 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Rick Trainer. I'm principal of King's College London. And it's my enormous pleasure and privilege to welcome you to this event, which is cosponsored by the Kofiadon Foundation, by UNAUK, and by the Conflict Security and Development Research Group of King's College London. It's wonderful to have this distinguished audience assembled. I'm assured by those who know that when tickets were made available for this event, that to say that they sold like hotcakes would be an understatement. They were evidently gone within the half hour. And I'm not surprised, but it's very pleasing to have you all with us. Some of you, of course, are either staff or students of King's College London. But many of you are not, which gives me just a very slender opportunity to engage in a little bit of advertising for my institution. Founded in 1829, these premises, not this room in its current condition, of course, opened in 1831. Part of the University of London, but these days, a very decentralized entity. King's has been awarding its own degrees for the last six years. We have about 26,000 students, about 7,000 employees. And the system of world rankings that we like the best, because it shows us in the best light, recently had us as 19th internationally, that is, in the world. And we pursue teaching and research across a very wide range of subjects, from the arts and humanities through the social sciences, natural and mathematical sciences, law, and a whole range of biomedical sciences and health disciplines. But within that, international affairs is a longstanding and brightly shining strong suit at King's College London. We have a variety of undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications being pursued. And we have in our Department of War Studies, a department which for now for more than 50 years has been pursuing not just the study of war, as the name suggests, but a whole variety of other related subjects, nicely summed up, I think, by the name of the research group that I gave before, conflict, security, and development. And that wide-ranging approach to international affairs led, in this case, by Professor Mats Bridal, the head of the group, is, I think, a very appropriate transition to the event that we're hosting here today. One that's conscious, of course, of conflict, but also dedicated to its resolution and prevention. This is, in a way, a family occasion for King's College London in that both of the major participants I'm about to give way to have a special connection, I'm very pleased to say, to King's College London. So Secretary-General Anand, among his many, many honors, received an honorary degree from King's in 2008 when we were very privileged to have his commemoration lecture, another occasion which sold out within the half hour, and it's an absolute delight to have you back with us, Mr. Anand, this afternoon. And the person who's going to be in the most elegant sense of the term interrogating the former Secretary-General. So Jeremy Greenstock is also, in addition to his many distinctions, a former UK ambassador to the UN, special representative to Iraq, director of the Ditchley Foundation, and now chairman of the UN Association UK. In addition to all those things, I'm pleased to say he's an honorary fellow of King's College London, a tie we've had to him since 2006. So that's more than enough for me. We're absolutely delighted that you're all here, and in particular that our two special participants are here. Without further ado, I'll hand over to Jeremy Greenstock and ask you to join me in welcoming him. Thank you, principal. Welcome everybody to this wonderful special event with King's College and UNA working closely together. It's great to be back in this college, Rick. Thank you so much for your welcome, and thanks to your colleague, Professor Matt Burdow, the Professor for Security and Development at King's College for helping to bring this together with my team at UNA UK. Before I get into the business of the afternoon, could I please let you all know that this is an open event, will be recorded. Please, could you turn your phones off and not use flash photography, apart from the official photographers here. It is in that sense an open event. So please make sure that you follow those guidelines. Secretary-General, it's wonderful to have you back in the confines of King's College London and in the arms of UNA UK, which you have so warmly supported throughout your various distinguished jobs. This is a very important occasion in two senses for both your book that's coming out, We the Peoples, the collection of your marvelous speeches through your period of Secretary-General. And it's the start of the lead-up for UNA UK to their major biennial event, the UN Forum, which takes place at Central Hall Westminster on the 28th of June. And this is the start of the season leading up to that event. And we very much want the substance of this afternoon to feed into some of the debate that will take place in Central Hall on that Saturday in late June. Cathy Annen was the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, 1996 to 2007. And the first and the only one so far to have risen to that position from out of the ranks of the UN system itself, in which he served for 44 years of his public career. He is also chair of the Cathy Annen Foundation, which does marvelous work across the world with a special focus on Africa. I learned when I was there for my five years at the UN totally within Mr. Annen's Secretary-General's shit what an important difference he was making to the resetting of the UN's priorities during his term, which is often referred to under the name of reform, but international institutions are very hard to reform. They've got to be made to work to their full potential and capacity. And that is what Cathy Annen strove and succeeded in doing to make the international system more effective and to make the only global institution a real part of that system. He was a constant advocate for human rights, the rule of law, the millennium development goals, and for Africa, which I learned took up two thirds of the work of the UN Security Council. And he sought to bring the organization closer, not just to governments or even to parliaments, but to global citizens by forging ties with civil society, the corporate sector, and with other partners across the world. Since leaving the UN at the beginning of 90 of 2007, Kofi Annen has not ceased to give his all to international affairs. In early 2007, he set up the Kofi Annen Foundation to promote better global governance and strengthen the capacity of peoples to achieve a fairer and more secure world. And the foundation works to counter new threats to security and peace and supports his preventive diplomacy and mediation activities. One of those quickly came to light in 2008 when he led the African Union's panel of eminent African personalities in addressing above all the difficult situation in Kenya and the many other instances of the work that he's done, continuing the special mission that he took on as Secretary General. He's the founding chairman of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. He's an active member and now chairman of the Elders Group, and he's a board member, a patron, or an honorary member of a whole range of organizations, including the UN Foundation. And you will already, most of you, have read his first published book, his memoir, Interventions, A Life in War and Peace, which was published two years ago. I will