoverished state, and thus, still deprived of some of their most basic rights. All this does not mean that poverty eradication is an unattainable goal. Some progress has been made—malnutrition has receded, as has the infant mortality rate, and the proportion of children in school has risen considerably. These indicators of social development mean that a real improvement has taken place in the daily lives of millions of impoverished people. Hunger, sickness and ignorance are not inevitable. For the most part, we know how to combat them. We even know approximately how much in the way of additional resources it would take each year to meet the basic needs of all human beings: the same amount as Europeans spend each year on cigarettes.

Letter (EOSG); Liberia

Dear Mr. President, I should like to recall that following consultations with the Government of Liberia and the Security Council, the first United Nations PostConflict Peace-Building Support Office (UNOL) was established in Liberia on 1 November 1997. Since its establishment, the main focus of UNOL has been to provide support to the Government of Liberia in its efforts to consolidate peace, promote national reconciliation and strengthen its democratic institutions. UNOL has also been providing a political framework for harmonizing and energizing the efforts of the United Nations system on matters relating to post-conflict peace-building. During 1999, UNOL has continued to assist the government in facilitating communication with the United Nations on matters relating to peacebuilding and in providing political support to efforts to mobilize international assistance for national reconstruction. In order to help Liberia take another resolute step towards peace, UNOL has been providing political and technical assistance to the Government in the ongoing critical exercise of the destruction of the large quantities of weapons and ammunition which had been collected during Liberia’s civil war. UNOL has also endeavoured to facilitate communications between the Government of Liberia

12 October 1999 • 827 and the United Nations as well as with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) on peace-building and other matters related to sub-regional peace and security. It has been active in reducing tension between Liberia and its neighbours, in particular Guinea and Sierra Leone. UNOL, in cooperation with the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) and the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), has joined efforts with ECOWAS to provide support to initiatives aimed at resuscitating the Mano River Union (MRU), a mechanism for sub-regional cooperation among Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. UNOL has also worked closely with the Government of Liberia in support of sub-regional efforts to achieve a political settlement of the Sierra Leone crisis and facilitate the implementation of the Lomé Peace Accord. Much has been achieved in Liberia since the end of the civil war in 1997 but much more remains to be done, particularly in the area of national reconciliation, democratization, reintegration of former combatants, good governance and the promotion of the rule of law. In view of the catalytic contributions UNOL has been making to Liberia’s post-conflict peacebuilding efforts, the Government of Liberia has asked that the mandate of UNOL be extended until the end of December 2000. I should like to inform the Council that it is my intention to agree to this extension. I should be grateful if you would bring this letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

12 October 1999 Press Conference in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Press conference (OSSG); Kosovo Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would want to thank you for coming this afternoon to this press conference. And let me say that it has been a particular pleasure for me to return to Sarajevo. I knew Sarajevo during the war and at the worst period of crisis. And coming back this time and seeing how you have rebuilt the society, as I flew over the airport and got into the city, my mind flashed back to the difficult days of the conflict when almost every building was gutted. So, I want to applaud your hard work, your deter-

mination, the tenacity of the people of this land to pick up the pieces and rebuild. Since my arrival, I’ve had very, very good meetings with the leaders—the Joint Presidency, the Prime Ministers, the Foreign Ministry and the Council of Ministers. And these discussions, had given me the sense that there is more dialogue among the communities. With all my interlocutors I was able to discuss the need to build a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Bosnia; the need for joint institutions to work better; the need to strengthen the rule of law—not just to write laws but to implement them fairly and consistently across the board, because these laws are the basic foundation on which one builds strong societies. This will provide protection for individuals, because without laws of the kind Lin was referring to, we cannot say all individuals are equal before the law. It will also create the right environment for us to encourage investments. Once that enabled environment is created, both domestic and external investors will become active. Yes, a lot has been achieved, but a lot more needs to be done. I am pleased with the cooperation among the UN agencies, the Office of the High Representative, SFOR and the Government. I have had the chance to look at the activities of the International Police Task Force [IPTF] and I believe the training program is making good progress. IPTF will also be assisting the Government to create border police to combat illegal trafficking. I am also pleased that the leaders assured me that they realize that the responsibility for building a new society, that building the future Bosnia is theirs and that of the people. But we of the international community should be ready to work with you and to assist. And we stand ready to continue our efforts. Some of you were at the Kosovo hospital, at the hospital today, where I greeted, the six billionth baby and the mother. I think this is a sign of rebirth of a city that has gone through so much pain, of a people that are beginning to rebuild and I hope the symbolism will not be lost on us. I then had the pleasure of touring the children’s home where I encouraged the children, the yoking [sic] ones, they may not understand it today, but as they get older they will, to build a future of tolerance, a future of diversity, a future of respect for each other and for us to accept that we are all born equal and have individual dignity. I hope they will do what I have asked them to do when they get bigger.

828 • 12 October 1999

I will now take your questions. QUESTION: You have warned of a humanitarian crisis in Serbia. Now the EU has decided to send assistance only to the opposition, a couple of cities. What is the UN’s view about this and what is the international community going to do about this? ANSWER: You are right that I have maintained that there should be humanitarian assistance given to Serbia. We have a large number of refugees and I think perhaps today Serbia has the largest number of refugees in Europe. There are about 700,000 Serbian refugees from various wars, from Krajina, from Croatia and now from Kosovo, who are in desperate need of assistance. As a result of the military conflict in the region, a study we undertook indicates that there will be electricity shortages of 30 to 40 percent, many people will not have heating. Without electricity you will have problems with water supply and systems. So I have argued since the beginning of the summer that we should define humanitarian assistance in broad terms to include repairs to electrical systems, to ensure that we provide heating for the winter, the water systems are repaired and they have clean water and the hospitals can also be repaired. Because I think it is important that we do not further punish people who have already had painful experiences in their lives and have been disrupted. Humanitarian needs are humanitarian and I don’t think one can selectively offer humanitarian assistance. And this is why I would have preferred assistance to the needy across the board. And here I’m talking about the humanitarian assistance, across the board to all concerned. Obviously, what the European Union has decided to do is a step in the right direction. It is not going to solve the problems of all those desperately in need of our help. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, what are the key achievements of the UN policy in Bih so far and where do you think the UN and the international community should focus in the future? ANSWER: I think we have been here for quite a while and I think our achievements and contributions are all around us to see. What I think in the discussions I have had here is that we should focus and work with the government and the people on economic development. I think we should work very hard on the question of implementation of the laws which have been passed. We should improve the legal systems. We should really work hard to establish a society based on the rule of law and respect for individual rights. I think we have made

some progress with the police. We’ve tried to train the police to become an instrument for the protection of individuals and their rights. We are now going to be focusing also on the judiciary system—to make sure that it’s not only that you have laws but that they are also implemented fairly and consistently across the board and that you have a strong legal system to back it up. The question of returns is also of importance to us. But of course we all need to do what we have to do. I think the entities and the governments and the leaders here will have to do certain things on the ground here to prepare and encourage the returns of the internally displaced and refugees. We the international community, should be prepared to assist when the people are prepared to come back. And when I say when the people are prepared to come back I’m not only talking about internally displaced, but also the refugees who are spread around the world. I think so far we’ve had about 600,000 that have returned and this year alone another 40,000. And we have discussed today some special measures that we need to take perhaps to encourage professional, Bosnian professionals—doctors, writers, professors who are away—to come back home and to help with reconstruction. QUESTION: The question of refugees is the key issue today in Bosnia. Do you think SecretaryGeneral that the Kosovo model can be implemented in Bosnia, which means that the IPTF and SFOR can escort and protect refugees going to their homes? ANSWER: Let me say that each crisis is different and has its own peculiarities. I think we need to be careful not to equate the Kosovo experience with the Bosnian experience. In Kosovo we witnessed perhaps the fastest and the most incredible, spontaneous return of refugees we have seen anywhere in recent times. When the refugees are able to return home quickly, the chances are that most of them will go back. The longer they stay away and put down roots and some begin to settle, the much more difficult it is for them to uproot themselves and start again. Which means that in the case of Bosnia we have much more work to prepare, convince and engage the refugees and the displaced to go back to where they want to go to. It would also mean that we should be more welcoming, we should be more tolerant. We should accept diversity in our midst and they should feel a sense of security and that the prospects for building a future economically, socially and politically should also exist. And therefore we cannot

