New York City, March 23, 2005

As expected, the SG presented his report “IN LARGER FREEDOM…” before
the
General Assembly, Monday morning, March 21, 2005. Immediately
afterwards he
proceeded to the UN Press Conference Room for a meeting with the UN
accredited press. He opened by wishing “our Iranian and Kurdish
friends a
very Happy New Year - Nowrooz Mubarak”.

Followed, a short introductory statement - “I feel strongly that there
are
decisions which urgently need to be taken in the areas of development,
security and human rights, and changes that need to be made in the
structure
of the United Nations itself, if we are to make the most of the
opportunities in the next 10 years and to save millions of people from
death
and disaster”. Considering that the SG’s time span is only of six
months
till the September New York high-level meeting, a press release stated
that
the SG is planning a full-court lobbying campaign, “including plenty of
personal telephone diplomacy”. Then started raining questions.

Q: “You were talking about the General Assembly, bringing it back to
its
former level of importance, what it should have been… But when we
have got
something like Freedom House saying that 103 of the 191 countries are
at
less than democratic, if not much more authoritative, now can
resolutions be
taken seriously by this body… when most of the countries do not
represent
their people?” (in effect the report mentions 50 countries as outright
dictatorships - PJ).

SG: “I am not sure whether your statement is entirely accurate. At
least
we live in a world today where almost every country claims to be
governing
by democratic principles. Some are well established. Some are doing
well.
Others are struggling to establish it and need help. I think we should
work
with those fledgling democracies that need to be helped and not dismiss
them
because they have not reached a certain standard that we would want to
see
them reach”. After this laudatory, the SG nevertheless added “What we
are
suggesting is that they adapt and change their mode of operation and
focus
on issues of concern, issues of the day, and not peripheral issues”.
(in effect, the Freedom House report mentioned 50 countries as outright
dictatorships - thus the SG answer is diplomatic soft talk -PJ)

Q: On State terrorism “it would not be hard to find people who are
ready to
accuse all five permanent members of the Security Council of State
terrorism. With that in mind, how can you possibly think that you can
agree
on a definition of terrorism and a convention on terrorism - which
countries
would know could be used as a club against them?”.

SG: “I know this is an issue we have been discussing here for a long
time.
We have already passed 12 conventions on terrorism. We are now looking
at a
comprehensive convention. I think that the report of the High-Level
Panel
on Threats, Challenges and Change offers us a basis to move forward,
making
it clear that, whatever the cause, attacking, killing and deliberately
maiming civilians or non-combatants is not acceptable, and is terrorism
pure
and simple”. Then answering to another question - “each government
has
the responsibility to protect its own citizens, in situations where
genocide or ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity are going on
and the
government is either unable or unwilling to do it, the international
community has the responsibility to step in - and that as a last
resort”.

A series of questions dealt with the restructuring of the Security
Council
and with the creation of the proposed new Council on Human Rights that
will
function like the Security Council and meet throughout the year.

Q: “Last week, in Russia, they celebrated the twentieth anniversary of
perestroika and glasnost. Do you think that the UN and the
international
system need the same kind of fundamental changes both in thinking and
restructuring of the institutions?”.

SG: You may call what is happening our perestroika and glasnost, and I
hope
that the Member States will see it that way and work with us to reform
the
Organization and bring it in line with the realities of the 21-st
century”.

The questions in this Press Conference dealt only with security, human
rights and restructuring of the Security Council, there were no
questions
on development issues - the nominal third item in “LARGER FREEDOM”.
Obviously nothing on sustainable development, environment, climate
change,
or social development. The closest we got there was -

Q: “What would you say specifically, Sir, to the American people to
try and
convince them, who have been so disappointed the past couple of years
with
what they have seen here?”.

