 We're honoured to be hosting the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Antonio Gateris, who tonight will be speaking on counter-terrorism and human rights, winning the fight, a topic which represents one of the great challenges of our time. It's fitting that this event is taking place at SOAS. We pride ourselves on being a place of vibrant and challenging debate. We're proud-looking, passionate and values-driven, a description that equally applies to tonight's special guest. Antonio Gateris is the ninth Secretary-General of the United Nations and took office in January this year. Prior to his appointment as Secretary-General, he served as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from June 2005 to December 2015, and I had the privilege of working with Antonio during my time at the UN. We worked on some of the most challenging and difficult humanitarian crises facing the world, and he was a very, very special colleague. Antonio was Prime Minister of Portugal between 1995 and 2002, and as many of you will be aware, is a lifelong campaigner for justice and equality. Before I hand over to our special guest, a few housekeeping rules. Please put your phones on silent. Don't turn them off because we want you to tweet like crazy, but please put them on silent. Our hashtag is UN at SOAS. The far exits are on that side, on my left, there is also an exit to the right. In terms of format, the Secretary-General will speak first, and this will be followed by a discussion with the audience which I will moderate. Now, I will say this again before we start that, but I can only take one question at a time. Not everyone will get their question in, given that we have a time limit, and we have also been sent in questions from those who can't be here. I will do my very best, and to the journalists in the room, I will do my best to bring in one or two of you, but the Secretary-General is very clear that he wants as many students as possible to have the opportunity to ask questions. That's it from me by way of introduction. Please join me in welcoming tonight's very, very special guest, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, I thank SOAS and Valerie Amos for bringing us together this evening. As Valerie said, I had the luck to be working side by side with her to support the most vulnerable of the vulnerable in the most tragic circumstances. And I have to tell you that she is a living humanitarian, a fantastic colleague, and a very dear friend. And I also want to thank all of you for being here to discuss about one of the most difficult and challenging issues of our time, combating the global threat of terrorism without compromising our respect for human rights. Let me be clear from the outset. Nothing justifies terrorism. No cause, no grievance. Nothing can ever excuse the indiscriminate targeting of civilians, the want and destruction of lives and livelihoods, and the creation of panic for its own sake. Terrorism has unfortunately been with us in various forms across ages and continents. But modern terrorism is being waged on an entirely different scale. It is notable for its geographic span. No country can claim to be immune. And it has become an unprecedented threat to international peace, security and development. As conflicts have grown in intensity and number over the past decade, terrorist attacks have increased and spread, destroying societies and destabilising entire regions. Last year, at least 11,000 terrorist attacks occurred in more than 100 countries, resulting in more than 25,000 total deaths and 33,000 people injured. And while the spotlight tends to focus on terrorism in the West, we should never forget that the vast majority of terrorist attacks take place in developing countries. In 2016, nearly three quarters of all deaths caused by terrorism were in just five states. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Nigeria and Somalia. It was estimated that the global economic impact of terrorism reached 90 billion US dollars in 2015, but this cost may be far higher. And in 2015 again, terrorism costs amounted to 73% of gross domestic product in Iraq and 16.8% in Afghanistan. Modern terrorism is not only different in scale, but also different in nature. It has grown more complex and with new models apparently. How can one fail to be horrified by trucks and cars ramming into a peaceful crowd with the intent of maiming and killing? It happened here in the streets of London, but also in Jerusalem, Baghdad, Barcelona and more recently in New York. How can one fail to be shaken to the core by the use of young girls that stand 10 years old as human bombs in Maiduguri, northern Nigeria? It is an assault on our security and on our humanity. And the fact that the state of shock and terror of those murderous attacks is nowadays amplified by the 24 hours near cycle, social media and cynical political manipulation makes it even more impactful. This has brought an acute perception of insecurity among communities that challenge the social fabric. A secretary general of an organization established, and I quote, to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and I quote, I am painfully aware and concerned by the risk of fragmentation posed by global terrorism. Dear friends, I am here in London and just down the road at the British Library you will find original copies of the Magna Carta. More than 800 years ago, that charter established that nobody should be imprisoned without due legal process and this established the principle of the rule of law. And it is no exaggeration to suggest that it laid the groundwork for the freedoms and liberties that terrorism directly assaults. At its core, human rights are a true recognition of our common humanity. They unite people while terrorism thrives on divisions. And I'm here in London, humbled by the long journey across history that gave recognition to the aspirations of people to justice, freedom and human rights. And those are the very aspirations that led so many young men and women when I was living in the Salazar dictatorship in Portugal to fight for human rights and democracy in my own country. And I believe it is you, the young people who can take up the torch of those enduring aspirations. Based on all my experience and with a sense of urgency, I am here in London to deliver a simple message. Terrorism is fundamentally the denial and destruction of human rights. And the flight against terrorism will never succeed by perpetuating the same denial and destruction. We must relentlessly fight terrorism to protect human rights. And at the same time when we protect human rights, we are tackling the root causes of terrorism. For the power of human rights to bond is stronger than the power of terrorism to divide. Dear friends, let me reiterate two important points. Number one, terrorism should not be associated with any religion, ethnicity or race. And number