18 October 1999 • 829 compare the two situations. I don’t think the Kosovars went back because there were troops in Kosovo or troops were escorting them back from Albania to Kosovo. There were other factors at work here. QUESTION: Can you comment on what happened last night in Pristina. One peace keeper was killed—he just arrived? ANSWER: First of all let me offer my sympathy and condolences publicly to the family of our colleague who was killed in Pristina yesterday. He had just arrived. It was his first day in Pristina. Investigations are going on and I cannot specifically indicate what happened. I understand that he is an American, from the preliminary information that I have received, that he is an American of Bulgarian origin. He had just joined the UN to work in civil affairs, but when I get there tomorrow I am sure I will have much more detailed information. QUESTION: We witnessed a lot of violence in Kosovo. What impact is it going to have on the peace process in Kosovo; including the last incident we had when one of the UN staff was killed. ANSWER: Obviously like you, we are very much worried about the violence in Kosovo. We have a mandate to build and encourage a multiethnic Kosovo, Kosovo for all its citizens, regardless of their ethnicity. And we now are witnessing a situation where some of the citizens have come under a lot of pressure. There is revenge, attacks. We have appealed for the revenge to cease; we have appealed for tolerance and reconciliation, which obviously we realize will take some time, but that is quite different from systematic policy of revenge and attack. So, these violent tendencies in the society are a source of great concern to us and we would want to see the situation calm down, for us to continue our work of administering Kosovo. And of course, we are guided by Security Council Resolution 1244, which requires us to administer Kosovo as part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The KFOR and my administrator Bernard Kouchner are doing whatever they can to bring down the violence, to get the people to sit and talk, to get them to make an effort to live side by side and look forward to the future. Thank you. QUESTION: What do you think about the initiative for Bosnia-Herzegovina to take part in one of the UN peace keeping missions? ANSWER: This issue was discussed with the leadership and I think Mr. Klein has also discussed it with the leadership and we on our side

will be prepared and be happy to see Bosnian participation in some of our operations—at the civilian level and at the military level. And I think Mr. Klein is trying to work out the details. And when Bosnia is ready, we will be ready and have space for their participation in one of our peace keeping operations. I think symbolically it would be important and it would also send a very strong message to the rest of the world that things are moving in Bosnia. Not only are you rebuilding the future and trying to make sure that peace takes hold, but you are prepared to give something back to the world and to play your role in the international community. So I hope it will happen and we will be happy to receive your men and women in one or two of our peace keeping operations. Thank you.

14 October 1999 Secretary-General Learns of Negative Vote of US on Ratification of the CTBT

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7177); Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty The Secretary-General has learned with regret of the negative vote of the Senate of the United States on the ratification of the Comprehensive NuclearTest-Ban Treaty (CTBT). Both as Secretary-General of the United Nations and in his capacity as Depositary of the Treaty, he has consistently appealed to Member States who have not done so to sign and ratify the Treaty in order that this important norm against nuclear proliferation and the further development of nuclear weapons should enter into force and become part of international law. Participants in the Conference for Facilitating the Entry into Force of the CTBT issued a Declaration in Vienna on 8 October reaffirming the importance of a universal and internationally and effectively verifiable comprehensive nucleartest-ban treaty. The Secretary-General reaffirms this goal in view of its importance in maintaining the nuclear non-proliferation regime and progress towards nuclear disarmament.

18 October 1999 Interview; humanitarian intervention Interview by Gwen Ifill that aired on PBS’s NewsHour. GWEN IFILL: Secretary-general Kofi Annan opened this year’s UN General Assembly session by call-

830 • 18 October 1999

ing on the international community to prepare for expanded intervention in the world, especially in countries where human rights are being violated. His speech coincided with the arrival of a U.N.mandated force in East Timor. Mr. Annan is in Washington for meetings and speeches. UN Humanitarian Intervention

GI: Mr. Annan, your speech to the UN two weeks ago, three weeks ago, you spoke of humanitarian intervention, which sounded almost like a new doctrine. Could you explain it to us, please. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Basically, what I tried to discuss with the member states was the fact that we live in a new era. The UN was set up after World War II, and at that point we were more concerned about interstate warfare. Today most of the wars we are concerned about are intrastate. On how we deal with interstate warfare there was a consensus and the consensus had been maintained up till now, but we are living in a new era where the conflicts are internal, and yet, we have not come up with a new consensus as to what—how we define the common interest, who defines the common interest, how we defend the common interest, when we intervene, and when we do not. I also have to point out that in my statement I defined intervention as a broad spectrum from the least coercive to the most coercive. It could be just—I mean, a diplomat—you get in touch with the people in conflict and basically saying that unless we come across with some consensus, we are going to have difficulties in the Council. The Security Council on some occasions have had difficulty reaching consensus. They have had difficulty reaching consensus because different people have different understanding of what constitutes national interest or common interest, because the Council exists to protect the common interest, but what is that common interest? And if we don’t have a common understanding, a broad understanding of what we are talking about, we are not going to be able to move very quickly. GI: It sounds like that common understanding or the definition of that common understanding is always going to be a roadblock to the kind of broad interventionism that you advocate. S-G: I think one has to be careful. I wasn’t advocating a broad intervention. What I was saying is if we have situations where there are gross violations and systematic violations of human rights, we cannot stand back and do nothing. And if we are going to intervene, we must have some criteria or some understanding of when we intervene and when we do not. Already we are accused

of selectivity; we are accused of being more sensitive to crisis in some regions than the other. I don’t think the UN can open itself to that sort of accusations and criticism. And I believe that if the member states were to discuss this issue simply, sincerely, and honestly, we may come to some understanding that will help us as we move forward into the future. GI: Now, as you know, the United States and Britain applauded your comments; other countries, China, Russia, India, said that this smacked of imperialism. How do you answer those critics? S-G: I was not surprised that some countries accepted it and others disagreed with it. But I think what is important is that in today’s world, when we have the kinds of abuses that we are talking about, we need to take measures to deter them. It does not necessarily mean military intervention. In fact, the establishment of the two tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia is a deterrent. The attempts by the international community to establish an international criminal court will be a deterrent, and really sending a message out to those who would commit these heinous crimes that you have nowhere to hide, you will be made accountable. GI: But how do you balance out a nation’s desire for its own sovereignty to protect that, its own sovereignty against an international need to intervene in the case of human rights abuses? S-G: I can understand a nation’s right to intervene—I mean, to protect its sovereignty. On the other hand, let’s look at the world as it exists today, I argued that the traditional concept of sovereignty is being changed by the developments in the world today, from globalization—there are lots of areas governments do not control. They do not control the external factors that affect their economy. They do not control financial flows. They do not control some of the environmental issues. Why should abuse of human rights be the only area that they should insist they should be allowed to control without any interference? I think this is something that happened—and also, let me put it this way, if the citizens’ rights are respected, there will be no need for anyone to want to intervene either through diplomatic means or coercive means. And it’s also—I think the governments should see it not as a license for people to come in and intervene. We are talking about those situations where there are serious and gross and systematic violations of human rights. I think that governments who protect their citizens and their rights and do not create that kind of situation have no reason to worry that anyone would intervene.

18 October 1999 • 831 The UN’s Role as Peacekeeper

GI: Let’s talk about the United Nations’ role as a peacekeeper. Can the United Nations exert its role as a peacekeeper if there is not first a peace to be kept? S-G: If you send in traditional peacekeepers, they cannot do it. They only can go in where there’s peace to be kept, because let’s not forget—traditional peacekeepers go in lightly armed and often they go in to help implement and maintain agreements which have already been signed by the warring factions. Where the will to settle and to respect the agreements exists, the peacekeepers can do a lot. GI: I’m sorry, go ahead. S-G: Where the will does not exist, it’s extremely difficult for traditional peacekeepers. Of course, we’ve also had peace enforcement, the kind of action you saw in Kosovo, which was handled by a multinational force in the form of NATO. GI: When you talk about will, that’s really the essential role. When you talk about handing over the rights to enforce people’s—violations of human rights concerns—to say a regional force, rather than a UN force, or American-led force, don’t you then perhaps put power in the hands of a regional bully, perhaps, to decide what a country should be doing? S-G: I think that is something that the Security Council takes into consideration. It assesses the situation. It assesses the capacity of the region and also, more or less, gives an indication of what the mandate should be. In each of these instances, the recent—take the one in East Timor, the Australianled peacekeeping forces went in with a mandate from the Security Council, and they’re reporting periodically to the Council. And I think the Council is in agreement as to the broad role that force is to play. The peace—the force that went into Kosovo was different because it did go in without express consent of the Security Council, and so one cannot say that the Council gave them a mandate to undertake what they did. GI: I want to return to East Timor in just a moment, but I want to ask also about this whole notion of intervention and civil wars. How do we know when intervention is called for, and when we’re just getting ourselves involved in every civil war—say Sierra Leone might fall into that category. S-G: I think this is where my opening statement comes into focus. This is precisely some of the issues that I would want the membership at large to discuss. It’s an issue for the membership to decide—when do you intervene and why.

