Hans Küng:
Dear Secretary-General,
You feel, I believe, the deep gratitude of all of us, especially of the younger generation you met before in the other 3 halls. I don’t know if you had ever got four standing ovations before the beginning. It was really extraordinary. And your lecture confirmed us and encouraged us; you shared your vision of a more sustainable future, a more peaceful future for our planet, based on common human values. I’m sure that your speech will become an essential document for all those who are committed to a global ethic. It makes, of course, a tremendous difference, dear Kofi, if I as a humble scholar speak of common values, or if you speak as the UN Secretary-General from the very top...
 

Kofi Annan:
Together, if we do it together ...
 

Hans Küng:
... so I am very grateful and I think we have now a perfect basis for our dialogue.
Permit me to ask you a rather personal question: In April 2003 when we had foreseen your first visit, that was just the beginning of the Iraq war, it was a dramatic period for the UN and I can imagine it was also a very bitter time for you personally. I think precisely for our younger generation it would be important to know: how do you survive? What is the source from where you take your personal resilience and your strength?
 

Kofi Annan:
You are right, Hans, this has been a particularly difficult year. The lead up to the war, the debates in the Security Council, the divisions that emerged among the different states - it was very difficult for an organization that is built on consensus, an organization that was established to save future generations from the scare of war. In the halls of the General Assembly discussions about war and peace there is something that takes on, particularly me, because of the bases of our own organization, our Charter, and the universal values. It was a difficult period for the organization, it was a difficult period for me, I got very tired trying to work between two groups physically, and it was a depressing place, I mean, the world was depressing, and I felt depressed about the status of the world, but one had to continue, we couldn’t give up, we had to keep hope for life, and luckily my family, my wife (who is also my partner) and I talk a lot, and she has been a great asset, and the family, the children, we talked in a group of friends, and my colleagues in the office, we often talked about the need to strike a balance between the bigger world, the outer world, and the smaller world which is family - to maintain that equilibrium often helps. I also have good colleagues in the office, who work with me, and over the period, over the years I think I have also developed a good inner compass, which helps me determine what is right, and what is wrong. In times of crisis you need to reach deep inside yourself to find the answers, and the courage and the strength to move on. The external factors have an impact, but if you let them take you over you will be buffeted at left and right and you will not be able to carry on, and someone will say, leading a team, is almost the captain of the ship, you cannot loose control, you have to keep hope alive, you have to be able to provide a sense of direction to get the others to work with you. So I’m grateful to my wife and my partner, and my staff, very good staff, and family and friends. And, of course, my faith also helps me.
 

Hans Küng:
Now, contrary to certain predictions, the Iraq war was not over in May but continues in other cruel forms today, and contrary to other predictions the UN is not dead at all but well alive.
How do you consider the situation of the UN today in comparison with the time in April, when you wanted to come here? Has it again more influence, and authority? Is the current crisis perhaps a great opportunity?
 

Kofi Annan:
I think there is quite a difference between April and now. There is quite a different mood in the UN building today than it was in April. I think in April some people were saying the UN was irrelevant. I personally did not believe that, I knew we were in a difficult situation, we were going through a crisis, and we have gone through crises before and that we will overcome. Today, after the war, Member States realize more than ever how important this organization is. It’s the only one we have, it’s the only global forum that can bring all nations together to discuss issues of common interest, it’s the only organization that can confer legitimacy in certain crisis situations just as the one in Iraq.
The United States itself went to war without approval of the Council, has come back to the UN to try and work with the UN, has approached many countries for assistance, is looking for allies and friends, and quite a lot of these countries said, we will cooperate provided it goes through the UN, again putting the UN at the centre. At the last General Assembly many of the states came to reaffirm their belief and trust in the organization and I think that was also very important... so from my point of view the UN is today back in the centre, but we cannot rest there, we cannot rest on our laurels, and that is why I have set up a panel of eminent persons to look up what the new threats and challenges are, and to suggest collective response to these challenges, so that we can strengthen and improve the organization, also develop international law, as well as look at the Security Council composition and the General Assembly and how these organs are working effectively. So in a way we are taking advantage of the crisis situation to strengthen and make the UN better. And I hope they will give me solid recommendations that will be a basis for action by the Member States later this year or some time next year.