two, there is no excuse for terrorism. Let me stress this once more. Article five of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism bombing states that, and I quote, such criminal acts are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature. And I quote, contrary to the propaganda of terrorist groups, terrorist acts are not legitimate murders, but murders plain and simple and such criminal acts. But we must admit that there are indeed conditions conducive to terrorism and violent extremism. And if we want to address and avoid the gap between these global threats and our collective response, we need to pin them down. First, it is clear that terrorist groups exploit conflict zones and ungoverned territories. While terrorism often starts in conflict zones, it reaches far beyond them, organizing and inspiring attacks and radicalizing people across borders and continents. Second, lack of development and inclusive governance, including extreme poverty, inequality, as well as exclusion and discrimination are also drivers for terrorism and violent extremism. Incoming inequalities are a growing trend within both developing and developed countries. But a new study on the threat of violent extremism in Africa found that lack of education and poverty were factors behind radicalization, but at the final tipping point was often state violence and abuse of power. 93% of all terrorist acts between 1989 and 2014 occurred in countries with high levels of extrajudicial death, torture and imprisonment without trial. And third, internet has become an asset for terrorist groups to disseminate violent extremist propaganda, recruiting new converts and raising money. It was first used in the 90s by white supremacists in the United States to reach a wider audience easily and cheaply, giving a voice to many forms of racism and anti-semitism. The recruitment of violent extremists through social media is nowadays central to dash terrorist campaigns. Although the drivers of radicalization to violence vary from country to country and even within countries, terrorism draws strength from resentment, humiliation and lack of education. And terrorism thrives where disenfranchised people meet nothing but indifference and nihilism and it is deeply rooted in hopelessness and despair. That is why human rights, all human rights, political and civil rights but also economic, social and cultural rights are unquestionably a part of the solution in fighting terrorism. Dear friends, the threat of terrorism is real, dangerous and unfortunately here for years to come. Member states have a primary responsibility for protecting their citizens and as former prime minister I know all too well this priority to enhance safety and security. Military operations in Syria and Iraq have evicted dash from its strong goals in Mosul and Raqqa but it would be a mistake to assume that military operations alone will eradicate terrorism. Technologies nearly label terrorist groups to reach disenfranchised people everywhere in the world and impress on them. This is why a smart and comprehensive counter-terrorism global strategy addressing root causes of violent extremism is all too vital. And I'd like to suggest five key counter-terrorism priorities and underscore our respect for human rights and the rule of law will secure long term benefits in the fight against it. Number one, we need much stronger international cooperation on counter-terrorism. I heard this message loud and clear during the high level week of my first general assembly of the United Nations segment in September. 152 leaders, 80% of all members of the UN highlighted the need to step up the exchange of information to be more effective in fighting terrorism. In a globalized world, the failing of one state can quickly become a threat to its neighbors and far beyond. Our watch words should therefore be unity, solidarity and collaboration. And it means unity at the United Nations. One of my first reforms as Secretary General was to create a counter-terrorism office to coordinate the 38 different UN groups and offices working in this area. And I intend in that regard to develop a new UN system-wide global counter-terrorism coordination compact. But it means unity in the international community. There is an urgent need for governments and security agencies to coblate more effectively in fighting terror while respecting human rights. There is still no consensus on a comprehensive convention on international terrorism. But there are 19 different international conventions and many regional instruments in this field that make it easier to prosecute terrorists and enhance protection and cooperate in other key areas. They are a true manifestation of the international rule of law. Signing them and ratifying them is not enough. All governments must get serious about implementing them. And furthermore, resolutions of the Security Council often complement those conventions. The Security Council has imposed sanctions against terrorist groups, but it has also played a leading role to enact common rules on foreign terrorist fighters, financial measures against terrorist groups and more recently international judicial cooperation. Capacity building and appropriate expertise remain crucial for all member states to implement those provisions. And member states also need to increase international efforts to address the sources of financing, including suppressing money laundering and illicit trafficking. But these multilateral efforts are insufficient against today's threats. Security services on the ground also needs to get better at exchanging information and acting on it, respecting always human rights. To give just one example, police in certain countries are divided into local forces, which literally speak different languages and are reluctant to share information. It is time for a new era of intelligence sharing and collaboration to save lives. As a small contribution to these efforts, next year I intend to convene the first ever UN summit of vets of counterterrorism agencies to forge new partnerships and build a relationship of trust. Dear friends, the second key route to more effective counterterrorism is a sustained focus on prevention. First, preventing conflict and sustainable development are our first line of defence against terrorism. When I took up the position of Secretary General, I made this a priority calling for a surge of preventive diplomacy. The international community is already addressing some of the drivers of violent extremism. The 2006 UN global counterterrorism strategy sets out strategic priorities and comprehensive recommendations. One of its four pillars is ensuring the full respect of human rights and the rule of law when countering terrorism. Prevention is true, includes deterrence. We need strong cross-border cooperation to ensure that highly trained terrorists who travel to join conflicts and commit atrocities