GI: Case by case? S-G: And what is the rationale? Why? And this is where, in fact, I set a threshold—you know, gross and systematic violations of human rights. In Sierra Leone, the UN did not go in directly, but we supported the work of the regional organization, the West African troops which went in—Nigeria led. And now we’re going to take over for them; we are putting in 6,000 troops from the UN who will work to ensure that the peace agreement signed in Sierra Leone would work. The UN’s Expanded Role

GI: How do you—in East Timor or Sierra Leone or wherever you go—how does one govern intervention once you are there? In East Timor, the United Nations, in effect, takes over for the next two years. But when can you declare your work done and leave? S-G: I think each crisis is different; it has its own peculiarities and has to be tackled on its own basis and merit. In Sierra Leone there is an existing government, elected government, that was thrown out by the military and reinstated, so we will work with the government in place, obviously. We will also work to strengthen the government to help them to develop their economic and social services. In East Timor, we will be building from scratch. And we will work with the East Timorese. In time, we will organize elections for the East Timorese to elect their own leaders, and once the leaders have been installed and they’ve taken over the administration of the country, then our work will be done. We did that in Namibia, for example, where we organized the elections, a new government was installed, and we withdrew, and Namibia has done rather well, actually, after that. I’m not saying it happens that way in all the cases, but . . . GI: Does the United Nations have the resources, the tools, for this expanded role? S-G: Resources is always a problem, but I think where there is a will we almost always find the resources. And quite frankly, the amounts of money we are talking about in the scheme of things are really not huge amounts, considering what is at stake and what we are trying to do, whether in terms of resuscitating failed states, or protecting lives or ensuring that innocent women and children are protected and given a chance to live their lives to the fullest. We are not talking big amounts. In fact, I had to speak when we had 17 operations and 80,000 people deployed around the world, it was—the annual budget was $3.8 billion. $3.8 billion when you compare with the resources

832 • 18 October 1999

we are ready to put into defense expenditure in wars is really minor. GI: The Indonesian parliament is expected to vote perhaps as soon as tomorrow on whether to accept East Timor’s vote of independence. Do you care to hazard a guess on how that will turn out? S-G: I think they will vote yes. They will vote to confirm the results of the ballot. GI: Are you confident now that you’re going to be getting Indonesia’s cooperation on the refugee crisis, getting people who’ve been driven from their homes in East Timor back from West Timor, or even Australia? S-G: Our humanitarian coordinator has had very good discussions with them and the high commissioner for refugees has also worked out an arrangement with them where we are beginning to prepare to fly some of the people—ship them—put them on ships—and eventually by road to get them back to West—East Timor. So far, they are cooperating. Obviously, given the conditions on the ground, there may be some difficulty, but it’s gone well. It’s gone well so far, and I am hopeful that they will cooperate fully. GI: But the UN took a credibility blow in East Timor; the rebel leader—or I should say the independence leader, Jose Ramos-Horta said, “I don’t know how we’re ever going to trust the UN again.” Can they? S-G: Well, I think if one says the UN took a credibility blow—I don’t know whether we took a credibility blow or the Indonesians also took a—perhaps a much more serious blow—what happened was we signed an agreement between Portugal and Indonesia—what the UN witnessed. Indonesia insisted that it would assure security and there was no need for international forces to come in; and it had the capacity to do it, and it demonstrated it had the capacity and the wherewithal. On the day of the election we had a peaceful election, with the Indonesian army and police playing their role. If they could play that role effectively on 30 August, why couldn’t they continue with the same seriousness and determination to maintain law and order? That did not happen, and we did have violence and nobody could have imagined would have occurred after the elections. And when that happened, the UN did not throw up its arms and said, “What do we do?” We moved very quickly to get in a force that will help bring law and order into the situation and try and get the innocent victims back to their homes from the hills and from West Timor.

The US and UN Dues

GI: I can’t let you go without asking you briefly about the US role in the UN. Last week, obviously, the Senate voted against the nuclear test ban treaty, and the US continues to be of two minds about whether it will pay its back dues. What was your reaction to that vote? S-G: I think it was unfortunate. My sense is that it sends the wrong message across the world. The US has a leadership role and countries around the world look up to it, particularly in the area of disarmament because it is a major power. And I think the president was right when he said the vote will send the wrong message around the world. And it does undermine the U.S.’s ability to lead in this essential area of disarmament. On your second question regarding the US dues, I often speak about this more out of sadness and disappointment than even out of anger, because the US has such a natural leadership position in the UN. People look up to the US. The US played a key role in establishing the UN, previous generations and US presidents have played a major role in making sure that the UN is strengthened. And today we have a situation where the US refuses to pay its bill, and that refusal to honor the commitments which we believe is legal and binding between us and the United States—among its friends and its foes. In fact, it was a British foreign secretary, where Malcolm Rifkin, the former foreign secretary, who stood up in the General Assembly from the rostrum and said there should be no representation without taxation. He turned the tables, but it shows the feeling among the membership, even among friends. And so I hope the dues will be paid. Ambassador Holbrooke is working very hard. The president has also assured me that he wants it paid and is working hard. And I hope with all the effort and the energy that Ambassador Holbrooke and others have brought to bear that this year, finally, in the last year of the millennium, we can put this problem behind us and bring the US back to its natural leadership role in the organization. GI: Secretary-General Kofi Annan, thank you very much. S-G: Thank you.

19 October 1999 Secretary-General Reminds All Parties of Their Commitment to the Lusaka Peace Accord

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7183); Democratic Republic of Congo

19 October 1999 • 833 The Secretary-General calls on all parties to the Lusaka Peace Accord to observe the ceasefire throughout the country and extend their full support for the third and final round of the polio immunization campaign to proceed from 20–28 October. He reminds all parties of their commitment under the Lusaka Peace Accord (annex A paragraph 6.2), to enable national immunization campaigns to be carried out. The Secretary-General recalls the support of the parties for the earlier polio immunization rounds which allowed for over 90 per cent of the targeted 10 million children under five to be immunized throughout the country. This campaign is being carried out by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO), in close collaboration with local health authorities and non-governmental agencies. He stresses the importance of this campaign to eradicate this crippling and preventive disease in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

19 October 1999 Press Conference Following the Secretary-General’s Speech at World Bank Headquarters

Press conference (OSSG); peace and development MR. KARLSSON: “Development and Peace: One Struggle, Two Fronts.” Thank you very much, Secretary-General. You are all invited to come with questions now. Please pass them to the sides here and they will be collected and passed to me. To start off, Secretary-General, I would like to catch on to what you said at the very end, namely, that the case for resources is compelling. We know how to put them to use on both the peace front and the development front. How can you, perhaps together with us, bring this to greater awareness among those who fund us? As you know, we are all facing significant constraints and problems at this point in time. SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think we should raise our voices; we should be better advocates with the governments—I hope you can hear me—with the governments. I also believe that we should not try to do it alone, whether it’s Jim Wolfensohn, my other colleagues, Juan Somavia, Gro Bruntland, your ex-colleague Malloch Brown. We should also try and engage the public, and also reach out in partnership, as I have said, working with the private sector, working with NGOs. But we need to get them to really live up to the promises they have made. And perhaps we will—I will have to discuss

this further with Jim. Maybe the time has come for all of us to make a joint appeal, joint appearance and really make a much harder push and hopefully also mobilize the public to work with us. I think if we can get the public to follow us, the public to support us, the politicians will be there; they will follow. MR. KARLSSON: One other thing that joins you both is that you have worked for years now in modernizing the institutions with internal change. Maybe you would like to update the audience where you stand now on U.N. reform. S-G: I think we have achieved a lot in the past couple of years . . . [inaudible]. I must stress here that reform is a process, it’s not an event. So the search for excellence will be ongoing. At the Secretariat level, and particularly on issues which are within my own authority, we have done a lot. We have restructured, we have streamlined our activities, we have reduced our budget. For the first time since our creation, we have cabinet-type meetings once a week, with all the U.N. heads of departments, program heads from UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA. And our colleagues from Vienna, Geneva, Nairobi participate via teleconferencing. So that has pulled the leadership together. We have also restructured ourselves to be effective at the country level, where the U.N. units on the ground are compelled to work together as a team, rather than competitively. And I am pleased to say that we are also working much better with the Bank’s representatives at the country level. Where we have failed is some of the initiatives, or decisions, which depend on governments. Everybody is interested in Security Council reform. We have made no progress. The only progress we have made is that all the entire membership, each and every one of them, agrees that reform is necessary. That in itself is progress. [laughter] But what we do beyond that has become very, very difficult. They all agree that the composition and the structure of the Council reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945 and it is time that we bring it in line with today’s realities. There have been discussions of expanding the 15-member Council to 21 or 24 and creating five additional permanent seats. And now of course, logically, you would ask, “Why create five additional permanent seats; why don’t you eliminate the permanent seats which exist?” The fact is those with that privilege will never give it up. [laughter] And others would want to