now invite Mr. Annen up to the stage. We are going to have a conversation about the book, the UN, current events, the link between the past and the future, and we shall bring in some of you who have submitted as requested questions before the event, and the questioners will be called out to stand up and take the microphone and ask their question. And if there are follow-up comments from the questioner, I would like to take those. And we will vary between the stage and the audience as we go along, but the questions are all pre-submitted and pre-chosen. And at the end of this section of the afternoon, at around 4.30, I'm getting my time right, 4.30, I will have brought onto the stage Edward Mortimer, who collaborated with Kofi Annan very closely in the writing of these speeches that we're talking about this afternoon. And then we'll move into a book signing half hour in another room, the details of which I will explain to you at the time that we get to that point. But I'd like you all now, please, to give a warm welcome to the former seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan. Now, Kofi, you've got a pretty knowledgeable audience here. They are getting already into your book, which I have in front of me. They will want to ask you some quite searching questions about where you think our only global institution has gone it's very difficult to say more than you said in these speeches about the trend of events, but you have now been away from the United Nations for seven years now. And I think you'll get some questions about the trend of that organization and where you think it's going to go. But one of the things you say in your speeches and you say in this book is that human rights were at the very heart of the UN's work, linked with everything. You draw that out in the five lessons that you've learned from your experience at the UN. And yet the principles of human rights were very difficult to agree and apply globally because the UN covers so many different cultures and so many different political interests and objectives. Do you think we are beginning to gain traction on a universal acceptance of a single standard of human rights? And how is it that the UN can go on implementing with its various organs that very important core work? We are getting traction in the sense that many more people are now familiar with the universality of human rights. And you have many Arctic groups pushing for human rights. And I also believe that I believe it, I don't know if everybody does, but I think many people are beginning to accept that democracy had a tendency to think when you have elections, you go through crisis, you have elections, you are on the road to establishing democracy. And yet to build a healthy, strong democracy, I believe you need three pillars. You need to have peace and stability, you need development, and you need rule of law and respect for human rights. Because I don't think you can have long-term development without stability and peace. Nor can you have long-term stability without development looking after the welfare of the people. But no country can long remain prosperous without respect for rule of law and human rights. And I think that third pillar is extremely important. And I think the importance of that third pillar is beginning to dawn on people when you look around the world. And in fact, we talked of the Arab Spring and Arab Awakening. If you take Tunisia, for example, if before the Arab Awakening I had asked people, what do you think of Tunisia? I would have had great country, very stable and high GDP growth. Nobody will mention the third pillar. And yet it was the absence of that third pillar that led to the explosion. And this message, I think, is beginning to sink in. We just had elections in the biggest democracy in the world, the Indian elections. And the rise civil liberties was very much part of the elections and what led to the results that we saw. And the input into this subject that the member states themselves are contributing, particularly through the Human Rights Council in Geneva, has that been a worthy successor to the previous Human Rights Committee of the UN where there was a lot of argument about the performance of states who were in the chair? I think we are making progress. Under the commission, I saw two groups. Two groups that came to Geneva each year. One group determined to condemn the other. The other determined to defend itself. And when they locked horns at the end of it, you asked yourself, but where is the individual whose rights we are supposed to protect? It sounded as if we had forgotten the individuals who were more interested in locking horns. What the council has done, which can be extremely helpful, is the review of all, records of all countries. In effect, arguing that no country has a perfect human rights system or record. Some have better systems we can learn from. So by reviewing the human rights performance of each country, you learn, you get people to engage seriously, and they know that it's going to be their turn next year. So they have to be serious in the discussions that you have. And I think that has been helpful. You also have the rapporteur system, which I think has served the UN and the countries there well. It's not perfect. It's not perfect. I know sometimes governments are surprised by the members who are voted on to the council. But we live in the real world. And if we want to improve the human rights record of all countries, we should have some of them. But once also in the system, and that's the way to improve them. You say in your speech on human rights, because in 2006, in your last month, in fact, that you looked to three areas in particular to take a lead on implementing the principles that we talk about in human rights. Africa, civil society, and women. Do you think those three areas are picking up that challenge? Yeah, I can talk from direct experience. It is happening, but when I was in Kenya, I got into Kenya and decided that by then, over 1,000 people had been killed, and the killing was going on. In the end, 1,300 people were killed. 650 people were uprooted from their homes. And I decided I wasn't going to work with the governments to rearrange the political chairs. And that we needed to have a deeper reform. And to do that, we needed to work with civil society and the people. So from the government, my meeting with the government, our municipal society, women's groups, religious groups, private business groups, and told them Kenya is on the brink. We need to work together to save it. And you have a role to play. Don't leave it to the politicians alone. They will not do it, or they will not do it the right way. So whichever agreement we sign, we will not keep it behind closed doors. I will release it immediately to you. And you have to make sure it's implemented and maintain the pressure. Most of the leaders of the civil society groups were women. They showed incredible courage. They came to the meetings, organized with the opposition papers, and really pushed for reform. Today, Kenya, despite all the problems, has perhaps one of the most progressive constitutions. On the contrary, it came out of this process. And I couldn't have done the work we did without them, without the women's groups, without civil society. And I think other groups around Africa have watched what has happened in Kenya. And they are strengthening their civil society groups. The governments, the leaders, the politicians are not necessarily sympathetic to civil society. As I travel around the world, you often get comments from governments. Whose agenda are they carrying out? Whose paying them? Whom are they working for? Who gave them the mandate? And they all failed politicians, organizing themselves in civil. They are not very, but they are making a difference. And I think we have seen the development of robust civil society, which is extremely important for Africa, for democracy, and respect for human rights. That's the only way you can put pressure on the leaders and end impunity. Let's, let's, or you cannot see my face. You can, OK. Is this better? Yeah. Yeah. OK. I'm sorry. Thank you for that. But you can hear me, though. No. Yeah. OK. Let's start the questions from the audience. When I call the name, please give your name and affiliation, if you'd like to, and put your question when the microphone reaches you. I'm going to start with Steph Siddall. Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I'm Steph Siddall, former intern at UNI UK. Mr. Anand, I wanted to ask, what's been the biggest change that you've seen in the world since you were Secretary-General? That's an interesting first question. Yeah. No, there has been quite a few changes. I think one of the, I'm going back to when I started. I hope you don't, you're not referring to the changes that has taken place since I stepped down. Yeah, I think, in a way, Sir Jeremy referred to some of them, the engagement with civil society, with the private sector, and the sort of partnerships which are the mesh today, which allows the UN to work in concert with civil society, with the private sector, with governments and parliamentarians. I think we tend to underestimate it, but it has had a real impact. Some of the achievements that the UN has made and is going to be making, wouldn't be possible without civil society. And in some situations, the private sector has had an incredible impact. I'll give you one example in the area of HIV AIDS. Dr. Gruberentland and Peter Piot, who was head in the... Gruberentland was well-held, Peter Piot was UNHs, who were all very worried about how we get treatment to the poor. The anti-retroviral treatment had come that was very expensive. It was about $15,000 per person per year. There was no way the poor could have access to this. And we began cracking our heads, how do we help the poor? How can you go and tell the poor that we know you're sick? Medication is available that can save you, but because you don't have money, it's a death sentence. So what we did was convene seven chairmen of the largest pharmaceutical companies in Amsterdam, and we put the problem to them that you need to work with us to get this medication to the poor. They were very hesitant at the beginning. One of them said, I don't even know why he came to this meeting. We'll be accused of price-fixing. And I said, price-fixing is when you collude to maximize profits. We brought you here to lose money. We want you to cut your prices. And at that time, in fact, they were seeing Mandela in South African court because he had threatened to use compulsory licensing to produce a medication for his people. So I said, I don't know who your special, your communication advisors are. I'm not one. But if you go and see Mandela in South Africa on an issue like HIV-AIDS, if you lose, you lose and lose. If you win, you lose and lose and lose. So you better find a way of resolving this out of court which they eventually did. But they reduced the cost of the medication quite drastically and some of it in the very pain which prevented mother-to-child transmission, which was really the worst of all transmissions. They were given the medication away free in South African region, Botswana and others. And with that action, they really made contribution and saved lives. In fact, it was better than giving us money, but we could only do it because by then we had to engage the private sector before then we were at arms length with them. So a lot has happened. And I think what is also important is that the public and civil society by and large realize the importance of the UN but there's lots of work that the UN has to do. In some situations, we've allowed expectations to rise very, very high and create expectations that we couldn't possibly manage. We couldn't possibly succeed. And then we get knocked for failure. Was that the program, Kofi, the AIDS malaria tuberculosis program which you raised an enormous amount of money that gave you the most confidence that a program of that scale could actually be done? That's about the time we launched the global fund to fight AIDS malaria and tuberculosis. And over the period we've raised over $22, $25 billion to help the poor. In fact, when I started the program, I expected $5 billion. But we've now into much, much more, $25 billion have been raised and it's saved lots of lives. And not only were the private sector engaged but civil society became also very active. And for the company directors who at the beginning were hesitant, I had incredible encounters with them. I would meet chairman of these companies at the Waldorf-Astiria event. And the secretary general, our workers love this program. They are happy that we are engaged and we are doing good. And then the young ones who approached me said, Mr. Secretary, to maintain the pressure on the chairman and the board. Which was really a wonderful way of working. Let's have a second question from Roger Hallam, please. Put your hand up, areas. Roger Hallam, chair of the London and Southeast region of United Nations Association UK. Mr. Secretary General, I'd like to ask you a question about the broad picture at the present time. Some are likening the current blockage at the UN Security Council on key issues, such as Syria or Ukraine, to a new Cold War. What is your own view as to the main tensions in the current international relations? Thank you. We are going through a very difficult period. And the phrase third Cold War has been raised often. I hope we are not headed that way. I would want to see a situation where there's serious quiet dialogue between the major powers. I personally think they're talking too much publicly, accusing each other in pointed fingers. And that makes sometimes coming to an agreement or understanding very difficult. I hope we are not headed for a third Cold War. I think the situation in Ukraine is difficult and complicated. I'll give you my own view. I have a sense that first of all, we should have anticipated some of the problems we are facing today. I think the developments at Maidan Square got carried away. Some of the politicians got carried away because the Russians who are next door and their neighbors could simply, I'm not defending the Russians, but we should have known they were simply not allowed Crimea, for example, to go with their fleet and all that, that there will be a reaction. Some of us are old enough to remember how the US reacted when the Russian missiles appeared in Cuba, and that was 90 miles away with a sea in between. This is on their border. My senses, Putin and the Russians have to understand that to destabilize Ukraine is not in their interest. It will cause lots of problems for them and they have enough already. I believe Ukraine should be a bridge. There shouldn't be a tug-of-war over Ukraine trying to pull it to the west or the east. Whoever succeeds cannot expect things to become. If you pull it to the west, there will be constant problems from the Russian side and vice versa. And I would want to see a situation where Ukraine lives peacefully with both sides, the sort of