face prosecution and the national laws if they return. But prevention also means addressing the factors that radicalise young people and make terrorism an attractive option for them. Second, development is the best way to tackle poverty, inequality and lack of opportunity and public services that feed this pair. Development is an important goal in itself, but should never be seen as a means to an end. But it is also true that sustainable and inclusive development can unquestionably make a decisive contribution to preventing conflict and terrorism. The United Nations Development System helps governments tackle some of the root causes, poverty, inequality, use and employment and the lack of public services such as health and education. Right now, United Nations agencies are supporting national governments in implementing the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. The world's shared blueprint for peace, prosperity, dignity for all, but also a powerful antidote to some of the causes of terrorism. Third, investment in young people must be a major element of any prevention strategy. Most new recruits to terrorist organisations are between 17 and 27 years old. Extremist groups can exploit feelings of disillusionment and alienation, offering a twisted sense of purpose to disaffected young people, including women and girls. And one major reason for this is lack of opportunity. Jobs, education and vocational training for young people must be an absolute priority in national development plans and in international development cooperation. Young people are an overwhelmingly positive asset to our societies. We must invest in them and empower them. It is no surprise that the Kingdom of Jordan, with so many threats on its borders with Syria and Iraq, has wisely led efforts in the United Nations on the role of use in countering violent extremism and promoting peace. And we stand with all young victims of terrorism, from the Chibok girls of Nigeria to the Yazidi women and girls of Iraq to young boys coerced into atrocious acts. Fourth, we must pay great attention to the gender inequalities and stereotypes that drive terrorist groups. Regardless of the religious and philosophical ideology of these groups, one common element of their agendas is the subjugation of women and girls. In parts of the world they are being sold into sexual slavery to finance terrorist groups and sexual violence itself is used as a tactic of terror. And fifth, prevention also means winning the fight on the internet. Terrorists are losing physical ground in Syria and Iraq, but getting virtual ground in cyberspace. Beating them will require coordinated and determined global action. Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube have launched an anti-terror partnership, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, aimed at sorting the spread of extremist content online. This is a start. We need to keep up the momentum. And our welcome recent advances in this area by the British, French and Italian governments at United Nations General Assembly. We will never be able to prevent terrorists from communicating entirely, but we must make this as difficult as possible. Number three, upholding human rights and the rule of law is the surest way to prevent a vicious circle of instability and resentment. Terrorist groups, including Daesh and Al Qaeda, thrive in conflict zones. Iraq, Syria and Libya most notably. Violations of international humanitarian law are correlated with protected conflict and radicalization. I therefore call on our parties to conflict with a deep sense of urgency to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law and human rights in situations of armed conflict. Taking all precautions to avoid civilian casualties, giving full access to humanitarian assistance, running detention centres in accordance with the starts of prisons of war, prohibiting torture, these all measures speak to who we are. But it's not only about our values, it's also about efficiency. These rules were codified in the 19th century to prevent the suffering of war victims in modern conflict. Henri Dumont was well known as instrumental, but lawyers from the United States with the Liber Code in 1863 and in Russia with the Martin's Clause, the United Kingdom, France and many other countries all contributed. They go far beyond regulating the conduct of war on the battlefield. They ensure that lasting peace and reconciliation will be possible. Facing threats of an unprecedented nature, states are scrambling to enhance efficiency of their counter-terrorism legislation. Iton vigilance and target surveillance are essential if we are to disrupt terrorist networks, track their activities and target their finances. But without a firm basis in human rights, counter-terrorism policies can be misused and abused. They can actually make us less safe by undermining good governance and rule of law. As I said earlier, terrorism is fundamentally the denial and destruction of human rights and the fight against terrorism will never succeed by perpetuating the same denial and destruction. These raises very difficult questions. How can governments take preventive security measures without undermining due process and legal safeguards? How can they adapt judicial systems to make more prepared in the face of imminent threats? What legal safeguards should control state surveillance? How can we ensure effective border control while re-establishing the full integrity of the refugee protection regime? I firmly believe that the principles of international criminal law offer a unifying framework. A great Italian thinker during the Age of Enlightenment, Cesare Beccaria, laid the groundwork for those principles in 1764. He said there should be no punishment without a law, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law and that punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed. Those principles are reflected in international human rights conventions and they remain as relevant as ever. But unfortunately counter-terrorist policies may be used and are being used to suppress peaceful protests and legitimate opposition movements, to shut down debate, to target and detain human rights defenders and to stigmatize minorities. Such measures do not contribute to lasting peace. Instead they may contribute to lasting instability and resentment generating chaos. I reiterate that society is based on respect for human rights and economic opportunities for all represent the most tangible and meaningful alternative to the recruitment strategies of terrorist groups. Force, we must win the battle of ideas. We should never shrink from pointing out the cynicism and errors of terrorism. At a new heart of darkness, we should build a new age of enlightenment. When terrorists portray violence as the best way to address inequality or grievances, we must answer with non-violence and inclusive decision