Source: http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=832 http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=832
Date: February 9, 2006

New York, 9 February 2006 - Secretary-General's press encounter upon arrival at UNHQ
SG: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 
Q: Good morning, Mr. Secretary-General. We see that you are meeting with the new Israeli Foreign Minister [Tzipi Livni] today, and the Quartet just met in London, which you attended. But yesterday Hamas reiterated that it will not recognize Israel. What's going to be the focus of your discussion with the Minister, and what is your message to the Palestinians? 
SG: I think we will discuss the situation on the ground, and the developments since the elections. And of course we have Israeli elections coming up in March. My message to the Palestinian people who voted and voted peacefully, in a calm and secure manner, is to pursue the effort that they have been engaged in with the Quartet in trying to implement the Roadmap. I think it is important for us to understand that the elections only just took place. Hamas won the elections but they have never been in government; they need time to organize themselves. The transitional government will stay in office for another three months, which hopefully will give Hamas time to organize itself for consultations to take place between President [Mahmoud] Abbas and the Hamas group. And there are discussions taking place in the region, in Egypt and in Saudi Arabia and others, with the group. I hope that, in the end, they will heed the Quartet statement urging them to honour all the obligations entered into by the Palestinian Authority, transform themselves into a political party, and accept the two state solution. I hope that eventually that is the direction they will go. They need desperately assistance on the financial and economic front, and we are doing whatever we can to help. Jim Wolfensohn, the Quartet envoy, is very busy talking to governments ensuring that the transitional government has the resources to carry out all its responsibilities. 
Q: Even with Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel, you still want the money? 
SG: We are at a very early stage of the game. As I said, there is a transitional government in place for three months. We are going to support that government to continue its work. I urge Hamas to listen to the appeals, not just from the Quartet, but from other governments in the region, asking it to transform itself into a political party. We must also understand that this is not the first time that an armed movement has transformed itself into a political party. There are lots of examples around the world. And I urge Hamas to go the same route. 
Q: On the subject of the cartoons, now something like 22 countries have shown these cartoons. Do you think that that should be stopped, that they should no longer be shown? And also, do you think, as the U.S. is suggesting, that certain countries are using this issue to stoke rage among… 
SG: Let me say that, honestly, I do not understand why any newspaper will publish the cartoons today. It is insensitive, it is offensive, it is provocative, and they should see what has happened around the world. This does not mean that I am against freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. Yes, I am for that, but as I have indicated in the past, freedom of speech is not a license. It does entail exercising responsibility and judgment, and quite honestly I cannot understand why any editor will publish cartoons at this time which inflames, and pours oil on the fire. 
As to the question of whether some governments are manipulating this, it's difficult for me to say. I have no evidence to that effect. This is so widespread, and it is unfortunate that we all need to take steps to calm the situation and whatever the anger of those concerned, violence is not the answer. They should not attack innocent civilians. They should not attack people who are not responsible for the publication of the cartoons. Whether it is a general condemnation of Denmark, or Europeans, it is wrong. They should really avoid doing that and violence must be condemned as unacceptable. 
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, the issue has sort of come to the UN in the sense that the Organization of the Islamic Conference has proposed three paragraphs to amend the draft resolution on the Human Rights Council. Have you seen that? And what do you think about what they embody, although they don't mention the cartoons? And what about the idea of bringing a divisive issue like that into the mix of a debate that is already, sort of, toxic? 
SG: Let me start by saying that we issued a statement. I worked with the Secretary General of the Islamic Conference, with the European [Union High] Representative [Javier] Solana, and we came up with a joint statement which I think speaks for the vast majority of states. And the ambassadors of the OIC here at the UN have also issued a statement which also came out yesterday, and I met with them yesterday, and I don't think they are in a confrontational mood at all. In fact they are responsible, and behaving responsibly, and working like all of us to calm the situation. The statement that they introduced in the discussion in the human rights debate is not inflammatory, it is not against blasphemy, it is a statement that would try and underline the need for respect for all religions. So I don't think it is something that goes counter to the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or even freedom of the press. And so let's wait and see the final statement that comes out. Obviously they, like me, would want to see the Human Rights Council established as soon as possible. I would want to see it done by the end of this month, so that when, next month, the human rights community comes together in Geneva, they will be meeting under the umbrella of the new Council. It is possible. We can do it, and I urge all the Member States to buckle down and get it done. And in fact, the uproar that we are all discussing here also underscores the importance of respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the rights, both freedom of expression and respect for religious rights. 
Q: When you called for Human Rights Council reform last year, you indicated you wanted a radical change. When you look at the document that has been produced, do you see that as kind of transformation, radical reform, that you envisioned at the beginning? 
SG: Let me say that negotiations are still going on. It is not over yet. It hasn't moved as fast as I would have liked. It may not be as radical as I would have liked, but I think you will see considerable changes and differences in the Council once it has been established to justify the changes that we have gone through. I don't think we should come to conclusions. Give it another week or so. The discussions are still going on. It is intense. It is frustrating, but I think at the end we will get a Council that we can all live with. It may not be everything we wanted, but I would expect it to be better than what we have today. 
Q: Sir, on the issue of the cartoons again, could it be that the silver lining of the issue is that it has actually engaged a worldwide discussion of what freedom of expression should be, and what the parameters ought to be? 
And on Hamas, Hamas has obviously won the Palestinian elections. The Islamic Brotherhood made big gains in Egypt. Religious parties won in Iraq. What do you read in that for the region, and for the world at large? 