Hans Küng:
The UN experienced a horrible moment in Iraq when its Headquarters in Baghdad was attacked in August and your personal representative and friend, Vieira de Mello, was killed and more than 20 others of your UN people there. How do you see the role of the UN in facilitating the transition to a democratic system in Iraq? We all know that the situation is extremely difficult, a lot of people see no solution - can the role of the UN go beyond humanitarian activity?
 

Kofi Annan:
August 19th was a very tragic day for all of us who worked at the United Nations. Not only did we lose good friends and colleagues, it was also the first time that the Blue Flag had been attacked in such a vicious manner and, of course, the neutral Red Cross was also attacked some time later. We had to cut back our presence drastically but we did not leave Iraq. We have several hundred Iraqi personnel working for us, and we have some presence in the North of Iraq. Now we’re looking to the future, we would want to help the Iraqi people as much as we can, but at the same time try to minimize the risk to my own staff. On Wednesday I released a report to the Security Council, explaining how we intend to proceed. We will set up an office in Cyprus, with another smaller office in Amman, and we will operate from there. We’ll try to do as much as we can from outside Iraq and do cross-border operations, with some of my people going in for a couple of days or weeks, as required. We hope we can also encourage the Iraqi officials to come out and talk to us, and we will monitor the situation on the ground to see when secured environment will be created, and we will be able to attend in larger numbers in Iraq. We see our role in Iraq not limited to humanitarian activities, even though we’ve done quite a lot of that. We’ll be engaged in reconstruction, in strengthening institutions and human rights and above all in the constitutional and the political process, leading to the general elections and the establishment of a fully-fledged Iraqi government. So all these UN capabilities are at the disposal of the Iraqis, and we are prepared to play a role, but the coalition of the occupying power which asks for responsibility for law and order and for effective administration of Iraq will need to create the environment for us to be able to go in and operate in a normal manner. Sometimes we ask: but you can go in and you can be protected? My answer is, yes, we can go in and we can be protected. But our work is with people. We need to be able to get to the Iraqis, and they need to be able to come to us. At the moment we do not have that mobility and that flexibility and if we are protected behind barriers, we cannot be effective. So we are monitoring the situation, and we will hopefully be able to go back to offer maximum support in all the areas I have indicated.
 

Hans Küng:
Of course, you know, the discussions between the so-called »old Europe« and the United States of America are not the usual quarrels we have always had in our transatlantic friendship, and I think there is nobody here in Germany who would not like to preserve this friendship with the United States!
Nevertheless, in the view of our manifesto »Crossing the Divide« which our »group of twenty eminent persons« presented to you in 2001 it is quite clear that this is of course more than just the old dispute - it is the controversy about the new paradigm of international relations. The Europeans certainly are tired of the old paradigm, which marked European modernity. We had all these wars, we had two world wars, and I think the great achievement after 1945, with the essential help of the United States, was precisely to initiate a new paradigm not of military confrontation, aggression, revenge, but of cooperation, of understanding, of reconciliation, even integration. Now a lot of people are afraid that the present development especially of the American foreign policy of the present administration could be practically a relapse into the old paradigm. My question is: what can be done by the United Nations to help that we do not go backwards and relapse into the old paradigm, but that we go forward? I think the European Union - precisely today there is a very important meeting in Brussels, as you know - is a great success story. I think it’s not just the European Union; it’s the whole OECD world, from Europe to North America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, where we have had fifty years of peace. I think we would like to preserve that and extend this also to other parts of the world. What could be done by the United Nations to help the world, really to educate everybody in this new paradigm of cooperation?
 