making. When terrorists claim to be punishing people they accuse of betrayal or exploitation, we must point to robust judicial systems and legal accountability. We must address messages of hate with inclusivity, diversity, the protection of minorities and vulnerable people. We need to invest in social cohesion, education and inclusive societies where diversity is perceived as a richness not a threat and where everybody feels that is or identity is respected and that they fully belong to the community as a whole. Political, religious and community leaders must fulfil their responsibilities in promoting a culture of tolerance and mutual respect. Fighting bigotry and patriarchy, standing up for free media and the right to dissent, promoting the rule of law, demanding accountability and justice, the brave activists and civil society organizations that take on these issues are keeping us all safer. De-radicalisation can work. Repentant terrorists should understand that this change is possible and we must pay attention to how they turn their backs on false ideals. Teacher, academics and social works are on the front line and they also protect us. I acknowledge and honour their contribution and I urge everyone with influence to support them. Fifth and finally, we must lift up the voices of the victims of terrorism. Some of our best guides are the victims of survivors of terrorist attacks who consistently call for accountability and results, not blanket measures or collective punishments. I welcome the decision of the General Assembly to establish an international day of remembrance and tribute to the victims of terrorism to be observed every year on the 21st of August. And I pay tribute to the communities around the world that are showing resilience in response to terrorist attacks. They are countering violent extremism every day in their homes, schools and places of worship. Here in the United Kingdom, the entire city of Manchester came together earlier this year in an inspiring example of solidarity and unity. And in London, your mayors have become described terrorism, and I quote, as an assault on our shared values of tolerance, freedom and respect. We must resist stereotyping and seeing vast communities as monoliths if we are to develop effective ways to fight these menace. Stereotypes have many sources, including the media. We all have a responsibility to base our narratives on facts and to avoid doing the terrorists' work for them by demonizing or stigmatizing certain groups. In some countries, the majority of terrorist plots and attacks are perpetrating by right-wing extremist groups, and yet the media focuses far more on attacks by immigrants or members of ethnic and religious minorities. Refugees fleeing conflict are frequently targeted. It is a horrible distortion to their plight to accuse victims of terrorism of the crime they have just fled. We are failing in our duty when we refuse to support all those affected by terrorism, the communities, victims, survivors and their families. These groups constantly remind us that without a criminal process there is no possibility of justice. When we respect the human rights of victims and provide them with support and information, we reduce the lasting damage done by terrorists to individuals, communities and societies. Dear friends, yearly this year I sat in a tent in Kabul talking to some of the victims of terrorism. The women I met had been forced from their homes by a wave of bombings. They had lost everything. They told me of their will to return home, to rebuild their lives, to get their children back to school as soon as peace and security would be re-established. They had not lost their face in our common humanity. They kept hope alive and we must do the same. We cannot allow terrorism to challenge the fundamental principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, in national constitutions and international law. The foundations of our global order are the strongest protection we have against these courts. We can only win this flight by upholding the dignity and worse of the human person. Principles, however, will not be enough. I call on world leaders to lead and I want them to tell that beyond security measures we need education, social cohesion and respect for human rights. That is how young people will avoid decent illusions and become clear thinking and enlightened citizens. We have work to do and I urge you all to join. Thank you very much. Antonio, thank you so much for an incredibly wide-ranging speech which not only set out some of the challenges we face but also focused on some of the things that we need to do. But if I may take chair's advantage just for just one moment before I turn to the audience. You talk passionately about the importance of this being something that we all work on together and that all member states of the United Nations need to work on together. And yet we see day after day member states of the United Nations who have signed up to the principles of the charter, not actually taking their accountability and responsibility seriously, particularly when it comes to human rights. What do you say to them? First of all we need everything to avoid it and we need to have permanently a pedagogic relationship with them to make sure that they can avoid this kind of behavior, showing them that that is counterproductive. As I said, the majority of those that went into terrorist actions come from countries where human rights are violated and that violation is sometimes the trigger of someone to join a violent group or to go to fight somewhere else as you know in the different conflict theaters we have in the world or to become a terrorist in their own country. So this is counterproductive. Then we need to use the UN human rights instruments and there are a number. We have the Human Rights High Commissioner, we have Commissions of Inquiry, we had special rapporters, we have a number of elements. And ideally in some circumstances we should have the capacity to have the Security Council acting. Now it is true that the Security Council has been very reluctant in taking decisions in difficult situations. We all know there are divisions and there is a difficult conflict between the so-called national sovereignty agenda and the human rights agenda. To be clear, comparing things with what I witnessed when my time in government in the 90s, I think that we have to recognize that the national sovereignty agenda has gained ground in relation to the human rights agenda recently. And in many situations the only thing we can do is to speak out. You have done it many times, has had the UN humanitarian action to speak out and to be able to denounce those violations that it is impossible to address in any other form. Thank you. I'm going to turn over to our audience. I can see many hands up already. Are you going to take one question at a time or do you want to take two, three