relationship we've seen with Norway I mean, or Finland. Finland is a better example, where they are in the union but not in NATO and have very good relations with the Russians and there has been no controversy. And I hope that is the direction people would want to go. And I think the west and the Russian can make a common cause and stabilize Ukraine. I have not given up and I don't think a cold war is necessary. The Russians have made some moves which perhaps Putin feels puts him in a strong position but it doesn't mean that he's going to have it all his way. A destabilized Ukraine can create lots of problems for him and I suspect he understands that he knows that. What is also unfortunate is the developments in other regions, whether it's Syria or Africa, where the regional powers do not play their role. When I look at the situation in Syria, which I was involved with, you cannot resolve the Syrian crisis unless the regional powers work effectively with the Security Council. By the regional powers, I mean Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. And of course now that things are improving a bit, Egypt would insist on being one of those regional powers that has to work with the international community to stabilize Syria because they all have interests. We see almost proxy war going on in Syria and it doesn't serve anyone's interest. It's interesting we used to complain a lot about proxy wars funded and encouraged by U.S. and Russia. Now we're seeing proxy wars being undertaken by regional powers in their regions. And as I look around, you have countries which are more afraid of the regional powers than the superpowers because the superpowers are far away, they are not as close enough. And the regional powers can play a very disruptive role in any country when they decide to. Perhaps it's a moment on Syria to pay tribute not only to your own amazing efforts, beginning of that conflict to find a solution, but to those of Ambassador Lachdar Rahimi who's been one of your greatest colleagues in trying to deal with difficult political situations. You both were unable to find a basis for political compromise. Do you despair of political compromise in Syria? When does the moment for another political push come? The President is going ahead with the elections which, unsurprisingly, he would announce he's won. And that creates a problem as to whether you can go ahead with a new Geneva round. My own view is that one should quietly create a task, a coalition, a core group, a core group which would include the permanent members of the Security Council and at least the four regional powers, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and Turkey, to really come up with a program and make a common cause and say this is how we are going to resolve this issue. And this is what I try to do with Geneva 1. That paragraph in the communique that said what is required is a transitional government with full authority was to get everyone to rally. The Russians signed on the Americans, everybody, but I could not get Saudi Arabia and Iran to attend that meeting. Iran was ready. The Saudis said they found it difficult to sit with the Iranians and I couldn't get the Americans to deliver and pray the Saudis to come. So in the end, both of them were not there. Has the situation changed with the political change in Iran and after all the Saudi foreign ministers now invited his opposite number from Iran to visit? Is there another chance? I think we should work on it. I think it's time to try and see if we can bring them together because if you don't get them together, I recall with a six-point plan when we got a cessation of hostilities and you can go back and check out the record on the 12th of April, we said all guns must seize fire and it was quiet. Both sides stopped fighting and I started and I had been talking to the leaders in the region to help to pressure them to honor the cessation of hostilities and it was interesting. Some would tell me they have to defend themselves. The others say well if they stop fighting what will the terrorists do? And they wouldn't help. You know they were not ready but because at that point everybody thought military victory was possible and they were going to win. I think there's more realism now and so with an effort if we can put together that core group we should really be able to then bring the Syrian parties to the table only understanding that those pulling the strings would work with the mediator. Could we have a question please from Sir Mingus Campbell? Mingus Campbell, House of Commons. My question is I suppose partly related to Syria and it says what is your assessment of the current effectiveness of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect? Yeah I had a lot to do with that doctrine I believe in it but I think it had a bit of a setback with Libya. You know you would recall the Russians and the Chinese did not pay to the resolution on Libya. They like other member states had accepted the responsibility to protect but it became very clear to me when I was handling Syria that they felt really bruised by what happened in Libya. Both the Russians and the Chinese felt that the mandate was misapplied and stretched arguing that they did not be to the resolution because they accepted the principle that people should be held but were shocked to see how quickly the resolution morphed or was turned into a regime change and I think we are going to have difficulty getting them to agree to another resolution based on responsibility to protect. In fact in Syria I discuss specifically arms embargo the both countries saw it as beginning of a slippery slope another Libya they wouldn't buy it they wouldn't agree but the fact that we have not been able to intervene in Syria doesn't mean we cannot intervene where we can there will be other situations which will not be as complex then hopefully neither the Russians or the Chinese would veto it I think in fact one of them perhaps most effective application of the doctrine was what happened in Kenya. We never talked of force we had the support of all organizations from Kamilashah Mahio with the Commonwealth European Union the US everybody supported our work the US was very strong in fact at one stage in the negotiations President Bush and Condi Rice were in Tanzania so I called President Bush I said we are at a critical state could Condi join me and give these people the message she came and there were a couple of Canadians who were playing spoilers political leaders the US suspended their visas and made it clear that the suspension is not only their individual visas to affect their families if children are studying the US they may have to leave and wives cannot go and shop and other governments were thinking of it and of course without releasing the names everybody went around saying who is next what's happening and a whole series of diplomatic and other pressures we got the situation turned around never mentioning the use of force and then this is really perhaps the most effective way one should look at the responsibility to protect if you had tried to apply the Hwa of determined principles that you applied in Kenya in Libya under Colonel Gaddafi it might have exhausted even your patience no to to to get to a result that I have to fit it to the surface that I agree each each a crisis as its own peculiarities I was just telling you the attitude of the Russians and the Chinese let's take Libya for example if when we saw the tanks rolling towards Benghazi with the mandate of the Security