Kofi Annan:
Let me start by saying that the UN itself is part of the new post-war paradigm. We were also set up to get governments to cooperate to ensure that we do not repeat the wars or the mistakes of the first half of the last century: after 1945 when the UN was formed and everybody was looking for a peaceful world. Then of course, you refer to Europe. I think Europe has made remarkable achievements in the creation of the Common Market, the European Union and its expansion. Not only has it done that, Europe and the Europeans have accepted the fact that you need to cooperate across borders, you need to give up a bit of your sovereignty to be able to live in peace with your neighbours, and accept certain common norms to be able to live harmoniously. So you have more ahead, in terms of interpretation and applications of sovereignty. The US has not done that yet in terms of national sovereignty, assertion of national sovereignty, and embracing international norms and treaties. The US has quite a different attitude from Europe. You see it from the attitude to the Kyoto protocol, to the International Criminal Court and a series of all this. Despite that, Europe and the other side of the Atlantic has managed to work quite well. I think in the past it was easier because it was during the Cold War, and one saw a common threat that also held the two sides of the Atlantic much more closely together. With that gone, and operating in a new world, it has been a bit more difficult, but I do believe that the divisions which exist today can be overcome if governments approach it with open minds and the right political will.
Since the creation of the UN the UN Charter had made it very clear that when it comes to war, governments have the right of self-defence when they are attacked. And where there is a broader threat to international peace and security we take collective action under the Charter. The Iraq war introduced a new approach or new phenomena of preventive war in a situation where most people did not think that the threat was that eminent, present and immediate, that one had to act, and this is where the divisions came in. One of the challenges I hoped that a panel of eminent persons I have set up would look at is: what are these new threats and challenges that we face? The usual example one gives is that you can have a terrorist organization that gets hold of weapons of mass destruction and may use them against a nation or the world, and that one has to act and pre-empt them before they use the weapon. Let’s assume that this hypothesis is correct and it may happen, or we may confront that situation, how do we deal with it under what rules, who acts and how? I would hope that the Panel will look at the issue if indeed you were to allow pre-emptive war, what would be the norms, who would authorize it, in other words: when is intervention legitimate, if you are going beyond the current Charter. I hope we can find a new consensus, the kind of consensus that was possible at the end of World War II in 1945, when the UN was created, to deal with these new stresses and tensions, and I think again dialogue and tolerance are going to be absolutely essential. In my comments on Iraq, for example, I have indicated there were divisions, there were differences, but the time has come for all of us to rebuild international consensus and pool our efforts to stabilize Iraq, because it’s in all our interest, and we really should take unifying and cooperative steps to work together.
 

Hans Küng:
You spoke also about the ambivalent phenomenon of globalization. I think a lot of people around the world have been scandalized by these financial scandals in Wall Street and elsewhere, also in Europe, of course. The Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago in 1993 had a whole paragraph on truthfulness. I thought, if something would have to be added to the UN Global Compact, it should probably be the importance of truthfulness. If we do not have more truthfulness, transparency, then I think it’s also very difficult for the business world, and the stock exchange showed that this is not irrelevant to the economy. If we do not have balance sheets that are true and if even CEOs of big companies are producing lies I think it is really difficult for the economic world. Would you not think it would be important to stress a little more this often forgotten value of truthfulness?
 

Kofi Annan:
I agree with you, and in fact on December 9th the new UN Convention against corruption was submitted in Merida/Mexico for signature. And it will insist on governments fighting corruption, cooperating together, returning funds: for example, funds stolen by leaders sometimes from poor countries and put away elsewhere should be returned to them. And the fight against corruption is one of the major challenges we have today. And it really undermines development, it undermines attempts to help the poor, and as you said we have seen it on Wall Street where in the »roaring nineties« there was a saying that »greed is good«. And it was greed, determination to get more and more money that has led to all these abuses, which the governments are now trying to deal with. But you are right that we need new standards, new ethics and one should really work very hard to eliminate corruption because it really does have corrosive effects not just on Wall Street and in the stock markets but in the whole development effort. And in fact you talked about the Global Compact, there is a discussion going on, we haven’t settled it yet: if this question of corruption and truthfulness should not become the 10th principle of the Global Compact.
 

