Transcript of Q&A with Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General

[The following is a transcript of the Question-and-Answer Session held after Secretary-General Kofi Annan's speech at Yale University on Wednesday, October 2, 2002. Mr. Annan was speaking at Yale at the invitation of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. Questions, submitted prior to the speech by audience members, were posed to Mr. Annan by Ernesto Zedillo, the Director of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization.]

Mr. Zedillo: Mr. Secretary-General, there are many, many questions, and given the fact that you have to go back to New York to continue working on the problem that all of us know, we will be able only to transmit a few of these questions to you. We have chosen a few of the most difficult ones. The first one is: Is Saddam Hussein a threat to the international community? If so, how would you suggest dealing with him effectively?

Mr. Annan: As you know, the issue of Iraq, which also means Saddam Hussein, has been on the UN dossier for about twelve years now. At the end of the war, resolutions were passed requiring that Iraq be disarmed. The inspectors were sent from 1991, and they stayed until '98. Between '91 and '96, they did quite a lot of disarmament. They destroyed about 900 ballistic missiles, neutralized their nuclear efforts, destroyed some of their chemical weapons. They had less success with biological weapons, but they had by no means finished their work when they had to leave in December 1998. Since then we've not had inspectors back in Iraq. The Council demands that the inspectors should not only disarm Iraq and ensure that Iraq has been disarmed, but to certify to the Council that the job has been completed. And then the Council would eventually decide to lift sanctions, provided the disarmament function and other resolutions have been implemented.

Until that certification has come in, and the Council has assured itself that there are no weapons of mass destruction, we will have to assume that Iraq does possess weapons of mass destruction. On Monday and Tuesday the Chief Inspector Blix met with the Iraqi delegation in Vienna, and they have agreed to cooperate, but, of course, there is history to this. And there are member states who believe that inspectors cannot go back and continue business as usual, and that steps should be taken to strengthen the disarmament treaty and the inspectors, for them to be able to do their work more effectively. The Council is now discussing that resolution. The resolution has several components. First, that Iraq should disarm and indicate some time frames for certain actions to take place. They will demand that Iraq cooperates fully with the inspectors and give them unimpeded and unfettered access, and if the inspectors were to come back to say that they did not get that cooperation and they could not do their work, the Council will have to take a decision on what to do, which some believe should include the use of force. The question that the Council is also grappling with - should all this be in one resolution, or should we have two resolutions? The United States would prefer one resolution, demanding that Iraq disarms, cooperates with inspectors within a certain prescribed time limit, and if it fails, face all possible consequences. Other Council members would want to have a two-step approach - demand Iraq to perform, demand that it cooperates with inspectors, send them in, and if they do not get their cooperation, to come back to the Council, and then the Council will pass a second resolution on what action should be taken against Iraq. So this is where we are. So in short, the Council does not believe that Iraq is clean of weapons of mass destruction, and that certification, that judgment will be based on reports and certification from the UN inspectors.

Mr. Zedillo: Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General. A few weeks before President Bush's speech to the United Nations General Assembly, there was this sense, and particularly after his West Point speech, there was this sentiment and the sense that the United States would deal with the Iraqi question without going through the United Nations, and even without going through the US Congress. What would have happened, Mr. Secretary-General, to the multilateral system and particularly with the United Nations, if the United States had decided to go it alone in dealing with the Iraqi situation?

Mr. Annan: I think it would have been a real challenge to the multilateral system. As I indicated in my statement to the General Assembly on the 12th of September, that each country has an inherent right, under Article 51 of the UN charter, to defend itself when attacked. But when a country decides or a group of countries decide to do something about a broader threat to international peace and security, I don't see any other option than to go to the Security Council and the UN for legitimacy and for endorsement and authorization to take that action. And if we do not insist on that minimum order, I think we could find ourselves in a very difficult world, where countries can decide to take action against countries, not because they are threatened or they have been attacked, but they see a broader threat to international peace and security. That responsibility, under the Charter, belongs to the Security Council.

Mr. Zedillo: Thank you. Mr. Secretary-General, what do you think the United Nations can do with regard to resolution of the Kashmir issue in India but also in Pakistan?

