É«¿âTV

It's a great pleasure for me to be back in Oslo so soon after my wife and I had a wonderful visit here last August. And of course, it's a tremendous honour to be here as the recipient of the Nobel É«¿âTV Prize in its centenary year.

As you know, the Prize has been awarded in two equal parts, to myself and to the United Nations as such. The President of the General Assembly, who is here with us, the General Assembly is the body which represents all the 189 Member States on the basis of sovereign equality, and the President is here to receive the Prize on behalf of the Organization. He has also graciously agreed that there should be a single Lecture, which I will deliver at the ceremony tomorrow, but at this press conference he will speak for the United Nations as a whole.

Speaking for myself, I can only say that I am humbled by this great honour. I never expected or imagined that I could share a pedestal with such heroes of the struggle for peaceful change as Martin Luther King, or Aung San Suu Kyi, or Nelson Mandela. Any achievements I can claim are certainly not mine alone, but the fruit of remarkable teamwork and dedication, dedication on the part of many colleagues on the UN staff and in our missions around the world.

Those missions are as difficult and as dangerous today as they have ever been. We face enormous challenges in the weeks and months ahead - not least in Afghanistan, where the agreement reached in Bonn last week makes great demands on the United Nations.

It seems almost indecent to be accepting a prize for peace, when peace and security are still denied to so many people in different parts of the world - especially on my own continent of Africa, and in the Middle East.

I am particularly sorry that Mr. Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres are not able to join us. I had hoped that they would be here, so that we could discuss ways of helping the peace process by giving more and generous economic assistance to the Palestinian population, and indeed a conference had been planned here for that purpose.

But alas, the terrible violence of the past week means that their efforts are even more urgently needed on the ground. They are working with representatives of the international community, including the great Norwegian peacemaker, Terje Roed-Larsen - who is my special representative in the region - in a desperate effort to salvage the peace process and haul both sides back from an even deadly escalation. We must all pray for their success.

Let me now give the floor to the President of the General Assembly, and then we will both take your questions.

Thank you very much.

President of the General Assembly: Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me begin by saying that it is a great honour for me to accept the Nobel É«¿âTV Prize on behalf of the United Nations Organization. On behalf of the entire family of the United Nations, I would like to thank the Nobel Committee and the people of Norway for choosing the United Nations as this year's Nobel É«¿âTV Prize winner.

I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who shares this year's prize with the United Nations, for his many devoted contributions to promoting world peace and to improving and strengthening our organization.

Various United Nations bodies have received the Nobel É«¿âTV Prize in the past, but never the United Nations as such in the 55 years of its existence. Perhaps, by its very nature, the United Nations is the kind of organization whose achievements are cumulative, becoming increasingly apparent over time.

In the work of our organization, there are often long fallow periods before the seeds that are planted bring forth a bountiful harvest. Also, much of our most productive work takes place far from the media spotlight. Except in the case of some peace-keeping operations, it is rare that a United Nations-related story would make the front page or lead a news broadcast.

Yet I believe that in the past five-and-a-half decades the United Nations has had a more profound effect on the lives of hundreds of millions of human beings than even the most dramatic news stories. It is this long-term achievement that is being recognized this year by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

At the same time, I have no doubt that the award is meant to offer encouragement to the men and women of the United Nations in carrying out their work. Such encouragement will be especially welcome to the thousands of United Nations personnel who serve under extremely difficult conditions, often at grave physical risk to themselves.

The most famous of these was, of course, the second Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold, who was posthumously awarded the Nobel É«¿âTV Prize in 1961. But there have been many others who preceded and followed him.

As a result of this year's award, the United Nations will be further encouraged to serve as a beacon illuminating the way forward for the international community as it rises to confront new challenges in the 21st century.

As you know, this year's General Assembly session has been a quite extraordinary one as a result of the tragic events of 11 September. Nevertheless, I believe we have successfully managed the work of the session through the dedication and perseverance of all concerned. In particular, the General Debate, although delayed from September to November, was successfully completed with the participation of a total of 188 speakers, including 42 Heads of State and Government, nine Deputy Prime Ministers and 96 Foreign Ministers.

However, our mission in this Session is not yet finished. In response to the unprecedented nature and magnitude of the terrorist attacks against the United States in September, the United Nations is playing a central role in addressing this challenge. Most importantly, the General Assembly and the Security Council have worked hard to coordinate their efforts in combating international terrorism. And we will continue to do so until the very end of the Session.

Lastly I would like to thank our Norwegian hosts for their gracious hospitality. And thank you for your time and attention.

Q: Alisdair Doyle, Reuters: I would like to ask the Secretary-General, please. Last week you said that the world needed a more creative approach to the Middle East. I wonder if you have any more thoughts about what that solution could be please.

