Q: Mr. Secretary-General, the Iraqi
Ambassador says that not only have you violated international law in your
proposals for the oil-for-food programme, but your actions in pulling workers
out of Iraq actually cleared the way for the coalition invasion of Iraq.
SG: First of all, it has to be
clear that the UN workers were the last to leave. Quite a lot of governments
had pulled out their diplomatic staff before we did because of the impending
war. You should recall that the UN staff left on Tuesday, and the war was
declared on Wednesday. And we normally do remove our staff out of harm's
way. But as I have indicated, they will go back as soon as it is practicable.
And we have urgent work to do in Iraq that we would want to go back and
do our work.
Secondly, the [Security] Council is today seized about trying to do whatever it can to maintain humanitarian assistance to the Iraqis. We should not forget that 60% of them have been dependent on the oil-for-food scheme. And this is why the Council and myself are determined to do whatever we can to keep that pipeline open. And the initiative in the Council where they are discussing adjustments to the oil-for-food programme is to make that possible.
Q: There are more serious accusations from [Iraqi] Vice-President [Taha Yasin] Ramadan. He accused you of being a colonialist high commissioner. Can you please respond to those angry comments that they have?
SG: I think I can understand the anger, the frustration, the exasperation of Mr. Ramadan, and maybe other Iraqis. Their country is at war and these sort of sentiments and anger is something that is understandable. But of course, I'm doing my work as Secretary-General, working with the Council. And I think that refers to attempts to adjust the oil-for-food programme. What the Council is discussing and the proposal before the Council is we would want to resume our work as soon as possible. And whichever authority is seen in charge at the end of the hostilities, we will work with them. We don't know what -- if it is Iraqis, if it's somebody else -- we will need to find a way of working, but we will be working for the Security Council, in accordance with Security Council resolutions covering the oil-for-food. And I think this is what provoked his reaction, but unfortunately he must look at what we are trying to do for the Iraqi people. The UN or I have no interest in becoming a high commissioner. And it is ironic that as a former colonial subject, I'll be accused of being a colonialist.
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, if and when American and British troops start to occupy parts of Iraq, will the UN, when it comes to getting food to the Iraqis, will the UN be able to work with the Americans and the Brits in those particular areas, or will it be entirely a British and American responsibility? That's number one.
Number two: the Americans are now talking about their discovery of a suspected site -- chemical weapons. Would the UN be prepared to send Hans Blix's people to verify some sites?
SG: Let me say that on your first question, I have made it clear in my discussions with the Council and publicly, that in times of war, it is the belligerents who are responsible for the welfare and safety of the people. I've also indicated that, in any situation under occupation, it is the occupying power that has responsibility for the welfare of the people. Without detracting from those responsibilities, the UN will do whatever it can to help the Iraqi population. And we would want to resume the oil-for-food as soon as possible. In these conflict situations, it is urgent that humanitarian agencies and actors are given the space to act. And we will be able to act using that space. And I should also remind all concerned that they must respect international humanitarian law, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the Hague regulation.
On your second question, the position of the Council and the United Nations is that Council resolutions are valid, including the mandate for UNMOVIC [UN Monitoring, Inspection and Verification Commission]. They have only been suspended temporarily because it's inoperable given the situation on the ground. The expectation is that as soon as the conflict is over and the situation permits, they will be able to resume their work, just as we are seeking to resume the oil-for-food scheme.
Q: Do you think that UNMOVIC will not move in to verify these sites when and if they appear?
SG: I'm saying UNMOVIC still has the responsibility for the disarmament of Iraq. And if the situation permits, since the Council resolutions are valid, they will be expected to go back to Iraq and inspect.
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, are you satisfied so far that the US and allied forces have behaved fully in accordance with their responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions and according to their humanitarian obligations?
SG: I don't have all the facts, but I've heard the report from Red Cross that the people in Basra may be facing a humanitarian disaster in that they have no water and they have no electricity. And I think a city that size cannot afford to go without electricity or water for long. Apart from the water aspect, you can imagine what it does to sanitation. So I think urgent measures should be taken to restore electricity and water to that population.
Q: Sir, I think you alluded to it earlier when you talked about the Geneva Convention. Much was made over the weekend about prisoners of war on both sides. I wonder that call you have to both sides, both combatants, as to how prisoners of war are treated during this campaign.
SG: I think the prisoners of war have to be treated humanely, and in accordance with international law. And I think both sides have a responsibility to ensure that this is done and send a message to the combatants that they do have a responsibility to treat the prisoners or war humanely.
Thank you.