Mr. Annan: Well, we have observers on the ground, but not that they are going to solve the problem. I think the UN and myself - I've always made my good offices available, and I work with lots of governments to help resolve conflicts. But the parties must be open. They must be prepared to accept the good offices. They must be prepared to work with a mediator. This is not the case in this particular conflict. The parties have not jointly agreed to accept a mediator or bring in a third party, and have tended to work bilaterally, with support from friendly nations, and recently by the United States and the United Kingdom, and I myself have been on the phone with the leaders of both countries. I think what is important is that these efforts continue and that we do not only de-escalate the tensions which exist today and get the two governments to withdraw their troops from the border, because when you have almost a million men confronting each other, accidents can happen, so we need to work with them to de-escalate. We need to not only get them to de-escalate but continue the process and seek a longer-term solution. And I hope that the recent efforts being made by friendly governments will help move the process forward. It is not an issue that is actively before the Security Council, because of what I've described as the unwillingness of both parties to refer to the Council or even deal with a third party mediator, and will want to deal with it bilaterally. And if they can do that, well and good. We will support them. We will work with them and give whatever encouragement we can.

Mr. Zedillo: Thank you. Would you comment on the United States' attitude towards the International Criminal Court? That's an easy one, too.

Mr. Annan: President Levin, you have tough students here. On the issue of the Court, earlier this year we had that big debate in the UN when the US asked for a blanket exemption for US troops and US citizens, and that really did disturb member states, particularly those who have ratified the Rome Statutes and fear that it would undermine the Court, even before it got off the ground, and were determined not to do anything that would go contrary to the statutes of the Court. The US has indicated that it is going to try to work out bilateral agreements with governments that will give US citizens this exemption. Several agreements, I understand, have already been signed. The European Union collectively reviewed this issue and they seem to believe they've come up with a compromise, where they will not pursue American citizens, provided they are put on trial in US courts.

This in a way is exactly what the Rome statutes says. The statutes makes it very clear that where you have a good legal system, and the government is prepared to put the accused on trial and to prosecute, the Court has no room. It is only in those situations where government is either unable or unwilling to prosecute, that the International Criminal Court can step in and take action. So if they are able to work out arrangements that are in conformity with the statutes, then I would not see much problem. But if it goes beyond that, and the arrangements are seen as weakening the Court, then it creates quite a lot of problems. Even though the US has not ratified the statutes, they signed it and indicated they are not going to ratify it - some say they have unsigned it. I don't think you can unsign a document you have signed - it's a historic fact, but you may decide not to ratify it.

But I think that if the Court gets off to a good start, appoints outstanding prosecutors, outstanding judges, and really begins to do a good job and establishes its credibility, I would not be surprised if the US turns to the Court, and the US may even need the Court much more than others, because the US has far greater global exposure than any country that I know. And there may be situations where they want to resort to the Court to deal with certain situations.

Until the Court was established, we had to resort to the establishment of ad hoc tribunals. We have ad hoc tribunals for Bosnia, we have one for Rwanda, and we are setting up a special court for Sierra Leone. And I have been in negotiations with Hun Sen in Cambodia to set up another court for Khmer Rouge. How many ad hoc tribunals are we going to set up? And in fact in most of these cases, it's also seen as the justice of the victim. I mean, if you talked to Slobodon Milosovich today, he would think if he had won, he wouldn't be in court. So you have these kinds of situations. And when we have a standing International Criminal Court, I think we will get away from all these accusations and all these tensions.

And I also believe that we are finally putting into place the missing link in international criminal law, because until these tribunals were set up, and until the International Criminal Court was set up, it was much easier to put a man on trial if he killed one or two people, but when they killed hundreds and were responsible for ethnic cleansing, you had no means of getting them. Often they were the presidents, they were the generals, and they got away with it. Here we are, over 20 years later, thinking what we can do about the Khmer Rouge, and how do we set up a court to try those who killed millions. Now we have a court, and I hope it sends a message to those who would act with impunity, that they cannot escape. They will be brought to account, and there is a court that is waiting to put them on trial. And the US, as a democratic country, a country that believes in the rule of law, I hope in time will find its way to supporting the Court. Not today, not tomorrow, but I hope that the position is not immutable and that they will come on board.