at a time? How would you like to do it, Antonio? I prefer one on one. In my time in parliament we used to sometimes try to have five or six in order to avoid the most difficult ones. Well, we won't do that. So we'll take, yes, and then I'll come over here. Thank you, Antonio. You mentioned the importance of the rule of law. Sorry, where are you because I'm... Perhaps say who you are very quickly. Sure. My name's Esther. I'm on the Master's Programme for International Politics. So you mentioned the importance of the rule of law in holding those responsible for terrorism to account. Do you think the Obama administration was perhaps errant in choosing to assassinate Osama bin Laden rather than capturing him perhaps and putting him in front of a criminal court? Sorry. The question was, do you think that the Obama administration would have been better capturing Osama bin Laden rather than killing him? Given what you said in your speech about what states should do and the importance of rule of law. You're not going to get an easy question. It is obvious for me that the right way to do these things is to make sure that there is effective accountability and effective accountability means that we bring the person into court and that that court condemns the person and then things follow in that direction. We came to a situation in which this has been replaced by the concept of war on terror, which means that for many states the fight against terrorism is being handled not in the context of the way to fight it in line with a certain number of procedures like the ones that we were discussing. But as a simple war. I hope that this concept does not gain ground because if this concept gains ground the risk of this becoming a kind of a self enforcing mechanism of self enhancing mechanism for terrorism itself is real. The most important way to fight terrorism is to avoid the capacity of terrorist organizations to recruit and the capacity of terrorist organizations to recruit depends highly on the way terrorism is fought. Sometimes the difficult way is the most effective. The easy way looks more spectacular but might be less effective in the long term. Thank you. Good evening Secretary General. Thank you very much for your very inspiring speech. My name is Dylan Cuwende. I'm a second year student at UCL and an Amos Bursary Scholar. My question is how do we reconcile living in a free and open society with the protection of its citizens and do you think it's quite unrealistic to suggest that we can reduce the risk of terrorism to zero which I imagine is a sentiment that we all share most? I do believe that protection of citizens is essential. I do believe governments need to have a number of important mechanisms. Intelligence is essential. The capacity to infiltrate groups to get adequate knowledge about what they are doing and to be able to persecute them effectively is essential. What I believe is that to do it effectively it is impossible, it is necessary not to mix fighting terrorism with what happens in some parts of the world in which based on the idea that we are fighting terrorism we just put in jail leaders of the opposition or we close the newspapers or we inhibit the space for the civil society to work. So it needs to be clearly a set of measures targeting terrorism and not using terrorism as a pretext to do other things in relation to the, because what we want is to protect the freedom, the freedom of our citizens. But your concern was in the protection of citizens. We're reconciling that with living in and being in a free society. So it's exactly what I said. You need to concentrate these in specific measures that target terrorist organizations and gather intelligence in line with the rule of law and not mixing it with the kind of other measures that we see in some parts of the world. But one thing for me is clear. It would be an illusion to think that we will be able to completely eradicate terrorism in the near future. And that is why I found the example given by the citizens of Manchester so inspiring. Because instead of reacting as in some parts of the world has happened, dividing, persecuting groups or what, there was a come together and there was the capacity to completely distinguish what is a terrorist attack from communities that have nothing to do with the terrorists themselves just because they share the same ethnicity, the same religion or the same political background. And this extraordinary example is what I think is inspiring, which means we will not be able to eradicate terrorism, but we need to make sure that terrorism does not change the structure of our societies, the principles of our freedoms and of our democracy and our way of life. And the way we are able to build resilient and tolerant societies in the community. Thank you. I'll choose, keep your hands up please, but while you do that, there's a question that came in on social media. The term terrorism has become so diluted in current discourse, is it still useful or has it lost its value? I think that it is clear what terrorism is, and I think it's clear that we know what it means, even if it was impossible for the member states to come together and adopt a definition of terrorism and a convention against terrorism. There are these 19 different specific conventions, but I think the term terrorism is perfectly adequate to describe what are indeed terrorist attacks. What is unacceptable is to use the term terrorism as an example of what is a terrorist attack. For the member states to come together and adopt a definition of terrorism and a convention against terrorism. There are these 19 different specific conventions, but I think the term terrorism is perfectly adequate to describe what are indeed terrorist attacks. What is unacceptable is to use the term terrorism to describe other forms of oppression that might happen in some parts of the world and against which we must also fight with the same determination. First of all, thank you for taking the time to come to speak with us today. My name is Sekander and I am a postgraduate student in international studies and diplomacy. My question is a bit more human rights focused. What is the UN's current role in mediating the Kashmir conflict given the escalation in human rights violations in recent times? And do you see a viable solution to the dispute? Thank you. I think some people think that in a conflict situation we need to close our eyes to all the crimes committed in order to be able to achieve peace or to have effective mediation. I believe that no peace will be sustainable without accountability, which means that I believe that all the efforts that are made to create conditions for peace to be established need to have a component of truth, accountability, as conditions for effective reconciliation. So the idea that we can just forget about human rights to have effective mediation is in my opinion a completely false