Council NATO had bombed the tanks and said it's a bark of we can go much further don't declare war on your own people what would have happened with the Russians and the Chinese embrace the responsibility to protect I don't know but they really thought that it went too far when Gaddafi was thrown trapped in the gutter and the ditch I hold no brief for Gaddafi I know what he was capable of and the people had to be protected but the people also would ask a question if you came to protect us and you have bombed the tanks knowing what Gaddafi is capable of why do we do you leave us with him this is the other question so it's a tough one. I always thought that the Russians were constrained on Libya by the fact that the Arab League were not taking the regional organization pronounced which they don't often do you think that the time of the regional organizations has come that they need to take on more responsibility from the universal center of the U.S. are they strong enough to do that? I think it depends on the region the regional organizations have weaknesses often it is extremely difficult to get them to agree to take action in a neighboring country they I mean take ASEAN for example is very very reluctant to get involved in the politics of neighboring country and I lived through this when we were under East Timor you were involved you went to East Timor we needed a force to help protect the people in East Timor I managed to convince Prime Minister Howard of Australia to leave the force he said he would leave the force but we needed to put a force together he didn't want Australians to be alone there I called Mahathir I called Indonesia I called Thailand Philippines they all say well we see what is happening we will be prepared to participate but you should get permission from the Indonesians you should get permission for the Indonesian president and that was an incredible period for me because I was working both ends of the of the day when we ended in New York it was morning in Indonesia so I'll be on the phone with the Prime Minister Bibi and we went back and forth and he was being misled by his own people yes he kept you know the story he kept saying we are not destroying East Timor we are not attacking the Timorese it's Indonesians who have lived there and have to leave who do not want to leave their properties their cars and they are destroying their own property before they left I said Mr. Prime Minister it's not true we went back and forth in the end he agreed that a force can come in to assist not against his will and not us and in position their force then all the other countries came in you know they allow their troops to join the force but if you have crisis and you're going through this sort of thing people will be it was the Security Council mission that took General Wiranto to Dili and showed him the lies that he was being told on his own and the embarrassment led to the release of East Timor let's have a further question from Richard Kaplan please there we go Richard Kaplan Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford you mentioned the United States a few moments ago and during your tenure as Secretary General your relations with the United States were at times fraught pretty mildly I'm wondering what lessons you draw from those experiences for effective stewardship stewardship of the United Nations yeah I think we have to start on the assumption that any Secretary General of the UN would one time or the other run into difficulties with one of the big powers and it's likely to be the US because we are there we are there and one should be prepared to to engage them what is interesting here is when the Secretary General is being attacked or getting into trouble with the US you don't hear from the member states whose agents you are they would tell you quietly in the corridors or in your office we don't like what's going on we know what they are doing but they will not raise their voice to defend the organization or the Secretary General for that matter at the same time the Secretary General should not be intimidated by the fact that he may run afoul of US policy because the US also knows that there could be moments of convergence and moments of disagreement I mean I recall conversations I've had with some of the Secretaries of State with Madeleine Albright where we disagreed on quite a few things over the others where he said that's why you are the Secretary General I'm the Secretary of State I have my interest I know what I'm defending and you would and there are times when they would also push hard I think one at one time somebody told the Secretary of State I think it was Madeleine that the lawyers have said this say change your lawyers get yourself better lawyers which is but I think the US realizes that it needs a UN and the UN also needs a US so the UN and the Secretary General should not always behave as if they are helpless and they have no no means to resist or to because the US in the end also needs the UN I recall in Iraq when they were talking about UN being irrelevant and I said be careful you're going to need the UN after the war to help you try to stabilize if you discredit the organization to the extent that you're doing you'll be able to come back or you have to come back with your tail between your legs in the end they did come so the ups and downs will be there it's part of the function and I also think that the UN itself can do better explaining this position not only to the American media but to the people at large we don't do a good job telling our story we don't do a good job explaining our position and we can't even tell our success stories effectively. Do you remember Kofi when Senator Jesse Helms came to the UN Security Council brought by Ambassador Richard Holbrook who has worked long and hard to get the Senate to agree to a new disposition on UN finances and Jesse Helms came to the Security Council and talked to the 15 states around the Horseshoe table and I remember him saying in the in the heart of the politics of the United Nations you people must realize there is no greater authority in international affairs than the voice of the American people from the Security Council no it's true and we were all far too polite it went around 14 hours and we wouldn't take him up on this until the last speaker in the Security Council was Ambassador Martin Ann Jarba of Namibia yeah a revolutionary. A revolution he said I've listened Senator very carefully to what you have said and I understand that the United States is the world's greatest democracy but when Namibia was seeking independence and trying to create a democracy in its own state through the voice of its own people you gave us no help whatsoever and there was a silence. Was this eloquent? This is also as I said often the member states don't speak up but at least one person spoke up because he could have walked out thinking that I've laid down the law and nobody challenged me. Strangely he became a fan you went after that. He invited me to his alma mater to give a speech and he was sitting next to Nan and I was on the podium and he was smiling Nan southern Germany when I said we've got a friend here. I get to come to a couple more questions from the audience but I'm going to release a privilege for an unsubmitted question to anybody in the audience who's been a former permanent representative of the United Nations because we have those from Australia and India and the UK maybe one or two others I hadn't seen so prepare yourselves in due course but could I have the next