Hans Küng:
About the war on terrorism: It is obvious that terrorists are not all just criminals - there are some just criminals certainly, but not all terrorists are criminals. And I think it would be important on one side, of course, to fight terrorism, by all means, no doubt about that, but on the other hand what would you think are the real root causes of terrorism today?

Kofi Annan:
You are right that we need to fight and resist terrorism; there can be no justification for the killing of innocent civilians regardless of the cause, and so we need to be very clear on it. At the same time we need to deal with those situations that drive people to despair and such desperation that they take certain actions or create groups of people who are easily recruited to the cause of the terrorists. Because if you do not deal with the basic causes of desperation and the conditions in which people feel humiliated, deprived and living out their lives that are not worth living, you are not going to be able to contain some of the excessive violence that we see around us. Sometimes people tend to make the mistake of equating the poor with terrorism, but as you said not all terrorists are poor. It is people who are angry sometimes at a certain political or social situation or condition, who become so passionate and desperate about it that they take certain actions, and we need to deal with those basic and root causes. But I do have a warning though, I have noticed recently in our attempts to ensure effective action against terrorism, we have tended to erode civil rights, human liberties, and there are some who believe there can be a trade-off between the fight against terrorism and human rights. I do not think so, I think we need to be careful and I often pose a question: if one is asked to give up one’s freedom, one’s human rights and one’s civil liberties for security and you agree to do that, do you, in the end, have security?
 
Hans Küng:
In this context I think a lot of people would be interested to know what you think about the following: I think the main political cause of terrorism is, of course, the unresolved problem of the Middle East - and if you speak about desperate people, I think, we cannot just forget the Palestinians. We have now more research done by the European Commission, and there is no doubt of an increase in anti-Semitism in all countries of Europe today. The Bundestag is discussing about it. We have, of course, to fight anti-Semitism by all means, but on the other hand would you not think that we have also to listen to these Jewish voices in America and in Israel, who tell us that the best fight against terrorism in the world would really be a changed policy of the state of Israel with regard to the Palestinians and to find a solution of the problem of the two states within safe borders with a state of Palestine which can survive?
 

Kofi Annan:
The Palestinian crisis has been a source of contention and has been exploited by quite a lot of groups, and lots of organizations claimed to act on behalf of the Palestinians, and in fact it is just a desperate situation. We operate in the region, we have an organization called »UNRWA«, we are perhaps the largest employer in the region with about 12,000 staff, we run hospitals, schools, deliver humanitarian assistance and food, so we see the daily humiliation of the Palestinians, we see the impact of the blockage - blocked from their land, blocked from their work - and sometimes it’s even difficult for us to get through essential services and food.
We need to find a way of resolving this conflict, and I think when we came up with a Roadmap - and as you know I am a member of the Quartet - we thought we could get the Palestinian and the Israeli leaders to work with us as quickly as possible to move the process forward, because for the first time you had on the table a proposal worked out together and supported by the United States, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the UN. So, as it were, it was a global proposal, which we thought they could embrace, and work with us on. It did not turn out to be that way - the Roadmap is in a bit of a distress, but we hope we’ll be able to implement it. But the hopeful signs are coming from the civil society. The Geneva Initiative was extremely important: it started a debate, newspapers in the region are talking about peace, suddenly the public are being reminded that there is an alternative, that it can resolve this issue peacefully, that the killing need not continue. Now that there is a new Palestinian Prime Minister, I really hope that he will be able to take control of the security apparatus he has committed to the Roadmap, and that he can work with other Palestinians and the Israelis to push ahead with the Roadmap. On the Israeli side the Prime Minister apparently says that there is now indication that he may have his own proposals for peace. It is an indication of how powerful civil society pressure can be, because we have the Geneva Initiative, we have another initiative by Ayalon, the former Chief of Security, and a Palestinian, who are circulating one page, asking ordinary citizens to sign, supporting peace. When they had a memorial for Rabin, the peacemaker, the late Prime Minister Rabin, a hundred thousand of people showed up. So there is a new movement, and I hope there is a window that we might be able to exploit but it will mean a sustained effort by the international community. But it would help if Israel, the stronger party, would also make some gestures, like withdrawing from Gaza, removing some of the settlements or the roadblocks. It would provide hope and expectation, because as we see it in the Quartet, the Roadmap and the stage for peace has to be performance-based but there has to be hope - without hope the people are not going to commit and really begin to take the process as seriously. And so, as difficult as it is I have not lost hope but I do agree that if the Palestinian problem was to be resolved, it will remove not only the occupation in Palestine but it will deprive many groups of the excuse, the justification of the use of violence.
 