idea. Thank you. And the next question there and then we'll come over here. My name is Azamati. Sorry, where are you? My name is Azamati. Every company manufactures things so that they are able to sell it to specific customers. From 1947 to 1989 during the Cold War, there were less than five bomb manufacturing companies in the United States and other members of the Security Council. Now, during that year, those bomb manufacturing companies earned something in excess of $300 billion. It means that they sold their bombs that they manufactured to the warring factions. Now, the Cold War era is no more, but then it is believed that... Can I ask you to come to your question? My question is that the members of the Security Council who are supposed to help in protecting... Sorry, who are supposed to help in countering terrorism? Host institutions that still manufacture bombs and they tax them and they get money from them. Now, how feasible is the United Nations idea of countering terrorism? If these same countries are the countries that have institutions that produce bombs and these bombs are sold to individuals that carry out terror acts? I am a true believer in disarmament and I am a true believer that one of the tragic things of our age is that we spend much more money in military equipment than we spent in humanitarian action. This is the truth. But that is the reality of our world and it's not by chance that the most important powers in the world are also the biggest exporters of war material. I do believe that there isn't... I don't think that there is any country that sells weapons to terrorists doing it on purpose. I don't think it happens like that. What is true is that when you have a market and then the market becomes expanded, terrorist organizations also benefit from the existence of that market. Whatever can be done in relation to disarmament is essential. There are some important steps. There was, as you know, agreement in relation to chemical weapons, in relation to nuclear disarmament has unfortunately not going fast, practically installed since the big agreements of the end of the Cold War, the last between Gorbat Sholf and Reagan. Afterwards, unfortunately, the nuclear disarmament has not made any progress. There were important measures in relation to, for instance, the important conventions in relation to personal mines in relation to cluster bombs. There is the traffic of small weapons that again is covered, but unfortunately we still have military industry with a very important weight in many economies, especially in the economies of the biggest countries. I'm going here next and then I'm coming to you after that. Hi, sir. My name is Ytana. I'm an undergraduate student here and I also lead the SOAS UN Society. My question is how can we as students contribute to the UN's agenda and strategy to combat terrorism? Thank you. I think it's being fully assuming citizenship and I think it is making sure that societies understand that diversity is a richness not a threat. Terrorists today do not need to have an organisational mechanism to come to any community to recruit people. Through the internet it's very simple to those that feel disenfranchised, that feel discriminated, that are all rise by things that they believe are the responsibility of certain countries or certain groups. Those that today are recruited by terrorism can be in any community and this is the biggest danger because those mechanisms of operations that are done through a more sophisticated system that involve international cooperation within terrorist groups etc. are more easy to detect and are more easy to fight and more easy to progress in the capacity of intelligence services to dismount those operations. But the problem is that all of a sudden somewhere nobody expects someone picks a knife or goes to the supermarket buys a number of things according to something that is in the internet and manufactures a bomb and kills a number of people or comes with a gun and kills a number of people. The best way to avoid these situations is to create an inclusive society. We are sure that people understand that diversity is a richness not a threat and to bet in the social cohesion of the community to work for the social cohesion of the community where we live for everybody to feel that their identities are respected but at the same time that they belong. This is not something that governments alone can do, this is something that citizens, the civil society has to do and I think that each one of us has a responsibility to make our societies vaccinated against terrorism thanks to the social cohesion and the mutual respect that the different parts of the community are able to enjoy. I'm going to take a question there and then I'm coming downwards. I've got this one next. Good evening. Sorry, where are you? I'm up here. My name is Clio Esonwine Caney. I'm a master's student in international studies and diplomacy. Thank you very much for the solutions that you have presented for countering terrorism. I personally think that a lot of the answers to the issues of terrorism are found through the answers to a question that is not addressed often enough and that is what do terrorists or what does terrorism want? Terrorism wants to terrorise. That's the logic, no? That's what makes terrorism different from any other crime. It's the idea to create panic in a society. It's an instrument of war. Why does someone come to that position, to want to terrorise? I think that this depends a lot on the frustrations, the feelings of discrimination or persecution that can exist in many societies. It's not true that it's only poverty on the contrary. Sometimes we see it in middle class families. It's the sense of injustice or discrimination that may lead in several situations, people, some unsane, some sane, but to this kind of desperate response. What we need to be able to explain to them is even if the cause they fight for is absolutely just and there are many injustices in the world we can fight for. Even if there is good reasons for them to feel angry or to feel that there is a grievance, terrorism can never be justified by that anger or that grievance. People should fight for their ideals in different ways, but never through terrorism. This is something that requires a lot of investment in the cohesion of societies, systems and if one looks at the most impacted areas, namely the Middle East and North Africa today, use unemployment is a dramatic factor and we see very little effort in international cooperation to address specifically as a total priority the problems of use unemployment. There are lots of things that could be done. I feel sometimes when, for instance, in the cooperation of the European Union or Europe with countries like Tunisia. Tunisia did a fantastic democratic transition. Tunisia is an example of how a country could take out dictatorship, create a democratic society