question please from Judith Fawcett. Judith Fawcett from the United Nations Association in Belfast. Education is a powerful and precious right which should be delivered throughout the world to everyone. What message of encouragement and hope will you give to young people growing up in situations of conflict or its legacy that make education impossible? Yeah no education is extremely important and precious as you say and I think we should try okay under where the millennium development goes we are pushing education particularly for girls in in in all societies and in refugee situations the high commission for refugees attempts to set up schools in their camps to assist with education and in Syria the UNRA the UN program which also runs a Palestinian territory in Gaza is setting up schools in these camps in an attempt not only to educate them but to maintain the hope and get across the message that education is so important in whatever circumstances you are in we will try to get education to it's not perfect it's not ideal it's not the circumstances that people would normally want to be in to be able to study but since you cannot move them to the countries or back to their own country you have to do the best you can where they are but you have to tell them not to give up hope and they are young people you cannot talk in terms of hope you have to act you have to give them access to education we need to find the means and this is where the humanitarian work sometimes falls short because we know the needs but we don't get the money the resources I mean if you take Syria I think the UN has got less than half of the pledges or the needs that it has right would any former permanent representative wish to put a question David Hammond well it's an offer you make which is extremely unwise because both the permanent representative sitting here would like to ask Kofi a question I'd like to to follow on what you said about Ukraine and Syria where I would take a slightly more pessimistic view than you because I think that we do actually face a code war type paralysis in the UN machinery in so far as dealing with those two problems concerned but could you perhaps look at the third code war paralysis situation which is that in the east and south China seas and what do you think that the UN could do to get away from a situation which currently looks really rather threatening and in which all the parties are deadlocked and it's quite clear that if you simply went to the Security Council you'd get a Chinese veto so could you perhaps say something about that? Let me say that on the Cold War situation you are right that on Syria and on Ukraine we seem blocked in the we are blocked in the Council but I'm hopeful that with a bit of assistance and quiet one can break the Ukrainian situation if we can I don't know what happens after what will happen with the elections and what happens with Russian attitude after the elections they have indicated they are waiting to see what happens if we can get some understanding going and we break it there and can put together a core group is all if in Syria we may be able to disengage and in fact Jeffrey Sachs just came out with a book on how to move the world talking about the kind of engagement that took place between Khrushchev and Kennedy the exchange of letters quite extraordinary very quietly working out to resolve the Cuban crisis and moving on to nuclear disarmament which using third parties talking very quietly surprising their own size both of them you know and I would hope we will be able to work some of that quiet diplomacy let me now turn to Asia I think the Chinese situation is very difficult I would want to see a situation where given the fact that China is really trying to also woo the Asian countries where Asian countries come together ASEAN plus and try and engage the Chinese because I don't think the Secretary General can do it if he goes to the Council you're right China will beat her it and in the mood they are in they will not hesitate to do it for quite a while we have a feeling that the Chinese didn't want to assert power they didn't even want to they were very reticent in asserting their power on the international scene but recently they've been blatant and if the UN is not going to be able to be a forum for discussion on the crisis in the Asian seas who should do it I don't know if I don't think ASEAN alone could do it they will need some encouragement unfortunately if you go beyond and you bring in powers like the US and others China will not engage and honestly I don't see how we diffuse that situation apart from probably getting the Chinese to understand that they are going to lose quite a lot of their neighbors I mean what is happening with Vietnam is a good sign and a good warning for them but of course they are in such a dominant economic position that they believe nobody in the region can take them on but if they did it collectively it will have an impact about how do you put that group, collective group together to confront China. John, I extend the privilege to any professors of KCL secretary general welcome to London as you'll know all the time I was PR in New York I was even in this room of great great fans one of your very greatest fans but we've not always been as lucky in secretary's general we've had over the 60 whatever it is and we're starting to think in terms of your success as a successor people are already beginning to talk about candidates I wonder what thoughts you might have about the way in which the international community in New York might maximize the prospects of producing another secretary general like yourself sir? It's an awkward question no I think there's been lots of discussion on this issue and how one should go about selecting a secretary general there are those who believe that it should be a much more open process and that this system should move away from the regional rotation I don't think that's going to be possible it's established but even if it has to be a regional rotation do you have to sit back and only look at candidates produced by governments and supports by governments or the organization itself can also do a search indicate the sort of qualities that is looking for the type of person because even if they did a search and identify somebody and the governments came up with another person they've established a standard this is the sort of person we want would that happen I'm not sure can we get the governments to agree that they will themselves raise the standards when they are looking at candidates and I think they can do it I recall about eight years ago the Chinese telling me in Beijing you're going to see a difference in the quality of people we send out and it did change it did change they made a conscious decision and they have some very good people out which means a government can't do it if they how do we challenge them to do it in this situation I don't know but I think we should have a much bigger pool to select from then you'll be interested to hear that UNA UK are starting about to start a campaign to argue for a much more open process and a meritocratic process of the election of Secretary General that moves on and maybe it's in the face of realism but I think that this program ought to start a debate about it we had to talk about it at the UN forum amongst amongst other places it's a Crispin Crispin Tekel you pass the microphone thank you uh Crispin Tekel a former British permanent representative of the United Nations now one aspect of United Nations activities