Hans Küng:
Finally, what could the leaders of the religious groups do?
 

Kofi Annan:
I recall the Meeting of Religious Leaders in 2000 in New York where they joined others to talk about peace and the way they see the 21st century. I think religiously they have a lot to offer. If you look at all the major religions, even for those who claim are not religious and are agnostic, it is education and social morality. It is wrong to kill, be fair to your neighbour. Even getting your own message out and ensuring that the congregation and the public live by these values would be extremely important. But I think it will help if the religious leaders and the Church continue to preach compassion, solidarity and understanding for one’s neighbour, because we live in a very difficult world, in a world where many go to bed hungry, over a hundred and thirty million children - mainly girls - are out of school, eight thousand people are dying every day from AIDS, and this disease is not contained, is spreading very fast - in Asia, in Russia, and the former Soviet Republics, in the Caribbean, of course, Africa is the hardest hit - so we need to have compassion and be able to work with each other. I know that some in today’s world are being turned off religion because they think religious extremists are doing certain things in the name of the religion - my advice to them is: the problem is not the faith, it is not the Bible, it is not the Koran nor the Torah, it is not the faith but the faithful, and the way they behave, some, and the way they live their lives and apply the religion.
 

Hans Küng:
If you permit, we have time for 2 or 3 short questions.
 

Prof. Rittberger:
The first one is on the role of the Secretary-General as a guardian of the Charter: how do you conceive of your role as a guardian of the Charter given the fact that some other organs, in particular the Security Council, seem to have taken a very expansive vision or interpretation of its role? Could you see a way of expanding your privileges, your prerogatives under Art. 99 of the Charter to write some sort of checks and balances in this context?
Secondly, since the German Ambassador to the UN is here, with the Security Council reform we have an open-end working group, which some conceive of a dead-end working group - and could you see a way of closing down this operation with a final effort, getting at least the German aspirations fulfilled, providing them with some hope for a success, such that perhaps a modest change could be achieved, as eliminating the last sentence of paragraph 2 of Art. 33, meaning that the non-permanent member could not be immediately recollected. Would it not be a way for satisfying aspirations of Japan and Germany, to at least provide them with opportunity of becoming a quasi »permanent« non-permanent member? Thank you.
 

Kofi Annan:
On your first question, the prerogatives of the Secretary, and the expansive role of the Council: As Secretary-General I work very effectively with the Council. Art. 99 allows the Secretary-General the privilege of bringing to the attention of the Council any issues he believes might have impact on international peace and security and get the Council to discuss it. I have brought quite a lot of issues to the Council without necessarily quoting Art. 99, but it was understood that I was acting in that spirit. Secondly, over the years, since I became Secretary-General - I think the German Ambassador, Herr Günther Pleuger, can confirm this - I have worked very effectively with the Council, sometimes offering advice, sometimes helping build consensus, putting proposals on the table that will facilitate a transaction, and if there is complaint about the expansive role of the Council it doesn’t impinge on my freedom of action and ability to act, I think the quarrel or the disagreement is between the Council and the General Assembly - those two other bodies feel that the Council is getting into areas that should be reserved for them. But I, as the Secretary-General, I have been able to operate freely, in fact some think that I am too active - as an activist Secretary-General I am trying to be more of a General than a Secretary! [laughter, applause] But the job requires both: there are times when you have to be a General, there are times when you have to be a Secretary, you need to do both!
 