834 • 19 October 1999

share the privilege, and so you create a few more. And just to give you an idea of the surreal world in effect as we live in it—and you at the Bank will understand that, not that I am arguing people should vote their shares. But, for example, Japan, which pays about 20 percent of the budget, is not a member of the Security Council. And they argue, “Why should we pay 20 percent when the four other members, except the U.S.—China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom—pay 14 percent?” They say, “Why should the four permanent members, who pay 14 percent, hold on to their seat and we are deprived of a seat?” When you talk about—I made a speech about intervention at the opening of the General Assembly. President Bouteflika made a comment. He said, “The Council take decisions. We are not represented. They act in our name and we are supposed to support it blindly.” Again, the question of expanding the Council to make it more representative, to make it—to allow it to gain in greater legitimacy and at the same time make it effective is a challenge that we have. I don’t think the issue will die, but the member states have not moved forward. There are other issues where the entire membership have to agree, and this has been one of our great areas. In some areas, we’ve managed to push them, I think in the first year or so. We just surprised them and got a lot done. And then they woke up and decided—[laughs]—you’re not going to get this past us. [laughter] And I’m sure anyone who runs an international organization has had this sort of experience. I’m sure you will have stories to tell me over dinner—[laughs]—about some of these same issues. MR. KARLSSON: I think I have . . . [inaudible]. [laughter] S-G: [inaudible] . . . come to the U.N. [laughs]. Mr. Karlsson: Well, here’s another question, a topical one. In recent days, there have been seeming foreign policy setbacks in the United States— the Senate rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and Clinton called, when he vetoed the foreign aid bill, isolationist. How can this trend be reversed? What are its consequences for conflict prevention? S-G: I think the rejection of the treaty deals a major blow to disarmament regimes around the world because the U.S. has a natural leadership in that area, not only because it’s a nuclear power, but it is also a major leading political and economic country in the world. And by voting down the bill—by voting down the treaty, even if one tries to explain it as purely a matter of internal politics, it

is going to be extremely difficult to go to Pakistan or India or elsewhere and tell them, “Don’t worry about what happened in Washington, we are not going to test, but we do not want you to test any weapons, we want you to respect the CTBT.” It undermines that leadership role, and I think that is unfortunate. I would hope that over time the Congress will change its attitude, because when you read the polls, and many polls have been done, the American public by and large believe in multilateralism. The American people by and large would want the U.S. to be an active player in the United Nations. They would want the U.S. to work with other countries. And in my own judgment—this may get me into trouble, but in my own judgment, what is happening on the Hill is not in tune with what I’m reading about the wishes of the American people. And I hope in time, this too will change, this too will pass. I think we need to keep on with education. We need to target the young people; we need to get them to understand that in an interdependent world, the collective effort, the collective interest, is sometimes the national interest and we should not necessarily be concerned that each time you have a multilateral effort or collective interest, it may be against a national interest. My hope is that this, too, will pass over time, but I hope not too long. We shouldn’t have too long to wait. MR. KARLSSON: Both of our institutions have moved to use information technology to reach out more directly to, in particular, the young of the world. Would you share some thoughts on how we can link up and use knowledge and communication for development and peace? S-G: Jim showed me earlier today what you are doing here at the Bank, which is really exciting, and I think we can use technology very effectively to help the developing countries and the young people around the world in areas of education, in areas of agriculture. And what is exciting about the technology these days is when you take a look at the Third World where some universities which were once very good have no libraries at all, you can really use the technology to help the students, give them the material, and really help them stay abreast with what is happening in the rest of the world. But for us to be able to really expand that capacity and reach out, we have to make sure that we bridge the gap between the technologies and not create another gap, a world of technology-rich and technology-poor, because it’s only when

19 October 1999 • 835 we’ve been able to provide the technical base that we can narrow that information gap. When I opened the World Telecom ‘99 in Geneva, I sort of shared with them the amount of work we need to do to get to the poorer countries, reminding them that half the world’s population— almost 3 billion people—have never made or received a phone call, and we really need to try and reach them. And some of them have not even reached the teledensity of one—that is, one telephone to a hundred people. So we have a tremendous tool at our disposal, but we need to try and give them the means to be able to tap into it and exploit it. I don’t know, Jim, if you want to say something. MR. WOLFENSOHN: Well, only that I, of course, agree with that. We have with us, actually today in the front row, international advisers from the World Bank Institute, who have been discussing this subject for the last two days. And I think we are all agreed that a key to peace and a key to development is a scaled-up version of productivity and the provision of appropriate services. And it’s certainly something we are working on and I will be discussing with Mark in the very near future. MR. KARLSSON: Connected to that is the following question: You mentioned, Secretary General, in a recent speech that we are seeing the emergence of the largest youth population ever, 1.2 billion people between the ages of 15 and 24. What can and should the U.N. system and the World Bank do to ensure true participation and sustained intergenerational dialogue with young people? And what role do you and Mr. Wolfensohn play as role models to a new generation of leaders? S-G: I will leave the last part of the question to Jim. [laughter] But I think on the first part; I think when I spoke here some time ago, I titled my address, “Creating a Billion Jobs.” We need to really see these young people in school or create jobs for them, find some meaningful tasks for them to do . . . [audio break] . . . it’s really . . . [audio glitch] . . . when you look at the number of people, the size of the population between 15 and 25, and the size of the population under 15; I mean, we—when you talk of 6 billion people on the earth, it tells only half the story until you begin to analyze the figures and see those over 60, those under 15 and those between 25 and—between 15 and 25, and the differences between regions. Then you realize that for the young people, we either have to really find creative ways of creating edu-

cation opportunities, jobs for them, or we are going to have a very serious problem on our hands. It is when youth are unemployed, unoccupied and idle that they get into all this mischief. I think the challenge for us, the Bank, ourselves and the governments concerned is to come up with economic policies that will generate jobs and also ensure that there are educational facilities and what we discussed earlier, using technology as something that we can use to reach some of these young people and prepare them. And education is absolutely crucial. Education and information is what is going to give them an edge in the future. MR. WOLFENSOHN: I would only add for those that don’t know that the Secretary-General spoke at the annual meetings on the need for a billion jobs, and it underlined very much this particular issue. We at the Bank have long believed that education is key, and particularly education of girls, so that we can have a more equitable and broaderreaching educational system. And that’s something that is totally central to our activity and ties in, of course, not just with the new technologies but with really getting governments to commit that this is central, not just to economic development but surely to peace. If you have people occupied, they’re less likely to go out and shoot. And so we are united with you on this effort, and will continue to work with you. S-G: I think, on the second question, I would tell the youth, when they look at what Jim is doing and what is happening now, to understand that with determination and ideas you can do a lot. You will be criticized, you will not always be popular for what you say or do, but as long as you are convinced you’re moving in the right direction and put together the right team, you should be able to move forward and do it. And I think what is also happening here is one is trying to offer opportunities to the least fortunate and adapting the Bank and its reach to be able to do that. And if there’s any message there for the youth, I think the message should be that yes, the task and the challenges are enormous, but one should not throw one’s arms up. One has to come at it with perseverance, with determination, and really try and make a difference. MR. WOLFENSOHN: I just want to say that I think the Secretary-General’s a great role model for the youth. [laughter] MR. KARLSSON: There are a number of . . . S-G: [inadible] [laughter] MR. WOLFENSOHN: I want to make sure that I can stay in this job . . . [laughter]