and doing it in a way that even Islamic parties can be integrated in the system. And yet Tunisia has furnished, has provided a large number of warriors to the wars in Syria and Iraq and of course with a major terrorist threat. The reason is 40% unemployment in youth. And I think for Europe to support Tunisia, it would not be very expensive, to support Tunisia in order to address the problems of unemployment of its use and to receive also part of these young people in different ways of training or in temporary jobs and then allowing them to come back and to do something useful in their own country. To support Tunisia on these would be, in my opinion, much more important than just to try to convince Tunisia not to let people put themselves in boats and come to Europe. And this is the priority that I have not yet seen in international cooperation. Use unemployment being, in my opinion, the most important objective that should exist in national development plans and international cooperation. I see lots of hands. I have got a list. I'm not sure we can get through it all. Antonio, I'm going to have to ask you to make your answers. A little briefer if you can get through. We always had this when we were at the U.Ed. So we can get through more questions. So we have one here and then I'm going to come over to the gentleman here next. Mr Gotech, his name is Francesca. I'm Portuguese and I'm a master L.C. student. You can speak in Portuguese if you want. So that everyone understands. On what you just said about addressing the roots of the problem, I'd like to ask what is your message for young people around the world that are affected by high grievances in the communities such as poverty and employment and corruption to stand up to terrorism happening in their own communities and countries instead of joining terrorist organizations, especially in developing countries, because often these motivations are the ones that make young people engage in war and conflict and acts of terror that affect us all. Thank you. I think that what you said is the demonstration that we need to bet strongly on prevention and to create the conditions for people not to feel so desperate that they easily embark in the propaganda of terrorist groups. A rebuller from the Middle East in London. In your speech you spoke about how foreign government should prosecute foreign fighters who return to their country. No, no, no, based on the crimes they have committed. Based on the crimes? It's not the fact that you have been somewhere that justifies that you are prosecuted. I believe in the British legislation, the crimes committed by British citizens abroad can be brought to court. And that is what I sought. I mean, those foreign fighters that have committed crimes should be facing the justice. Sir, I wanted to finish my question. Sorry. So would you therefore be against the British policy called by senior intelligence officers in the UK and also politicians who call for IS foreign fighters to be killed on the battlefield? So many British politicians have called on British IS foreign fighters to be killed on the battlefield instead of being allowed to be come back to the UK. What is your stance on that? Well, I have never heard this and I don't think anybody can wish that letting people being killed is the solution of our problems. I do believe that those British citizens or Portuguese citizens or whatever citizens that have committed crimes and come back should be prosecuted according to law. Geoffrey Robertson, I am a trustee of so as thank you for honouring us with your presence this evening. Next Wednesday will be a red letter day for the United Nations and its contribution to the rule of law. General Mladic, charged as the architect of genocide, the worst form of terrorism in Srebrenica, will receive his verdict in the last trial at the court dealing with former Yugoslavia. That court has convicted, I think, 167 international criminals and none of them from Africa. And there you have the record. What future do you see for international justice mechanisms given the reluctance of African countries particularly to go with the ICC? But I think we should pay tribute to Africa in the sense that most African countries have ratified the Rome Statute. And even if there is sometimes a debate that is not so positive, the fact is with the exception of Burundi, all African countries remain in the ICC. And I think that the difficult moment is overcome, in my opinion. I think the difficult moment is overcome. The grievance of the Africans was to say that why only Africans are being targeted. The problem is that, unfortunately, in the other conflict areas, the countries involved are countries that have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute, like Syria, like Iraq, etc. And the Security Council has shown very clear reluctance in sending whoever to the ICC for reasons that are related to what I said about national sovereignty and human rights agendas. But I am a believer that international penal justice is an absolutely vital instrument for our world. And it's not only a question of justice and deterrence. I think it is clear for me that the problems we have today cannot be solved by countries alone in general. It's obvious for me that we need multilateral governance solutions. And one of the multilateral governance solutions is related to penal justice that is administered internationally when countries are not able to do it by themselves. So I think we should do everything possible to support the international criminal court and to create the conditions for more and more countries to be able to join. And we should call the Security Council members to be able to fully accept their responsibilities, referring the cases that are justifiable to the ICC as it should happen. We've got overtime, but if everyone is disciplined, I'm going to take three more questions. So one here, then one here, and then the gentleman here right next to you, to your left. OK, let's go. My name is Maria, and I'm a second year economics and politics student at SAAS. And my question for you is in regards to what you said about the response in Manchester. So what happens when people and countries don't respond like the people in Manchester do? And what can the UN do in order to ensure that the response to terrorism is one of peace and love and positivity other than hate and this kind of shift that we've seen in a lot of Europe and North America? Into a more protectionist view? Well, I think we should stand up for our values. And I'm, as I said, a true believer in multilateralism. I'm a true believer. Globalisation is, I think, irreversible. I think we need a more fair globalisation, but it is a total nonsense to think that we can revert to a nationalistic inward looking position. And I think we need to fight for those values. And what the UN can do is to use all its instruments in order to be able to