Original Source: http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp
Date: March 2, 2006

New York, 2 March 2006 - Secretary-General's press encounter upon arrival at UN headquarters
SG: Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. 
I know we are all consumed by the establishment of the Human Rights Council. The consultations continue, and the President [of the General Assembly, Jan Eliasson] is working very hard to ensure that the Member States can come to an agreement and move forward. The stakes are very high. It is almost an existential exercise, in the sense that, over the past year, with the debate on the establishment of the Council, there has been lots of criticism against the Human Rights Commission. The Commission, to some extent, has been discredited by its record. And now, we are on the verge of replacing it with the Human Rights Council. And if we are not careful and we make the wrong moves that unravel the Council, then we are in a situation where we have a Commission that we all claim is discredited, and the Council that should replace it is being unraveled. So I would urge the Member States to think about this as they move forward with their decision. The bad must always give in to the good, but the better must not be the enemy of the good. That is the advice I would want them to bear in mind as they attempt to settle this issue. 
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, doesn't it seem as if what we've got here is essentially the U.S. exercising a veto power they don't legally have in the General Assembly of course, but by saying “no”, it stops everybody from moving forward. They don't want to isolate the U.S. They don't want to have a Council that the U.S. doesn't support. Isn't that what the essence is, and what can you do about it? 
SG: I'm chagrined about the U.S. position. I don't know how it will evolve and how the issue will be resolved. The U.S. has had a very good record on human rights. It played a very important role in the establishment of the UN human rights machinery. And without the U.S., we probably would not have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So it does have a leadership and a moral position in this area, and I hope, as they move forward, it will find some way of associating itself with the other Member States. I don't think we should see it as isolating the U.S., or the U.S. versus the others. We are in this together. This is an issue of great importance to all of us. And I hope, with the work of the chairman, the consultations that are going on -- and I'm also in touch with quite a lot of people, including with capitals -- that we may be able to find some way forward. But we need to resolve this issue, for the reasons I've given you. 
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, yesterday Ambassador [John] Bolton, in laying out the U.S. position, said there are essentially two options available: one is to postpone consideration, and the other is to vote. Which would you prefer? 
SG: I think that is an issue for Member States. I have indicated in my comments to you and to the Member States that, for the reasons I have stated again this morning, it is important that the decision be taken as soon as possible. And I think the Member States should find a way of bringing this issue to closure. And so I think my position is clear. 
Q: Sir, you have spoken to [U.S.] Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice on this matter. Do the Americans indicate any possibility whatsoever on this topic, any sort of indication …? 
SG: As you know, Secretary of State Rice is in India at the moment. She is traveling with the President; they are very busy. I had spoken to her in the past but I expect to speak to her again, and I will also be seeing the other Ambassadors, including Ambassador Bolton, some time today. 
Thank you very much.