836 • 19 October 1999

MR. KARLSSON: Well, let’s move back to some serious issues. [laughter] MR. WOLFENSOHN: That’s a very serious issue! [laughter] MR. KARLSSON: There are very many questions here about different conflicts around the world, and I think this one captures most dimensions of them: How can we get the global support to stop the conflicts and get development in Africa in the same way the community came together in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor? S-G: International support, they mean? MR. KARLSSON: [inaudible]. S-G: Yeah. I think it’s a very pertinent question, because in my discussions with my fellow African leaders, I have always stressed the fact that today, because of the conflicts on the continent, when you mention Africa, people think of a continent in crisis. Their antennas go up, but they don’t go beyond that image of continent in crisis to discover some of the countries on the continent that are doing reasonably well, and therefore, the entire continent suffers from that image. And we need to come together, the leaders have to come together to resolve these conflicts. And I’m happy to say that they are coming together. The peace agreement for the Democratic Republic of Congo involved about seven, eight governments, but a much larger group of leaders in the region also supported the effort. But now that the agreement has been signed, we have to pool our efforts and persistently support the implementation of the agreement. So the same thing happened in Sierra Leone, with the African leaders coming together to do it. So the African leaders are doing their part, but they cannot do it alone. They need the support of the international community, international organizations and the donor community, whether in Sierra Leone, in Liberia or in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We have had very serious discussions at the U.N. at the ministerial level. I was asked by the Security Council to produce a report on conflicts in Africa and plans for economic and social development. There has been very strong reaction to that report. In fact, last month there was a ministerial meeting on how the international community can help Africa overcome their difficulties, chaired by the Prime Minister of Netherlands. And I think those kinds of efforts, those kinds of visibility and real support needs to be sustained for us to help Africa get out of this conflict-ridden era. And what is important is that the leaders themselves have realized

and are beginning to do something about it. And so in partnership, I think we can do a lot to make it happen. The other thing I should say, one tends to make a comparison with Kosovo, East Timor, and there’s a sense in the African—on the continent that Africa is ignored, Africa is getting shortchanged, and other regions get lots of support, and particularly Kosovo is draining away resources from Africa’s development efforts and conflict resolution. Governments have denied that, but the statistics don’t help their case. We’ve talked of development assistance dropping, but even assistance for compelling humanitarian situations are dropping. You make an appeal and you get 10 percent of what you need to feed the starving. And this is something that we again need to change and sensitize the public and encourage those who have the capacity to give to give, and give generously and freely. And I think it’s in everyone’s interest to do that. I can go on for a long time, but I should stop. [laughter] As you can see, you touched a sensitive nerve. [laughter] MR. KARLSSON: You won’t really stop, because in a few minutes you’re getting together with President Wolfensohn to speak precisely about the issues. And, well, I’m sure you will speak about East Timor as well, since it is happening right now as we speak. And I wonder if you couldn’t at least comment a little bit more about what happens now and since the consultative assembly in Indonesia has approved the independence referendum; what goes on, the mission. S-G: We’ve been planning for a U.N. mission to take over from the multinational force. The multinational force, led by Australia, went in, if you wish, as an emergency reaction force, to help calm the violence and the situation, and eventually to hand over to the U.N., once the Indonesian government has endorsed a ballot and the situation has been calmed. So once a secure environment has been created, we will put in a U.N. administration, which would also include a United Nations force and police. We would have about 9,000 soldiers and policemen during the early part of the transition period. We would work with the local population to administer the place. It is a difficult assignment because we are starting from scratch. The buildings have been destroyed. All the civil servants, doctors, nurses who were Indonesians have left. So we need to bring in all the civil service, all the essential services, to be able to manage the country. We would also need to work very closely with

19 October 1999 • 837 the East Timorese leadership—Xanana Gusmão, Ramos-Horta, and all that. Eventually we will have to organize another election, another election for the East Timorese to elect their own leaders, and then withdraw the U.N. presence. I see a timetable of about two to three years—it may go faster—and we will withdraw. But East Timor is going to need lots of help, and I look forward to working with the Bank on the reconstruction and many other issues. And in fact, after this meeting, we will be discussing how we pool our efforts in East Timor and Kosovo. What is also important is that we take steps to mend fences and the relationship between East Timor and Indonesia. East Timor cannot survive without good relations with Indonesia, Australia, and its Asian neighbors. I am encouraged that quite a lot of the Asian countries, the ASEAN and others, have given me indications that they will participate in the force, they will participate in the operations. And I hope in time East Timor itself will become a member of ASEAN, and they would invest in that new state. Thank you very much. MR. KARLSSON: And so a last question, perhaps, but a very major one. You spoke strongly about democracy in relation to prevention. How can the international organizations come together more strongly in support of democracy? S-G: I think it is happening already. I think it’s really happening. And I must say, when I look at the Bank and the U.N., our views on some of these issues have really converged, and we are moving in the same direction. Apart from democracy as a way of preventing conflicts, I also believe that the establishment of good governance, the rule of law, respect for human rights, and the right regulatory systems and institutions is the very foundation on which some of the things we are doing, all the development efforts we are making, can thrive. And when we look back—I don’t want to mention names—but we’ve seen countries that seem to be doing extremely well, seem to have really taken off, and with one strong, one major difficulty, and it falls apart like a deck of cards, because the foundations were not there; the foundations were not solid. And quite frankly, I see this as an essential part of our developmental effort, and whether it’s the bank, the IMF, the U.N., or any of our agencies, we should hammer away at this. And I think it is happening. And I will pause here. And I think—Jim, I don’t know . . .

MR. WOLFENSOHN: Well, I would only say that I just concur. We for the first time stuck our neck out and had a conference on democracy and development in Korea during the last 12 months. That would have been unthinkable a decade ago—that we could have even put on the same agenda the World Bank and the notion that democracy and human rights were issues that relate to development. And while we are not asserting that it push it down everybody’s throats, the fact that we can discuss it and that it can be addressed by us jointly with the U.N., I think, is a very important step forward. And people can make their own judgments, but the linkage is very clear. S-G: And I think we must all speak out—the agency heads, those in Geneva, those in New York. I speak out and say lots of things because I also know it’s helpful to people in countries who cannot speak freely. They can say, “As the SecretaryGeneral said, as Mr. Jim Wolfensohn said”— [laughter]—and not get into trouble. [laughter] MR. KARLSSON: I’m advised you have a little bit more time, so I . . . S-G: Oh, you are? My managers have told you, then. Yeah, that’s good. MR. KARLSSON: All right. So here’s one: What is your attitude towards the need to mobilize forces of the world community to fight terrorism? The U.N. is now drafting a series of anti-terrorist conventions. When is it coming? S-G: I think to fight terrorism, governments have to work together, and they must not give refuge to terrorists. And if you have rules that require governments to hand over known terrorists whose crimes can be proven, it will dissuade some of them. I think what is also important is not that we should have new conventions and new resolutions; we have about nine or 10 resolutions which, if they were to be implemented effectively, could make a difference. The question is implementation and pooling of efforts by governments. What I have noticed is the governments tend to ignore this issue until terrorism comes to their doorstep, and they suddenly wake up and want to deal with it. As soon as it subsides, they lose interest. But we need to get them to work in a sustained manner to fight this scourge and not think that it’s somebody else’s problem, because it can spread just as quickly to other countries. And I would urge implementation of conventions on the books rather than efforts to pass new ones. I know there are discussions going on now that we should have a conference on terrorism. The

838 • 19 October 1999

Islamic Conference has proposed it, and others are now proposing it in New York, and it would probably be helpful. But we should go beyond the talk, we should go beyond the conferences and come up with concrete programs of state cooperation. MR. KARLSSON: So here is the very last one. Thank you for your inspiring speech, but what is the role of the private sector in all of this? S-G: No, the private sector has a major role to play. And I think both Jim and myself believe that we should work with them in partnership and let them face up to their own responsibilities. They have tremendous resources. Is it better? [microphone adjustments made] This is real cooperation; isn’t that wonderful? [laughter, applause] We believe that the international—the business community has a major role to play. They have a major role to play because of the assets they bring to the table. They have technology, they have management and they have capital. But they also have a responsibility to the rest of the world and to the planet. First of all, through our own conferences and others, we have coined the phrase “sustainable development” and that we cannot continue to exploit the resources of the world the way we are doing without getting into trouble down the line. We cannot do it alone; we need the corporate sector with us. And I often remind them of my favorite African proverb that “the world is not ours; it’s a treasure we hold in trust for future generations.” And that is a responsibility for all of us. Secondly, I think if we can get the corporate sector to respect some of the values and the codes that we have come up with, in fact in Davos this year, early this year, I suggested a compact with the private sector: the respect for human rights, labour standards and environmental standards; that as they travel around the world and establish themselves, they should respect these standards. I think we can also work with them in partnership to encourage direct foreign investment. And in fact, the way I see it, what the Bank and the U.N. is doing, is helping governments create the enabling environment with the right institutions, the right regulatory system, creating the atmosphere that would encourage companies to go in and invest. And we are reaching out and working in partnership with companies, in some cases doing joint training programs or encouraging them to work with us, particularly in the technology area. And I hope they will find it beneficial, and we would

also find it beneficial, because we cannot continue knocking on the doors of governments, asking for development assistance. We cannot develop the rest of the world alone with development assistance, and we need to get the private sector to become involved. But not just the private sector; the NGOs are becoming important players, and civic groups are also very active. And if you can get them at the national level to become active, to play a role, to be alert, and in some cases, keep the governments on the right track, we will all do much better. Thank you very much. [applause] MR. WOLFENSOHN: Well, Mr. Secretary General, I think you can gather from the reception that you have received, what an impact you made on my colleagues today. What I gleaned from this remarkable address and from your response to questions, is just how real the partnership needs to be and in a way, how real the partnership already is, because as you describe so many of the initiatives that are taken by you within the U.N. system, and the counterpart in what the Bank is doing, is joined by an absolutely identical set of values, a set of values which relates to freedom of the individual to justice, to equity, to poverty; that we are concerned by the same issues of population, that we are concerned by the same issues of stress on resources. And at each level, as we heard you speak today and heard, whether it was about conflict prevention or about the improvement of the human condition, I think the partnership between our institution and the U.N. system in general is both very clear in terms of its objectives, but that there are many areas already in which we are working closely together as we leave, in fact, to go and talk about East Timor and Kosovo. These are two remarkable examples how, on the political front, you and your colleagues have given the leadership and were also ready within a matter of days to be in East Timor to do the second round of studies on the funding that is necessary, and this partnership is perfectly natural and is functioning. But what I would say about today is that your presence here and your remarks has given all of us a greater sense of family and a greater sense of partnership with the U.N. system. We are enormously grateful to you for having come here. We would welcome you back any time. We really, truly enjoyed having you with us. We feel you are a member of the family, and as a small gift to a member of the family, let me just give you a memento that comes with the affection of all the