SG: “That we live in an interconnected world, in a world where we face
many
challenges, many threats - threats that no one country, however
powerful,
can face alone - and that we need to work together to contain these
threats,
whether it is terrorism, non-proliferation, or environmental
degradation and
poverty that leads to failed States. And we also know that ignoring
failed
States creates problems that sometimes come back to bite us….I think
that
an effective and functioning UN is in the interests of the US and its
people, as it is in the interest of other nations and their peoples”.

Following day, Tuesday March 22, The Financial Times editorial was
“Wooing
America: How far can, or should, Annan do this to ’save’ the UN?”.
writes:
“…UN SG has also been looking for ways to respond to US criticism of
the
UN, and marry US concerns about security and terrorism with the
economic
development issues that preoccupy most of the UN’s 191 member states.
And
yesterday, with the help of two expert studies he had earlier
commissioned,
Mr. Annan produced his synthesis of the issues as well as some long
overdue
reform proposals for the UN itself”. The editorial concludes with -
“The
fate of Mr. Annan’s proposals will probably turn on how he himself
emerges
from the Iraqi sanctions affair, and even more on whether the Bush
administration meets him half way with a constructive response to
reform”.

Above was the highpoint of the SG reform proposals - a tempest that
lasted
from Saturday till Tueday - let’s call it THE NAWRUZ UN RIPPLE.

Already on Tuesday, the New York Sun reported: “After All Its Denials,
UN
Admits It Paid Oil-for-Food Program Aide’s Legal Fees - Sevan Had
Central
Role in Iraq Scandal”, and then, Wednesday, March 22, 2005, The
Financial
Times carried a long article: “Annan’s son received $300,000 in Cotecna
payments”. With that the Wednesday UN DPI Press Conference was domed
to
becoming a UN defensive very sad show. The SG spokesman brought in
poor Mr.
Mark Malloch Brown, a UK citizen and head of the UN Development
Programme
(UNDP), who started his stint as Chef-de-Cabinet to the SG this January
19-th, and is now charged to play the defense for a miserable
bureaucracy of
long standing.

MMB: The Volcker Commission did not agree to payments for the Sevan
legal
expenses but “it is not a matter of policy to release the legal
advice”.
Mr. Sevan was given a $1 salary in order to keep him available for the
investigation, an oral commitment was given to Mr. Sevan regarding his
lawyer’s fees, but was not acted upon - in any case no money will be
spent
past February 3, 2005 when the Volcker Commission declared Sevan
non-cooperative. Reclaiming of payments from Mr. Sevan will require a
criminal conviction. This money came from the 2.2% of the Iraqi oil
money
that the UN kept to itself for administrative expense - this was
intended to
make possible the good administration of the remaining 97.8% (and we
know
already how good that was - PJ). The SG has also lawyers but does not
charge the UN (Q: “are they ‘pro-bono’?”). On the Kojo Annan topic -
“Kojo
has confirmed himself that he has mislead his father”. There were some
questions about the SG having met three times the heads/owners of
Cotecna,
and a clear question -”When does the buck stop with the SG?”, and the
answer
that “at present we have a story of a son judged on his actions”.

A corolary to this drama - Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaidae is
requesting
now that the mishandled funds from the Iraqi oil sales be recognized as
Iraq’s paying its contribution arrears to the UN.

For our interest:

will the mess be cleared in time to have a serious look at the UN
renewal
proposals? Will the proposals be forgotten and viewed rather as the SG
trying to divert attention from the many troubles at the UN? Is the UN
doomed and irreparable?

After all, there is a lot positive in the SG 2005 proposals and they
deserve
serious thrashing, and much approval - even though, as clearly stated
by the
SG, they may not be 100% according to the wishes of anyone, but rather
a new
platform for starting shaking at the UN tree (forget his idea that you
have
to take the whole thing in one gulp - PJ). Also, the fact that no
serious
action was taken on previous proposals by the SG does not mean we
should not look at these proposals. Here for the first time we have an
attempt at long needed restructuring - if we fail to grasp this it may
be as
well to fold up the whole UN operation, and as one cynic wrote - put up
there the sport stadium that is unwanted on the New York City
West-Side.