SG: I am extremely concerned about the situation in the Middle East, as many of you here in this room are. I think for over a year now the parties have been trying to end the conflict. They both accepted the Mitchell É«¿âTV Plan and yet we've not been able to see much progress on the ground. I have been in touch with others leaders and other organizations which are actively involved in this crisis, particularly with the United States, the European Union, the Russian Federation and myself, and also working with other Arab leaders. And I think the parties alone cannot do it themselves, they need help from a third party and in this case I believe it has to be a collective international effort. And this is why for sometime now I have been working with the parties that I have mentioned for us to pool our efforts and find a way of helping the parties get back from the brink. We have exchanged some ideas, we are in constant discussions, but I cannot say that at this stage we have decided on concrete action to be taken. What has encouraged me is also the greater involvement of Washington, which has had General (Anthony) Zinni on the ground with William Burns and that also signals a determination to get much more actively engaged and we will work with them. But we are searching for the timing and also concrete action that should be taken. But I maintain my position that the parties alone cannot do it and we need as an international community to help them and I believe down the line it will take a collective international initiative and action to bring stability to the region.

Q: Christian J°rgensen, Morgenbladet, Iceland: Secretary-General, there are those who say that UNMIK is going to be in charge in Kosovo for many decades to come. If they are right and if Afghanistan is going to be a similar assignment, how will this affect the future of the United Nations?

SG: Let me - I know that some of these operations can go on for a while. I do not know how long we will be in Kosovo. We have just organized elections leading to internal independence. The question of the final status of Kosovo is yet to be tackled, and I think in due course the international community will focus on that. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, I think it's a very complex and a difficult situation and I believe it is going to require the involvement of the international community for a long time to come. And here I am not referring only to the humanitarian situation but the political development on the ground, as the assistance we are going to give to the Afghans to establish a stable state, an Afghan society with a stable administration that is loyal to the people, that honours its commitments to the international community and its neighbours, an Afghan government that is determined to ensure that the average Afghan woman and man have their rights respected, particularly the women. And I believe if we all pursue this objective, not just the Afghan factions but also the neighbours, we cannot support without the support of the neighbours, and the neighbours accepting that the government of Afghanistan needs to be loyal to the Afghan people and not necessarily to one or the other of the neighbours. We will then get involved in recovery and reconstruction and that I think is going to be a very long term process, perhaps as much as ten years. My only hope is that the political will to help the Afghan people will be sustained over the period and that our attention will not wander and that Afghans will be forgotten and the UN will be in there struggling to do what it can without the material and political support.

Q: .... from Development Today: I have a question to the Secretary-General about the reform process in the UN. You have carried out a reform of the UN agencies especially focusing on improved coordination and efficiency in the field. A fresh Nordic assessment of UN reform concludes that this is moving very slowly. What will you do to speed up the process and how do you characterize the Nordic role in the UN reform process?

SG: I think the reform of an organization such as ours is always a complex and sometimes a slow process, but what is important is we all recognize that reform is a process and not be an event and that you have to look at it over time, and the search for excellence is an ongoing process. We've made some progress, we've made considerable progress, but I would not say that we are there yet. I think at the country level, in any particular country, I can say today that the UN agencies are working much better together; they are working much more cohesively, pooling their efforts in any particular country to have greater impact on the problems and the developments of the countries concerned. You refer to the Nordic role. We have received support from Nordic governments, who have been very concerned about effective delivery of development assistance and also concerned that institutions in the developing countries be strengthened to enable them to play an effective role in the development of their countries and also to be able to attract other investors and other sources of funding so we have had quite a lot of support from Nordic countries and Nordic development ministries and we hope that will also continue.

Q: Pierre .... , Agence France Presse: My question goes to the Secretary-General. Back to Afghanistan. I would like to be updated about the international force. Do you have a timetable? Do you know who is going to be in command?

SG: The Member States of the Security Council are still discussing the issue of the international force. We have several countries who have indicated willingness to participate in the force. Eventually the Security Council will perhaps adopt a resolution authorizing the force. I expect the force to be a multinational one, a coalition of the willing, as it were, with a lead nation moving into Afghanistan to ensure we have the secure environment, initially in Kabul and other cities to allow us to carry out our work in the humanitarian field, to assist the incoming, the new administration in Kabul to carry out its mandate. Assist in the sense of ensuring that the environment is secure enough for them to operate, and I think it would also help the humanitarian situation, because for the moment we are able to get a reasonable amount of food into Afghanistan, but delivery has become a problem. We cannot distribute because of banditry and insecurity, and I would hope that the presence of the forces would help. As to timing, I am not in a position to indicate exactly when the forces will get in. The new administration is to take over in Kabul on the 22nd of December, so that is a target date. Whether the forces will be there before then is a bit early to say because some crucial decisions - it depends on countries of the Security Council - have not been taken. But I would expect within the next week or so for us to have some clearer ideas as to how the force is going to be put together, who is likely to participate and when they will arrive on the ground.