21 October 1999 • 839 people here and an invitation to come back any time you wish. We thank you very much for a remarkable address. [applause]

20 October 1999 Letter (EOSG); meeting agenda/heads of principal organs Letter to the presidents of the Security Council, General Assembly, Economic and Social Council, International Court of Justice, and the Trusteeship Council regarding the annual meeting of the principal organs of the UN, followed by the meeting agenda. Further to the replies I received regarding my letter of 4 October 1999, may I propose that our discussions on Tuesday, 26 October 1999, be based on the attached agenda. I look forward to seeing you. Kind regards. SECOND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE HEADS OF THE PRINCIPAL ORGANS OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Tuesday, 26 October 1999 (12:00 p.m.— Secretary-General’s Conference Room) Agenda

1. Brief review of developments in the Principal Organs a. General Assembly—President Theo-Ben Gurirab b. Security Council—President Sergey V. Lavrov c. Economic and Social Council—President Francesco Paolo Fulci d. Trusteeship Council—President Yves Doutriaux e. International Court of Justice—President Stephen M. Schwebel f. Secretariat—Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan 2. Humanitarian Intervention 3. Application of Article 19 of the U.N. Charter (Discussions to continue during the Luncheon) 4. Preparations for the Millennium Summit 5. Any Other Business

21 October 1999 Secretary-General Visits Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo

Presentation to the Security Council (EOSG); Balkans

Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to brief the Council on my recent productive and encouraging visits to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. During my visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina on 11 and 12 October, I met with members of the Presidency, the Council of Ministers and the Prime Minister of the Federation and the Deputy Prime Minister of Republika Srpska, along with Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials. In all my meetings with Bosnia representatives, the need to build a society based on the rule of law was highlighted as an area in which continued United Nations assistance was required. In particular, the creation of a democratic police force as well as an independent and impartial judiciary and the initiation of programmes aimed at good governance were considered to be of the highest importance. Another area in which United Nations assistance was sought was in establishing an effective border police service which could combat organized crime and smuggling through Bosnia and Herzegovina’s borders. In all these areas, the United Nations is already providing valuable assistance and will continue to do so. UNMIBH is currently taking stock of the progress achieved by the mission so far with a view to adapting its operations in light of the present stage of the implementation of the Dayton Peace process. Discussions on this matter will take place during the visit of the SRSG, Mr. Klein to New York next week. One area which was of primary concern to my interlocutors was the economic development of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this regard, they all stressed the requirement to build a sustainable economy which would attract investors to the country. In addition, emphasis was placed on Bosnia and Herzegovina assuming a central role in the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe and in participating in reconstruction and other economic activities in the region, particularly in Kosovo. On the return of refugees and displaced persons, there was a general acknowledgement that returns had not taken place as fast as either the Bosnians or the international community would have liked. The lack of employment opportunities and the unresolved issue of property ownership were cited as major impediments to returns. It is clear that more needs to be done in this area, including identifying ways and means of encouraging young people to return, thereby pro-

840 • 21 October 1999

viding the foundation for a revitalisation of the economy throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is also clear that the arrest of the remaining indicted war criminals will help the society as a whole in its attempts at reconciliation on the basis of truth and justice. Much remains to be done to strengthen the common institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to create a sense of common purpose between and within the two entities. The inter-entity institutions are not working as effectively or authoritatively as they should be. Within the Federation, too, more progress must be achieved in integrating institutions; it is clear that the Federation could function better as a federation. In the Republika Srpska, UNMIBH and, in particular the IPTF, are enjoying greater cooperation than in the past. Overall therefore it can be said that the progress achieved to date has been encouraging. The leadership of Bosnia and Herzegovina no longer exclusively focuses on the past but appears determined to look ahead to a future in which both entities share some common goals, including the assumption of a rightful place in Europe. The members of the international community engaged in Bosnia—principally the United Nations, OHR and SFOR—and working better together and the appointment of the former Deputy High Representative, Mr. Klein, as my Special Representative has re-enforced the sense of continuity in the commitment of the international community. The United Nations and the international community are committed to assisting the people of Bosnia in creating a multi-ethnic democratic police force, a functioning and professional judiciary and a thriving self-sustaining economy. Following my visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina, I visited the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo. It was not more than a few months ago that I saw the refugees in Albania and former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It was therefore very encouraging to see so many Kosovars returned to their towns and homes, and beginning to rebuild their lives and their communities. The return is truly remarkable. What I saw throughout my visit was a people determined to rebuild their lives and their society. And here I am not talking about bricks and mortar alone. A new Kosovo must be one in which democracy, good governance, human rights, justice and respect for one’s neighbours become facts of life. During my visit, one concern raised was the

precarious security situation for Serb, Roma and other minorities in the province. This concern for security was, in a most tragic way, underlined by the brutal killing of a newly arrived UNMIK staff member, Mr. Valentin Krumov, just days before I arrived. This killing, along with the unacceptable level of threats and violence directed at minorities and in some cases, UNMIK locally employed staff, illustrates the urgent need for enhancing international efforts to maintain stability and promote tolerance in Kosovo. In this regard, the continued support of KFOR for UNMIK’s activities, particularly in the area of law and order and minority protection must be emphasized. Let me say in this regard that UNMIK’s cooperation with KFOR is excellent, and that I had a very productive meeting with new Commander KFOR, General Reinhardt. It will also be necessary, as pointed out in my last report to the Council, to increase the number of UNMIK police in order that they may fully meet the challenges before them. It is my intention to submit to the Council in the very near future the additional police requirements for UNMIK. Mr. President, the memories of the history of discrimination and violence suffered by many Kosovars still remain fresh in the minds of the population. The continued violence and desire for revenge that permeate the society is, in many ways a result of their experience, but it is in no way acceptable. Revenge is not the way forward; it is a return to the past. Reconciliation—and not revenge—must be the foundation for a peaceful future in Kosovo. With the help of the international community, the people of Kosovo have a unique opportunity to put the past of hatred and violence behind them once and for all. Tolerance and respect for individual rights must form the basis of a new Kosovo. Almost all of the Albanian refugees have come back, and I hope that in time many of the Serbs and Romas who have left will also come back. We are determined to do whatever we can, with the understanding and the support of the population, to build a multi-ethnic Kosovo. Mr. President: this is the message that I passed in the meetings that I held with political representatives of all ethnic groups. In my meeting with the Kosovo Transitional Council, which both the Serb representatives, Bishop Artimije and Mr. Trajkovic, attended, I emphasized the need for all leaders to create a