express those values and to facilitate all those organisations in the civil society and all those entities that are able to fight for those values. I mean, there is no way. These are things that you cannot impose on people. These are things that you need to engage and to need to discuss and you need to promote with all the instruments that you have at your disposal. Short. It will be. My name is Phil Clark. I teach issues of conflict and justice here at SOAS. Secretary-General, my question is, you've emphasised prosecutions very heavily tonight as one of the key mechanisms for tackling terrorism. Prosecutions. You've emphasised courts and trials very heavily. But I wonder, does that suggest that you don't think that two other key mechanisms that have often been used to tackle conflict are not applicable in cases of terrorism? Namely, the use of amnisties for terrorists and the role of negotiations with terrorist organisations. Is your position, is the position of the UN more broadly, that amnisties and talking to terrorists are completely off the table? Thank you. Now, as a matter of fact, humanitarians talk to terrorists and I in the past and I believe the same has happened to Valerie. We have discussed access for humanitarian action to areas where terrorist organisations operate. I remember Syria in areas of all-newsdomination it was possible to have humanitarian access. We have to talk with them. So, I mean, to talk is not the problem. Amnisties, I don't think are the solution. I think a culture in which we use amnisties as a tool pretending that we solve, that creates conditions for peace agreements based on amnisties, I think it's an illusion. In my opinion, it is essential to have accountability associated with all-peace processes and to guarantee. And then we can have different mechanisms of justice, transitional justice, justice and reconciliation. I mean, there are many mechanisms and there are different experiences that have been used in the world that were quite positive. But just to say, okay, let's forget about everything and please do it again next time. This is, I don't think, a good idea. Thank you, Mr Secretary. So my question is, there have been successful models for, excuse me, there have been successful models. Oh, my name is Wandy and I'm from CISD. But there have been successful models for prosecuting war crime criminals. For example, the United Nations had one after the end of World War II. So what is the role of the United Nations facilitating these kinds of things in areas that have conflict? And why has that kind of fallen off? Now, the international crime, we have created some courts in some specific areas. And I mean, the ex-Yugoslavia is a fantastic example, but there are other examples of courts. For instance, Rwanda, that have worked in my opinion in an extremely positive way and we could go on giving several other examples. At a certain moment there was the idea, which I think is a very good idea. It's better instead of having a court for each situation that justifies it to have an international criminal court. Unfortunately, there are many countries that are not parties to the statute. And because of that, knowing that the Security Council has the right to ask the court to act in a certain number of circumstances where the countries themselves are not members to the statute. And because of that, the court cannot act by itself. Unfortunately, as I said, we have witnessed in the recent past that there is very little appetite of the Security Council to do so. And this is a major concern for us. It's a young lady who had her hand up almost from the beginning. If it's really short, you can have your question. Really short. Hi, thank you, Mr Secretary General. My name is Cecilia. I'm a student at CSD here at SOAS. My question is not about terrorism, but in general because you mentioned youth and we are a lot of students here. Seeing how recent events at the United Nations is mostly youth speaking to youth or when we get the opportunity to speak to other head of member states or similar people, they only dismiss us. How do you plan personally to get the youth more involved to solve issues in the world today? Thank you. To get youth more involved? Yes. To solve the problems of the world. And this is your final question, Antonio, so go for it. That is the question I would like to know how to answer because if I would know how to answer, we would be working very strongly in that direction and we are still struggling to do it. The empowerment of youth is, in my opinion, a fundamental mechanism to address all these problems, not only terrorism but many others. International organisations like UN have difficulty in, first of all, and I think the same happens to governments in general, as difficulties to communicate with the youth. It's also a generational question. Our system of communication, and I hope that the new and the Secretary General of Communication, that is by the way a British citizen is sitting with us today, will be able to address and solve this problem. Our system of communication is not youth-friendly. It's not youth-friendly. It's still sometimes a little bit de-no-sauric. And the way youth communicate and interact today is very different from the generation that is in power in most political structures at national level and at international level and in the UN. And so this is the first difficulty. And the second difficulty is that the problem is not only a problem of communication. The problem is how can we make sure that young people can indeed participate in the political processes, in the peace negotiations, in the definition of policies. And there we are clearly lagging behind what you'd be useful. More. I think we are witnessing a situation in which with the ageing of societies, and this is happening, more and more decisions are taken based on a majority of citizens of my age, I would say. Even if most of these decisions will have essentially an impact in the lives of young people. And this is a problem that modern democracies have not yet solved. And I believe that we need to work hard to be able to solve this problem at national level and we need to work hard to solve this problem at the level of international organisations like the UN, where the empowerment of youths and the full participation of youths in decision making processes is not yet working properly. It is that you've appointed a youth envoy and the first thing that you said to her, because I met her last week, was that her job was to be disruptive of the organisation. Which I think tells its own story. And I told her, please misbehave. And you told her to misbehave. Ladies and gentlemen, please thank Antonio Deter. Apologies to all of you whose questions we could not get in, but I think you would all agree that a wide-ranging speech, a huge agenda and a huge amount for us to do. So once again, Antonio, thank you very much indeed.