Mr. Zedillo: Mr. Secretary-General, what is the United Nations doing to tackle the AIDS/HIV epidemic?

Mr. Annan: I'm glad you raised that point. I think it's the greatest tragedy the world is facing today. Africa is the hardest hit, and the AIDS epidemic is not just a health issue, it's a security issue, and it's an issue of economic development. In some countries it's taking out the most productive people - men and women in their prime. In some countries it's killing teachers faster than they can be replaced. And life expectancy in some countries is dropping as much as 20 years. And this is a real catastrophe. I spoke to one of the. The past weekend I went on a retreat with the senior UN officials and the head of the World Food Program, who is dealing with the crisis of famine in southern Africa, the six southern African countries. He had been on a field trip. And he came and said "I've never seen anything like this." He took his wife and he said, "It's changed our lives. You go to some villages and you see a grandmother, no other parents. Her children are gone and their husbands or spouses are gone, and she's responsible for 22 children. And she has to cope with that." And in some cases even where the people are sick there's no medication. Hospitals are crowded. And what is difficult and the most painful one is the mother-to-child transmission. And the awful thing is that most of the victims today are women, innocent young women and others who have been taken advantage of.

The UN tried to help by setting up the Global Fund. When we set up the Global Fund a little over a year ago, I indicated that we need $7-10 billion a year. We have got $2 billion. It's a good start, but it's not enough, not nearly enough. We have challenged pharmaceutical companies to work with us, to reduce their prices and make sure we can get medication to the poor. Some have responded well. Some foundations, like the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and other foundations are helping. Some governments are doing more to help the poor countries.

But I must stress that AIDS is a global epidemic. Africa is the hardest hit, but it's spreading very fast in Asia, in the former Soviet Republics, in China, in the Soviet Union, in the Carribean. And the figures are frightening, that if we don't do anything about these four or five countries, in another 10 or 15 years we'll have about another 50 million infected. So it is a really, really serious problem that we all need to become engaged with. And wherever I've been I've challenged leaders to lead the fight, to show leadership, to mobilize their entire societies to play a role, and not to keep silent, and to remove the stigma and discrimination attached to the disease. And I constantly remind them that silence is death and they have to lead and speak up. So whatever we can do individually basically will be important. So it's a global problem for all of us, and I urge everyone, in their own little way, whatever they can do, to help.

Mr. Zedillo: Is the international community meeting the Millennium Development Goals that were adopted two years ago, Mr. Secretary-General?

Mr. Annan: The results are mixed. We are not doing as well as we should, and if we're going to meet the targets by 2015, we should really step up our efforts. Some areas have done well. Southeast Asia has done well. They've come down from 28 percent to 14 percent, cutting in half the number of people living in abject poverty. South Asia has gone from 44 percent to 37 percent. Africa has the worst record. It has moved from 48 to 47, only one percent decrease. And if we are going to meet the goals we've set for ourselves, we need to do much, much more. We need to ensure that the development assistance which has been promised is given, we strengthen institutions and that we also provide access to markets for some of these countries. And in the area of education, ensure that we get more girls in school. There has been some progress, but still the gap has only been bridged by about 25 percent.

Mr. Zedillo: Thank you. The last question. Do you ever feel limited by restrictions on your authority. If so, at what times?

Mr. Annan: I'm not sure that I feel defeated. I find ways of fighting the limitations on my authority. Because, in a way, it's a bit like behaving as victim. If you behave as a victim you become a victim. And the way is, when you've been given a huge job to do, a responsible task, normally you would expect the authority and resources to come with it. They don't always come with it, but you have to try and determine how you can make a difference despite the limitations that those who give you the responsibility try to place on you, or despite the lack of resources that you need to get it done. You have to find creative ways of doing it. There are moments of frustration, there are moments of incomprehension that I don't understand, that if we really wanted to do this, the resources are there, the technology is there, the money is there. Why can't we muster the will? What does it take? What will shake us? What will move us? So we go through those moments of frustration and wonder what else you can do to get results, to shake people, but you should never be defeated by it. Because if you feel defeated and give up, then all is lost, particularly if you're in charge. If the captain gives up, you've lost the ship.