SG: Let me start with your second question. I think, when you organize democratic elections, you can never anticipate the results, and you never know who wins or who emerges. I think the results you referred to, whether in Egypt or Hamas, indicate that the Islamic groups have been well organized. They have been able to organize themselves. You take the case of Palestine; Hamas has had a record of offering social services. They have had a record of being organized and disciplined, and of not being corrupt. What were the people voting for? Were they voting for a clean government? Were they voting for peace? Were they voting for a stable environment in which their kids could go to school? Or were they voting for a Hamas manifesto? My sense is that they were voting for a peaceful and stable and well-organized Palestine. So it is a lesson and a message for all rulers and politicians in the region, and everywhere in the world, that people want good government, and they will vote for people that they believe would offer that. Obviously, the question of organization and grass roots contacts also have played a role here. 
On the question of freedom of expression, I think the question is not even redefining the freedom of expression as we know it, as inscribed in the Universal Declaration. I often say it is a bit like religion. If there is a problem, it is not with the faith, but the faithful. It is not the text, it is the way we interpret it. I think it is also significant to recognize that many major newspapers, many responsible editors around the world did not publish the cartoons. And so, we should not use the behaviour of a minority of papers or editors to condemn the entire media and the press. 
Q: With the victories of Hamas, the gains of the Muslim Brotherhood and religious parties in Iraq - do you think that at the end of the day, the region is kissing goodbye to secular government? 
SG: I am not sure if the region is saying goodbye to secular government, or if the religious are better organized, and have acquired a reputation of being able to deliver. If that is the case, it is a message for ruling regimes, and for other parties, that this is what people are looking for. I am not ready to accept that it is a total rejection of secular movements and a total swing to Islamic parties. I think, if the regimes in power were seen to be delivering, were seen to be close to the people, I am sure the results would have been quite different. 
Q: Mr. Secretary-General. Do you see a role for yourself now that Iran has been reported to the Security Council? What role could you play, and could this be an issue that could help define the last year of your term as Secretary-General? 
SG: On the Iranian issue, the [International] Atomic [Energy] Agency is preparing a report for the end of the month. What is important is that both sides have said negotiations are not dead, negotiations are not over, and they are prepared to talk, and I would urge them to continue. In the meantime it would be important that no steps are taken that would escalate the already tense situation. And I hope Iran will continue to freeze its activities, the way they are now, to allow talks to go forward, to allow them to pursue the Russian offer, and to allow negotiations with the European Three and the Russians to come back to the table. Obviously if the issue were to be referred here to the Council, I would work with the Member States to find the best way to deal with it. 
Q: You are going to Washington on Monday, the first time in two years. Is there a sense of the SG who came back in from the cold after [inaudible]. What is going to be at the top of your list for discussions? 
SG: Let me say that, this is not my first trip to Washington in two years. Even though I haven't been to the White House, you should recall that the President has been here, and we have met in other fora, and we have been on the phone quite frequently, and so there has been quite a lot of dialogue going on between the Administration and myself. And I think we are working reasonably well together, both with the President and the Secretary of State [Condoleezza Rice]. I think, on my trip we will of course discuss the Iranian issue, the situation in Iraq, the Middle East. I would not be surprised if the issue of the cartoons comes up. And of course, we have the crucial issue of transformation of the Darfur operation, as well as Côte d'Ivoire, and I hope the reform that is taking place here. So we have a lot of issues on the agenda to discuss, and I am looking forward to the meeting. 
Q: A Sudan question: What will the UN peacekeepers, what would they be able to do, aside from regularizing the financing, what would they be able to accomplish that the AU has not? And what lessons should we draw from the failure of the AU forces? 
SG: Let me say that the African Union forces did really courageous and noble work. They didn't have the large numbers that would have been required for a region the size of Darfur. They didn't have logistical support. They didn't have the mobility, either on the ground or in the air, that you would need to cover an area of that kind. If the Council asks us to move in, and we are doing contingency planning, we would expect to go in with a completely different force, and have a completely different concept of operation. I would want to see a highly mobile force on the ground in Darfur. A force that would be able to crisscross the territory in APCs and jeeps, and would also have tactical air assets to be able to be on the ground when there is an SOS – not to arrive after the harm has been done - and to be able to send a message to the militia and the people causing the damage that we have a force that is capable to respond, a force that is everywhere, and a force that will be there on time to prevent them from intimidating and killing the innocent civilians. But such a force would require the participation of governments with highly trained troops who are also well equipped. It is not going to be easy for the big and powerful countries with armies to delegate to third world countries. They will have to play a part if we are going to stop the carnage that we see in Darfur. 
Q: Will you be asking them for troops? 
SG: They will have to commit troops and equipment. Or if they don't want to do it, help us find the troops and equipment to be able to undertake the mandate they give us. 
Q: There is some concern that, were Western countries to send troops to Darfur, you may end up with another Holy War in an Islamic country. 
SG: I know that that has been a concern, and some people in Sudan have raised that possibility. But I think this is where we need to work with the government, and the African Union needs to work with us to convince the government that they are coming in to help contain the situation, but they are not coming in as an invading or a fighting force. Already, with the African Union forces, we do have experts and troops from outside the region, who are offering technical advice to the African Union forces, with the consent of the Sudanese government. I do not think it is impossible to get them to agree to allow a UN force, which contains troops from outside Africa, to come to Darfur. And so, I am very optimistic. 
Q: Will you ask President Bush for a commitment? 
SG: I will discuss it with him. I will take it. 
Q: Will you ask him, will you specifically say “President Bush, I want you to send troops. I want you to commit equipment.”? 
SG: I will share with him the facts that I have shared with you, the needs that we have, and the countries that I think can supply those needs, and that will include the U.S. Thank you.