22 October 1999 • 841 multi-ethnic, tolerant society in which all can live without fear. However as we have discovered from our past efforts, reconciliation is a long and slow process which requires constant dedication and oversight by the international community. Results cannot be expected immediately. I was however, gratified to see that all political representatives shared the common view that the future Kosovo should be one in which democracy, peace, justice and security prevail. It is clear that UNMIK must, in its administration of Kosovo, engage and include the population, under the executive authority of the SRSG. UNMIK is currently examining various administrative models which will permit the Kosovo population to participate more closely in the administrative functions of the mission. Discussions with Headquarters are ongoing in order to find the most appropriate way to strengthen this participation in conformity with Resolution 1244. In order to help the Kosovar people to elect their own representatives at various levels, I dispatched a mission of electoral experts led by Mr. Pat Bradley, a veteran of the Bosnia and East Timor operations, to look into conditions in Kosovo. His report is expected shortly. During my visit to Pec, I was encouraged by the progress made in the regions, as reported to me by the five UNMIK Regional Administrators. They also noted the establishment of interim municipal advisory councils which are enabling UNMIK to interact effectively with the population at the local level. It is vitally important that UNMIK have the financial and other resources to ensure the delivery of basic services throughout Kosovo. These services, which range from paying teachers, repairing utilities, ensuring functioning health services and providing basic equipment for, among other things, the Kosovo Police Service, all require a level of resources which cannot be met from the currently-generated customs revenues or donor contributions. There is an urgent requirement for UNMIK to be provided with voluntary contributions, both in cash and in kind, in order for the mission to fulfil its obligations in these areas. I appeal to the international community to respond generously to UNMIK’s requirements. This includes the urgent and important efforts to provide housing and improve the winterization of homes throughout Kosovo. The winterization shelter programme is a race against time, and it is impossible to winterize

every destroyed home in Kosovo in time. But some progress is being made, and three- to fourhundred thousand people are expected to stay with host families for the duration of the winter. Over the longer term, UNMIK must engage further in its efforts to develop a viable and selfstaining economy, including the creation of more jobs in a society where unemployment is high and remains a potential source of instability. I also remain concerned about the persistence of socalled parallel structures of illegal “taxation”, which amount to extortion of merchants, shopkeepers and those crossing the Kosovo border. Mr. President with regard to the UNMIK mission itself, I would like to pay special tribute to my Special Representative who is leading the mission with energy, initiative and a deep commitment to the people of Kosovo. I was also highly impressed by the dedication of the staff to their unique and unprecedented responsibilities, despite the very difficult circumstances under which they are operating. This is in no small measure due to the excellent quality of staff offered by many Member States. I would like to thank you for your support in this area. I was also impressed by the collegial spirit that has now developed between the four pillars that make up UNMIK. The non-UN pillars that is, the OSCE and the European Union are playing an important and indispensable role in the implementation of the UNMIK mandate. Thank you.

22 October 1999 Letter (EOSG); Iraq Letter to the president of the Security Council, Sergey Lavrov, with the attached note of 22 October from Benon Sevan, executive director of the Office of the Iraq Program. In several of my reports to the Security Council on the humanitarian programme in Iraq pursuant to resolution 986 (1995), including my latest report (S/1999/896 and Corr. 1), I have expressed concern about delays in the approval of applications submitted to the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 661 (1990). In particular, I have referred to the growing number of holds placed on applications and the resultant serious implications for the implementation of the humanitarian programme. In this connection, I attach, for the information of the members of the Security Council, a note addressed to me by the Executive Director of the

842 • 22 October 1999

Iraq Programme. As indicated in that note, the number of holds placed on applications by the Security Council Committee has continued to increase in the two-month period that has passed since the submission of my last report to the Council, on 19 August 1999. To enable the Iraq Programme to meet the humanitarian objectives set forth in resolutions 986 (1995) and 1153 (1998) it is highly desirable to find a prompt solution to this problem. To this effect, I believe it would be very helpful if the Committee could undertake an early review of all applications currently on hold with a view to expediting a decision, as appropriate, in each case. * * * Holds on Applications

In your most recent report to the Security Council on the humanitarian programme in Iraq pursuant to Security Council resolution 986 (1995), submitted on 19 August 1999, you stated that there had been a significant increase in the number of holds being placed on applications, with serious implications for the implementation of the humanitarian programme; you also recommended that an all-out effort be made to review further all the holds concerned and to expedite the approval of applications, in order to ensure the timely and effective implementation of the programme (S/1999/896 and Corr.1, para. 101). While some effort has been made recently by members of the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) in lifting holds on drought-related applications, as well as for applications related to water and sanitation and oil spare parts, the number of holds overall continues to increase. Since your report to the Security Council of 19 August 1999, the number of holds on applications has increased from 475 (total value about $500 million) to 572 (total value about $700 million). As at 12 October 1999, for example, 23.7 per cent of applications circulated under phase V had been placed on hold. There is a high level of holds on applications circulated under phase V for telecommunications (100 per cent), electricity (65.5 per cent), water and sanitation (53.4 per cent) and oil spare parts and equipment (43 per cent). It is also noted that the time required by members of the Committee to review holds is becoming longer, on average 34 days. It is, of course, well understood that with large-scale and complex contracts, in particular those involving infrastructure, more time is needed by members of the Committee to consult with

their authorities and to review applications circulated by the Office of the Iraq Programme for their consideration and approval. Nonetheless, unless immediate measures are taken by all concerned, including both the Committee and the Government of Iraq, the serious difficulties already being experienced in the implementation of the programme will be exacerbated. Accordingly, the Office of the Iraq Programme has further intensified its efforts to assist the Committee in carrying out its responsibilities for a thorough and timely review of applications circulated. The information the Office seeks to provide, in consultation with all concerned parties, includes priorities, interrelated and time-sensitive applications, required delivery dates, potential dual-use items and spare parts and any additional information which might be useful to the Committee in its consideration of applications. As requests by members of the Committee for additional technical details account for almost half the applications placed on hold, we have just finalized guidelines to assist applicants in providing more details prior to circulation and consideration of applications by the Committee. Early provision of detailed technical information by the Government of Iraq and its suppliers could contribute to reducing the number and duration of holds. The second most common reason given for holds relates to concerns about end users. In accordance with the purposes set out in paragraph 4 of resolution 1153 (1998), we have sought to deploy the United Nations observers in Iraq in such a way as to provide, to the extent possible, the required assurances to the Committee that all supplies authorized for procurement, including potential dual-use items, are indeed utilized for the purpose for which they have been authorized. In addition to keeping the Committee fully informed on a regular basis of the status of holds on applications, we have arranged briefings by experts in order to provide additional clarifications and/or technical advice. Another serious issue occurs when an application or a number of interrelated or complementary applications have been approved by the Committee, and the related supplies and spare parts or equipment have arrived in Iraq but are then kept in storage for an extended period because another interrelated or complementary application is on hold. The absence of a single item of equipment, sometimes insignificant in size or value, can be sufficient to prevent the completion of an entire project.

24 October 1999 • 843 In consultation with the Government of Iraq, the United Nations Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq and the United Nations agencies and programmes concerned, we have been reviewing the inventory of supplies and equipment in government warehouses, provided under the programme, in order to identify items that have arrived in Iraq but cannot be utilized because of holds on complementary inputs, thus causing delays in the implementation of specific activities or projects. It is evident that efforts by the members of the Security Council Committee and the Secretariat alone will not be sufficient to resolve the difficulties being experienced at present. A special effort is also needed on the part of the Government of Iraq as well as its suppliers in providing the detailed information required by the Committee in a timely manner. We will continue to consult with the Government of Iraq with a view to presenting requirements on the basis of interlinked projects rather than general allocations for each sector. This was the approach proposed in your supplementary report to the Security Council of 1 February 1998 (S/1998/90) and subsequently endorsed in paragraph 5 of resolution 1153 (1998). As noted in paragraph 23 of the report, in many sectors the underlying procurement framework of the distribution plans has not fostered an approach where humanitarian problems have been addressed by a corresponding project to target appropriate resources. In this context, I have requested the Government to inform the Office of the Iraq Programme as soon as interrelated contracts relating to the same project are concluded between the Government and its suppliers so that the Office can present those applications to the Committee in a manner which makes clear the linkages between the different items being procured. I have also requested that the Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, in consultation with the Government of Iraq and the United Nations agencies and programmes, provide the Office of the Iraq Programme, on a regular basis, with detailed reports on the impact of holds on the implementation of the programme. This has been requested in the past but takes on particular urgency and importance given the current level of holds. The Office of the Iraq Programme will submit those reports to the Committee. While remaining realistic about the prospects for significant improvement in the current situation, I believe it would be important for the

Security Council and its Committee to keep under constant review, in as flexible and pragmatic a manner as possible, all procedures and activities regarding the implementation of the programme, in order to resolve any difficulties faced in the implementation process. (Signed) Benon V. Sevan Executive Director Office of the Iraq Programme

24 October 1999 Secretary-General Says UN Day a Time to Take Stock of Past, Then Look Forward to Future

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7181 OBV/115); UN Day Text of the message by the Secretary-General on United Nations Day, which is observed 24 October. This year’s United Nations Day is a special one. The world’s population has just passed 6 billion, and we are about to enter a new millennium. In one sense, both these things are simply numbers. Yet both give us something to celebrate, and something to think about. Together, they mark the opening of a new chapter in human history—a chapter in which, more than ever before, we shall all share the same destiny. It is a moment to take stock: to look back on what we have achieved, and where we have failed—and then to look forward, and think how we can make the new era better than the old. It is shocking to think that half of us—3 billion out of the 6 billion—are entering the new era in abject poverty, with $3 a day, or less, to live on. That is one thing we really must change. It is also shocking that people in so many places today are exposed to violence and brutality. The twentieth century has been the most murderous in human history. We must make sure the twenty-first is more peaceful, and more humane. And it is worrying that the world’s climate seems to be changing, in a way which could destroy the homes and livelihoods of millions. Controlling and managing this process may yet prove to be the biggest challenge of all. People all over the world look to the United Nations to protect them—from hunger, disease, violence, and natural disasters—whenever the task seems too big for nations, or regions, to handle alone. But we, at the United Nations, can do nothing alone, either. Our strength is the strength of our Member States, when they agree to act together for the common good.