has been singularly unsuccessful so far I remember that when I was there I once raised in the Security Council the question of how flooding might be a political issue and representatives of Brazil said no no we're all concerned here with politics but at war not not flooding well what we're now realizing following the last report of the United Nations report the latest United Nations report on it that we're seeing the prospect of substantial climatic disruptions all over the world including and perhaps above all in Africa in which an African country can find itself deprived of water or flooded with refugees or suffering from extreme drought now at the moment UNEP as the United Nations body responsible does its I think rather humble best but I like to think that the United Nations as a whole took a much stronger interest and perhaps could create appropriate institutions for the purpose to look into the environmental environmental implications and the political implications of what is now going on all around us it would be a follow-up to the latest in the intergovernmental panel on climate change and many other documents that have been produced so I just be grateful to know whether you think something more should be done to strengthen the United Nations role and make people a bit bolder and ready to act a call for action yeah no no I agree with you that we we need to do much more and in fact Secretary General Ban has made a climate change one of his personal priorities and this pushing for action but all the areas you mentioned you are absolutely right with the floods or what one is beginning to call situations that lead to environmental migrants you know which we are not looking at seriously and not only should New York be thinking about it the High Commissioner for Refugees should be looking at this and I hope that the work the Secretary General and his team is doing includes the issues you've raised and next year in when they meet in Paris and prepare a document these suspects would also be looked at because it is real people have tended to think climate change is remote but we are seeing the same but all around and I think what is also important and we talked about civil society earlier I have a feeling on the climate change issue we need to mobilize civil society for them to work with the UN and get the governments to take action individually and collectively on these issues a final question from Professor Matt Sperdahl I was wondering you know there's been quite a deal of criticism from African countries about the way in which the international criminal court has actually operated and this of course is a great achievement and something you promoted do you do you accept and you see some of the criticisms and and is something that wasn't properly foreseen in terms of the politicization of the court and they used perhaps by the Security Council of referrals preventing progress in the resolution of conflicts no the superficially the African governments have a point that only African cases are being trial by the court I often try to remind them that there have been other cases but there were special courts there were special courts for the Yugoslav crisis special court for Cambodia and of course we have special court for Sweden so there have been other situations of international justice since Nuremberg and above all the cases the African cases before the court were submitted by the Africans themselves in the case of the Kenyan Kenyan government they promised to cooperate in fact they were given an opportunity to set up a local tribunal to bring to book those who were responsible for these attacks twice the parliament turned it down and before it went to the ICC they also have to accept that if the African courts were competent and able to trial these cases there will be no need for the ICC the attack on the ICC often in Africa is coming from the leadership not from the victims and when you ask the leaders since you're banding together to protect yourself and to speak for yourself who speaks for the victims how do they get justice I haven't gotten from any of them but I think the ICC itself as it looks at the case the cases that it has on the review should shouldn't be contrived if they have cases from outside Africa it will help them to have one or two other cases from outside Africa and that will diffuse the sense that it's only Africans but I can tell you civil society and the victims are very happy that for the first time in in the in African judiciary history prominent people are being brought to account and impunity is being challenged and that's the steps the leaders I'd like now to invite on to the stage Edward Mortimer to come and join us for 10 minutes or so because Edward as Hrithianan's speech writer and director of communications throughout his period as secretary general has made a huge contribution to the book that we're here to launch and to pick up and celebrate and that contribution was was enormous as I saw myself and there was a question from Emanuele Militello Emanuele are you in the room yes you are here now I'm now coming to your question because it's about communication so let's have it in your mouth I was told you weren't good afternoon I'm Emanuele Militello I'm from the UCL branch of UNIU my question is one of the United Nations greatest challenges has been to bridge the impossibly wide gap between its goals for a fair and peaceful world and capacities to achieve this this has led to many people becoming cynical about the organization and its accomplishments to date how can you and try to change this image for better communication or otherwise thank you now Edward do you want to give Kofi a break that is the question of course that we were constantly grappling with in the team around Kofi during during those years and it will be continue to be the question I think for every secretary general and every UN official already the the UN is set up with very grand ambitions set out in the charter and particularly in the preamble to the charter but it is an association of member states and all of those member states you know basically headed by governments who consider it as their first priority to look after national interests one of the things that Kofi used often to say when he was secretary general was that you've got to understand that the global interest is the national interest I think I mean a very good example of this would be the whole question of sustainability and climate change I mean but the idea that some nations are going to be all right while others suffer the consequences of the climate change is just ridiculous so I mean these are the kind of points I think that the UN has has to put across that even though take for perhaps at the moment it would be the United States you know as the largest emitter of carbon you know that it would not be in your interest or you think that you should wait until China and India and other countries are willing to take the same measures the idea that you would somehow be gaining from letting this happen is is just crazy it's you've got to look further ahead and you've got to look more broadly at what the national interest really means in the 21st century we still look the question Kofi about effective communication yes by and from the UN and the UN associations around the world and I hope that the one in the UK plays its part yeah tries to pick up some of the gaps in communication to be left by perhaps not a universal communications effect by the UN are you disappointed by that yeah no first of