Q: Karl Bergstr÷m, Swedish Television: Mr. Secretary-General, is the overthrow of the Talibans in Afghanistan enough to justify the war, or is it a failure as long as Osama bin Laden has not been caught?

SG: Let me answer your question in a broader context. I think we are all confronted with a struggle against terrorism. In that struggle the United Nations has a very important role to play, and I think the United Nations is laying the foundation for the long-term struggle against terrorists. The foundation can be found in the resolutions of the Security Council, particularly Resolution 1373, which requires that governments do not harbour terrorists, do not give them financial support and that governments share intelligence and information, and it is mandatory and it applies to all the 189 Member States and in that sense it is an historic and very important Resolution, which will require cooperation across borders to fight terrorism. On top of that, the General Assembly has approved twelve protocols and conventions dealing with international terrorism which gives us a common legal framework in the fight against terrorism. I think in the long term this is how we are going to defeat the terrorism, by cooperation across borders. We win the fight by cooperating fully amongst nations, or we don't win it at all. The action in Afghanistan is part of that struggle and perhaps the most dramatic part of it, but in the scheme of things I see it as a very short term effort. Yes, the Council Resolution did indicate that the perpetrators of the 11 September attack should be brought to justice and if bin Laden and some of his supporters are caught and brought to justice, in line with the Resolution, it would be fulfillment of that mandate. But really when we talk about fight against terrorism, it's a much broader fight and it's a long term proposition and I think it has to be based on the Resolutions of the Council and the protocols that have been endorsed. And let me repeat, we can only succeed if we cooperate across borders and cooperate fully, or we will not succeed at all.

Q: Ole Bertelsen, Netavisen, Norway. A question for the Secretary-General: As a follow up on the questions regarding Afghanistan, you mentioned that the fight against terrorism - in that fight - that the UN will have a very significant role as a cooperating body, but with the situation in Afghanistan as it is now, are you not afraid that the UN will be tied up, as a hostage if you like, and also in terms of the resources necessary to rebuild Afghanistan, with similar actions against terrorism. Thank you.

SG: There is always a risk when you get into a major operation like the one in Afghanistan that attention will be diverted from other parts of the world and other essential issues to Afghanistan. There could be a diversion from other crisis spots or from the fight against poverty or HIV/AIDS to Afghanistan. Would the resources going to Afghanistan be fresh and new money or the transfer of resources from other priority areas to do that? So you raised a very good question here. In my contacts and discussions with governments, I've always tried to remind them that the other crises that existed on the 10th of September are no more urgent today than they were before the attacks, and that we should focus on those as well, whether it's poverty, conflict resolution or the fight against HIV/AIDS. You are right that the UN may be engaged in Afghanistan for a long time, but I would want us to see the UN in a much broader context. The UN should not be seen as only the Secretariat and those who work in the building in New York. The UN should be all governments, should be civil society, should be all of us. And I think if we all focus on the challenges confronting the world today, and we maintain our interest and play a part, and we work in partnership, I think we will have the capacity and the means not only to deal with Afghanistan but to continue working on the other crises we have jointly identified and know exist in the world today.

Q: Associated Press.... : Mr. Annan, I trust from the address you gave at the beginning that there is no truth to the rumours that you asked Arafat not to come to this meeting after Peres turned down the visit. And if you would like to comment on that, my actual question would be, do you not feel at all uneasy accepting the É«¿âTV Prize when there are so many conflicts around the world, especially a bloody one in the Middle East and the Afghanistan bombings? Thank you.

SG: I did indicate that I was sorry that both Arafat and Shimon Peres were not here, because if they had come we would have had a chance to discuss the situation on the ground and in fact a meeting had been arranged for precisely that purpose. And I also indicated that it seems rather odd to be receiving a peace prize at a time when we have so many conflicts in the world. But I think that also exemplifies the world we live in. The good and the evil unfortunately live side by side. Conflicts will be here with us. What is important is that we do not lose hope and we have the courage to keep working to end conflicts. And I believe this is also the message from the Nobel É«¿âTV Committee, that it has given us hope, courage and urging us to move ahead as hard as we can to confront these conflicts. And I think in that spirit we have been given a real challenge and we're going to keep at it.

Q: Atle..., Norwegian Daily, Bergenske Tidende: You said in your first answer that that the timing must be right to intervene in the Middle East, but isn't time running out in that conflict?