844 • 24 October 1999

Next year, leaders from all over the world will come to New York for the Millennium Summit. They will consider the challenges ahead, and what the United Nations can do to face them. Those leaders will be representing you, the peoples of the United Nations. It is up to you to make sure they come here firmly resolved to take decisions which can lead to a better life for all of us, and for our children. I am counting on you all—and I thank you all.

25 October 1999 Letter (EOSG); East Timor Letter to the president of the Security Council, Sergey Lavrov. Dear Mr. President, I refer to resolution 1272 (1999) which the Security Council adopted today, authorizing the establishment of the United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor (UNTAET). I should like to inform you that, following consultations, I intend to appoint Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello as my Special Representative and Head of the UNTAET. I should be grateful if you would bring this matter to the attention of the members of the Security Council. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

27 October 1999 Secretary-General Proposes Budget for 2000–2001

Speech (EOSG, SG/SM/7197, GA/AB/3323); UN budget Speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the 5th Committee (Administrative and Budgetary), introducing the proposed UN program budget for the biennium 2000–2001. As Secretary-General and Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations, I am pleased to present to you my proposed programme budget for the biennium 2000–2001. I am proposing a budget totalling $2,535 million: virtually the same level, in real terms, as the last biennium. Of course, there are other procedures that must be applied before a final budget is settled upon. My proposals call for small but important increases in certain priority areas: our efforts for peace and development in Africa; our delivery of

vital humanitarian assistance; our promotion and protection of human rights; our fight against drug trafficking and organized crime; and our training programmes to ensure that staff have the skills and knowledge they need to do their jobs. Internal oversight and capital expenditures will also receive modest increases. We have also made provision for special political missions whose mandates, though set to expire in 1999, may be renewed for part or all of the next biennium. To accommodate these increases, savings will be achieved in administration, common support services and through other efficiencies. Also in response to priorities established by you, the Member States, I am proposing that more than 500 posts be redeployed among the various programmes and sub-programmes. Our work is ever-changing, with surprises and shifting demands, and so it is essential that the United Nations be able to put the right person in the right place at the right time, and to apply its resources where they are most needed. The budget also reflects the ongoing reform effort. I welcome the resolution adopted by this Committee, last week, concerning the modalities for the Development Account. This will enable us to build up the account; quantify our efficiency gains; and use those savings for development activities. The first set of projects from the current biennium’s funds are under way, and I know you share my hopes for what we can achieve through this mechanism. Another crucial part of reform is the shift towards results-based-budgeting. My budget represents the first steps in that process, and includes statements of expected accomplishments for all substantive areas. For example, in the area of disarmament, we set out expectations covering negotiating processes, publications and outreach programmes, and even some region-specific efforts. But this is just a first step. Separate proposals are before you to build on this and complete the shift to results-based-budgeting with widespread use of performance indicators. I know this will require considerable discussion and it will take time. With your support during this session of the General Assembly, and with your approval, we would be that much closer to the day when we will work with a fully results-based-budget. For five years, the United Nations has had absolutely no increase in its budget, even in nominal terms. In each of those years, the United Nations has cut spending to cover the cost of inflation, for a total of $350 million in cuts since

28 October 1999 • 845 1994—I repeat, $350 million in cuts since 1994. During that time, we have also absorbed special mission costs of over $100 million. And we have done so, within a budget total that is lower today than it was in 1994–1995. Despite this rigorous budget discipline, the United Nations has persevered. Across the breadth of our agenda, we have carried on, doing more with less, lamenting the unfortunate constraints placed on us but maintaining all the while our dedication to serving you and the peoples of the world. However, there comes a point at which further cuts would seriously compromise our ability to deliver the services that the Member States have mandated and expect from the Secretariat. Stringent budget discipline is one thing; a starvation diet, year upon year, is quite another, particularly when the Organization is continually asked to do more and more. The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) itself, in its review of the proposed budget, found no basis to propose any changes in the overall level of resources. The Committee also reiterated its concerns that continued reductions would compromise the quality and timeliness of services and lead to the curtailment or postponement of programmes. Something, somewhere, will have to give. Look around the world, from East Timor to Sierra Leone. Listen to the speeches last month at the General Assembly, on disarmament, development, discrimination and other urgent issues. Think for a moment about the 20th century. You will see and hear and understand why the international community continues to turn to the United Nations for its unique and universal services. Our agenda is long; demands continue to rise; expectations are high. We must respond, but we must also be realistic. My budget seeks to do so. I commend these proposals to you. They are solid, reasonable and rational. They represent value for money. They will help us in our efforts to build a strong United Nations and a peaceful, more humane world as we move into the 21st century. Thank you very much.

28 October 1999 Secretary-General Decides to Send UN Humanitarian Mission to Northern Caucasus

Press release statement (OSSG, SG/SM/7200); Chechnya The Secretary-General has, for some weeks, been concerned about the severe impact of the conflict

in Chechnya on the civilian population, many thousands of whom have been driven from their homes. He is in touch with the Russian authorities and has sent a senior official to Moscow to discuss the possibility of sending a United Nations humanitarian assistance mission to the Northern Caucasus (Ingushetia and Dagestan). Those consultations were successful, and a mission will leave for the region very soon—possibly before the end of the month. The Secretary-General reiterates his appeal to both sides in the conflict to show restraint, and to take special care to avoid civilian casualties. While the problem of terrorism is one of legitimate concern to all governments, it is important that the response to it should be proportional, and that the provisions of humanitarian law in armed conflict are respected at all times. In situations as complex as that in Chechnya, the solution must ultimately be political.

28 October 1999 Letter (UN archives); G-8 conference Note from Chief of Staff S. Iqbal Riza. Included is a handwritten note by the Secretary-General. NOTE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Subject: G-8 Millennium Conference on Conflict Prevention (16–17 December 1999—Berlin, Germany) 1. German Foreign Minister Joshka Fisher may visit New York on 3–8 November to deliver a personal invitation to you to attend the Conference in Berlin in the course of which a working dinner would be arranged to discuss the comparative advantages of the G-8 and the United Nations in conflict prevention. G-8 Foreign Ministers may point out that they are not planning to take over the United Nations role in conflict prevention, but want to pledge their support to the strengthening of this role. 2. The Conference would address the following issues which are to be reflected in a final statement: • control of the flow of arms to areas of possible conflicts; • strengthening of the civilian capacities for prevention in conflict-prone areas; • role of war economy in fomenting war (diamonds, oil, etc); • problem of child soldiers;

846 • 28 October 1999

• problem of mercenary and private military activity; and • promotion of the regional cooperation in the risk areas of the world. 3. Informal soundings made by DPA with G-8 staff on the possible participation of any other senior official from the United Nations, resulted in a view that the Foreign Ministers consider that the United Nations Secretary-General is their interlocutor. His participation, according to them, would establish “a valuable precedent” for the United Nations’ presence in future G-8 meetings. 4. Mr. Prendergast, while acknowledging that the Secretary-General normally only attends G-8 meetings at the Head of State/Government level, is nevertheless recommending your participation in the Berlin Conference. 5. It will be recalled that a precedent for your participation in G-8 summit was set in Denver and, in my view, there is no need to establish another precedent on a lower level. In responding, while appreciating the possible invitation from the German Foreign Minister, you may therefore wish to reiterate the United Nations interest in the Berlin Conference and your readiness to nominate the Deputy Secretary-General to represent the Organization (in view, say, of your other previous engagements). 6. While considering your personal participation as recommended by Mr. Prendergast, you may wish to keep in mind that there is some resentment on the part of certain influential member states (some are outside G-8, some are on the Council such as China) who perceive G-8 initiatives as attempts to supplant the Security Council as the main authority responsible for international peace and security. Noted with thanks. Let’s await the visit of FM [Foreign Minister Joschka] Fisher. —K.A. 29/10

1 November 1999 Letter (UN archives); human rights Letter from Pierre Sané, secretary-general of Amnesty International. Included is a handwritten note by the Secretary-General. Dea