Professor Kuschel:
General Secretary, you spoke about the role of world religions in the present situation. We are very interested in developing inter-religious dialogue on a global scale. Could you elaborate a little bit more on that subject? What is the role of inter-religious dialogue in the present situation, and do you have personal relationships to leaders and representatives of the great world religions, which could help to promote peace and social stability?
 

Kofi Annan:
I have contacts with many religious leaders - sometimes they visit me, sometimes I see them when I am in their region, and there are exchanges of correspondence. I think that is something that is very healthy, and we encourage, and there are periods when they also meet at the UN and discuss issues of the day and adopt resolutions, positions, declarations, which they give to us, and there are specific areas where we even cooperate: in trying to help people who are living in dire poverty, in trying to fight the HIV epidemic, we’re reaching out to religious groups and we are working with them, in Africa and in Asia, we are working not just with the Protestant groups, we are reaching out to the Catholic groups, so we are doing quite a lot, not just philosophical discussion but practical way, and also encouraging members to join the force on issues of ethics and value, which has been the topic of this morning, they do have a lot to offer.
 

Ms. Claudia Kerscher (student):
Mr. Secretary-General, at the end of the discussion with Prof. Küng you mentioned just with a very short note the African continent. Where do you see the position and the development of Africa in the globalization process?
 

Kofi Annan:
It is one of the countries that have not done too well in this globalized world. There are countries on the continent that are fully engaged, South Africa, for example, Botswana, some of the countries with extractive industry - whether it’s gold, diamond or oil. Africa has also suffered from the conflicts, but this year we’re seeing some very positive developments: we are making good progress in resolving the long running conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a new transitional government has been formed and all the parties are participating in the government - it is possible that even by the end of this year we might see a peace agreement in Sudan, the longest running war - Angola has been resolved - then we have Burundi to resolve. If we resolve Burundi and Sudan, for the first time in decades that whole region of southern Africa will be conflict-free, and with the capacities of South Africa as a regional motor, economically they can do a lot, they can really improve their condition and the lot of their people. They can cooperate on electricity, on tourism, on a whole range of economic activities that will give them the opportunities that I think they deserve, and the people are tired of war, they want peace. At the same time the question of the HIV/AIDS is devastating nations. In some countries the average life span has dropped by twenty years. There are 12 million children orphaned by AIDS, and the disease is taking away people in their most productive years. You have children as young as ten and twelve, much younger than those of you here in this room, who are parents already, because their mothers and fathers have gone and they are the oldest. And that is also setting the continent back. And this is why I believe it is extremely important that we do whatever we can to help stem the disease. In fact, talking to the BBC not long ago I said we are concerned about weapons of mass destruction, but for those living in those countries HIV epidemic is a real weapon of mass destruction. I hope that with a bit of assistance from the international community - African leaders themselves are beginning to take responsibility, they are beginning to think of good governance, they are beginning to think of agricultural productivity, and the people themselves are waking up to a rising demand so it is not hopeless but they cannot do it alone, and they need help, and I hope eventually we will be able to get the Trade Agreement, it failed in Cancun, but attempts are being made to resuscitate it - if we do have a free trade agreement, where the subsidies of Europe and America to farmers are eliminated, some of these poor countries can compete in the world market.
 

Hans Küng:
I am sorry I have to respect the protocol, and I think time is over. I think I cannot express better our gratitude than what you hear from this applause you get all the time. I’m sure that everybody in the three other halls will join this hall in expressing their gratitude for your strength, for the hope you gave us. You can be sure, Secretary-General, you have our sympathy and you have especially our support, and I think the young generation here is speaking for many in Germany, and you can be sure that you have always the sympathy and support all over the world. Thank you very much.
 

[Long applause]