SG: I think when you talk of time running out in that conflict, I think in a sense once violence has exploded to the extent that it has one can always say that we missed an opportunity to stop the explosion. And indeed peace in the Middle East is perhaps as urgent today, if not even more urgent. When I referred to timing, I had in mind, I was referring to a collective international action when everyone is ready for us to really move forward in unison to encourage the parties to stop the fighting and come to the table. And I've also noticed in these conflicts it is when the whole international community acts with unity and as one that we are often able to have the right impact on the crisis. And we saw this in Bosnia and in other situations, and I'm hoping that collective effort would also yield results in the Middle East.

Q: .. Radio Free Asia: You mentioned Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in your statement, and your special envoy has just returned from Burma, Mr. [Ismael] Razali. Can you elaborate on the progress he has made with his mediation in Burma, please?

SG: I think Mr. Razali has made quite a bit of progress. The parties are talking. Not only are they talking, many prisoners of war have been released and we expect the releases to continue. We would hope that the time would come when both parties will have sufficient confidence in the process to say something publicly to the people and to the world, but I am encouraged by the developments and I am waiting for a full report from Mr. Razali once he's able to get it to me.

Q: .... Norwegian Television: It was said yesterday that expanding the war on terrorism on to other states would be a disaster. Do you agree with that term "disaster"?

SG: I think that links up with the question which was raised earlier, about the war in Afghanistan. I have had the chance to say when there was comments about perhaps taking the war on terrorism to Iraq that any attempt or any decision to attack Iraq today will be unwise and that it can lead to major escalation in the region and I would hope that would not be the case. The Council and all of us in the UN and particularly the resolution I referred to has indicated that the perpetrators of the 11 September attack should be brought to justice and I suspect that most of the efforts will be on that. Any attempt to take military action in other parts of the world would be something that the Security Council will have to take up. The Council has not authorized any such action. And this is why I have also stressed the nature, the long-term nature of the fight which will have to be based on cooperation, exchange of intelligence and really trying to ensure that terrorists have no refuge in any of our countries.

Q: The Nation Newspaper, Bangkok: During our symposium here in Oslo, some of the Laureates have mentioned that the hope for peace and safety in the world in the future lies more with the civil society than with the UN - or the nation states. How do you reflect on such remarks?

SG: I think we are living in a world where we all have to pool our efforts to tackle the challenges we face today. Just as I have indicated in the past that governments alone cannot do it and that the UN can't do it alone, I am not sure it to be right to say that civil society alone can do it. What is required is for us to work in partnerships, partnerships between governments, civil society, international organizations like the one I'm privileged to head and the private sector. And I think by working together in partnership, not only do we expand our capacity, we bring our collective effort to bear on whatever problem we decide to tackle. So I will speak for partnerships rather than monopoly of a civil society tackling these issues. And I don't think civil society would want it that way either.

Q: "Ungdoms Avisen" (Youth's Newspaper) How can you, who sees their families and friends get killed in war, be able to forgive and even help to make peace in this world?

SG: And here you're talking about the population on both sides? How can they forgive each other and make peace, given what has happened and given the depth of this trust and enmity? I think you have forces of goodwill in both communities. You have forces in both communities that are pushing for peace, who realize that the ultimate solution is a political one and that there is no solution through military means. I think we also need to enhance education and exchange and really get people to accept that, if we are going to have peace, we need to pull away from using extreme means and in effect when they get back to the table. I hope they will stay at the negotiating table and talk and get out the message through being at the table that we have made a strategic choice for peace and we are going to stick with it. At the same time obviously they would want to deal with the terrorists as strictly and as severely as is necessary. But if you stay at the table and keep talking you are telling the terrorists we are not giving you a veto, you are not going to derail the process with all your extreme activities. And I would hope that sooner or later we would get to the stage where the leaders would opt for that approach and I can assure you that they will have the support of the people of goodwill in both communities. But it will require leadership and it will require determination to confront the extremist elements.

Q: Associated Press: I am just going back to the question about Mr. Arafat. Can you confirm that Mr. Arafat - that there was no reason to believe that he was not asked to the ceremony this week, on Monday?

SG: I don't know if that is entirely correct that he was not asked. I think that he was invited and I think he was expected here in Oslo, and indeed there would have been a meeting, as I said, with Peres, myself, the Prime Minister, about this. I think it is not surprising that he is not here, given what is happening on the ground. I think it is important that he stays home with his people and tries to deal with the crisis that is on hand, and obviously it is a situation that has prevented him from coming, and in my judgement, as much as we miss him here, I think it is the right decision to stay home and tackle the crisis at hand.