all organizations like yours are extremely helpful but we need to work much more effectively with you the UN needs to work much more effectively with you on these issues you talk of gaps sometimes the gaps are so huge that it is not because we are not putting our views across I think we have to start yes we we give hope to people we encourage them to dream but we also have to start by reducing expectations as to what the UN as an organization can do and cannot do because we sometimes allow we set ourselves up by either making statements or embracing actions which implies we can do everything and it's patently not possible and then when we fail it's a great letdown for the public and the and we don't explain what it is that we are trying to do and the resources we have within what the constraints are we have to find some effective ways of doing it there's also in my judgment Edward you were in in media ones that the media often also confuses the issue and the UN is in a very difficult situation to clarify it we often talk of the UN but there are two UNs in my judgment the UN of the member states who sit on the council general assembly human rights and give us a mandate and the UN that is a secretariat led by the secretary general when things go wrong and the press say the UN which UN are they talking about the secretary general even when it's about an issue where effective action can only be taken if the member states come together US Russia and others and hide is the UN and in the minds of most people is the bureaucracy you know and and he gives the member states a pass and they don't really and it's important I recall that I asked President Clinton once how come the congressmen see all these things vote the way they do in Congress and the Senate and they get away with it said because if they go to their constituencies nobody asks them about the UN nobody challenges them nobody explains so I think some of these anomalies also need to be sorted so that we can communicate effectively and try and do something about what we explain what we are about you still itching to get back into support of the UN and do you think that there are things that could be said that are not being said about the effectiveness of the UN well I think one has to be very careful if one works in the secretariat do not not to get into a kind of blame game I mean it's sort of in a way the easy reaction it was an ask of it will be the member states you know well the fact is that it is an organization of member states the secretary is set up to serve the member states but I mean I think what was important about Coffey's vision of what it meant to be Secretary General was that he could remind the governments that you know we the peoples is not the same as we the governments and you are there you represent your peoples but you are not the ultimate authority and the communications revolution which had happened or begun to happen at least by the time when he became Secretary General in 1997 meant that there was beginning to be something called which one could call at least world public opinion and say that it was possible I mean it was very very carefully had to be done very carefully because for all reasons you were talking about you can't have for instance the Secretary General had permanently at odds with the leading member state like the US but you could to some extent make governments feel that they had to look over their shoulder because there might sometimes be of course and I think you alluded to it in the case of the intercommercial criminal court these African governments should think do we actually have our peoples behind us when we attack the ICC I suppose you could say it's a bit discouraging that they in the Kenyans elected two people who have been indicted by the court as president and vice president but I think the broader point is still valid that the Secretary General and the people working with the Secretary General can remind governments by appealing beyond them to world public opinion you certainly did that in your approach did you get feedback I got when I started at the beginning some countries were unhappy about pulling civil society the private sector and sort of raised the question of where did the Secretary General get a mandate to do this and my answer was look at the charter it starts with me the peoples and the peoples are out there not in the glass house so we need to reach out to them and to work with them some were also worried and they were right that we use civil society to put pressure on them and they were not comfortable about that and I recall when we began we attempted to reach out to parliaments we got worse we shouldn't go we shouldn't go to parliaments to talk to them but the whole idea was also to bring in the peoples who will be able to work with us and get the message across to their own governments which was easier for them than for us and honestly there were certain things we did at the UN that we couldn't have done without civil society you know I mean sometimes you may criticize them but see them as flamed through us but they opened the door they opened the door one of the things that has come through very strongly to UN and UK from our supporters around the country particularly from young people is that the UN represents the principles of global legitimacy governments do not represent legitimacy in that sense of having principles and norms and conventions and charters that the majority of global citizens respect and that's a very important part of the strength of the UN in the 21st century when some of its mechanisms are getting bit old and quicky we still find that to be a very real and necessary strength of the UN no that that that is good and to hold on to the next generation and let them have faith in the UN faith in the principles that we we stand for I think is extremely important but it's not enough for us we tend to do it through modern UNs and the work you do we need to find a way of making sure it's really part of education curricula but also the UN will have to find ways and means of getting governments to and the peoples to live up to this we started with human rights if if we are seen to be patently doing better on human rights it's a plus on the climate change if we can really have the movement to get the young and everyone involved I keep telling them I've seen the videos and as young they have power they have power through the choices they make what they buy whom they vote for and the pressure they put on politicians to get the climate change agenda higher up in priorities and if we can mobilize them and get them to engage and feel that they are not only being useful but they are also working for these principles they believed in will be building a very strong base of support for the organization well ladies and gentlemen we've had an hour that we could extend for a long time I think to go through the various issues in front of the United Nations you have a book to pick up this afternoon and to read carefully again because you will know many of the speeches but you've had the opportunity this afternoon to converse directly or indirectly with one of the UN's most distinguished servants over its 70 years and we will be celebrating the UN's 70th birthday in this country next year with much vigor thank you Kofi for being with us this afternoon and I would like this audience to express to you the huge gratitude that we feel for your service to the United Nations and to global issues and may you long continue in your excellent work thank you