�鶹��ý

I am pleased to have come to Madrid for this important meeting on terrorism. One can sense a real resolve to tackle this issue head-on, and do so in a way that it will work -- by working together, governments coming together to resolve this issue -- because, as I have said, this is an issue that no one country can resolve by itself

Allow me to take this moment to offer my deep condolences to the people of Spain for the terrible losses and trauma they suffered just a year ago today, when a brutal terrorist attack killed 192 people and wounded 2,000 others. The world mourns with you.

In Spain as elsewhere in recent years, terrorism seems to be part of the landscape. The truth is that there is much that we can do to deter terrorism, and to deny terrorists the ability to carry out such acts, without sacrificing human rights, and I hope we all bear that in mind.

I would want to also say that when I leave here and go back to New York, we will continue the struggle. We are pushing for UN reform, a UN reform that will also help strengthen our collective security. And at the Summit in September in New York, I hope all heads of state will come ready to take concrete decisions and ensure that we adapt the United Nations for the challenges of the twenty-first century.

We do not have much time so let me take your questions straight away.

Q: Could you explain why you think a treaty on terrorism is needed, what the main elements would be in that treaty -- for example, the definition of terrorism -- and what would you do with the UN? For example, would you create policy or urge governments to do so?

SG: First of all, we already have twelve existing anti-terrorism resolutions. The thirteenth one, which the members are working on, wants to bridge the gaps that exist today. I don't want to create the impression that once we have agreed on the definition of terrorism, we will get an agreement on all other aspects automatically, but it will help. We have been discussing this comprehensive convention for quite some time, and I believe that, now that the High-Level Panel has given us a solid basis for common understanding, it should be easier for us to agree on this convention.

You asked what the United Nations can do. The Security Council itself has passed resolutions which are binding, urging Member States to take steps to contain terrorism, urging them not to offer financial support, not to give them shelter, not to give them logistical support and to cooperate and share information. As I indicated yesterday, some governments do not have the capacity or the ability to undertake the measures necessary, and we will have to give them technical assets to bring them up to speed so that they can take their own actions.

Q: With regards to your comments on the need to protect human rights in the fight against terrorism, is that in any way directed to the United States with regard to its actions on post 9/11 or even Spain, considering the international criticism of the way it handles its detainees?

SG: My comments were general, directed at all countries, because we do see tendencies in countries to take measures that tend to undermine civil rights and human rights. In some countries, in fact, what you need to do is tag the opponent with the “t” word, the terrorist word, and one is able to take whatever action. And it is this concern that has been bothering me and other human rights activists: that we need to make sure that there is a balance, a balance between the effective action against terrorism and protection of human rights, that we do not see it as a trade-off.

Q: Last night you called on the international community to approve the anti-terrorism treaty. So why now? What it is the main obstacle for approving this anti-terrorism treaty and do you think that multilateralism is a key role for implementing this Treaty?

SG: I think there have been certain disagreements among the membership in attempts to approve that convention. And one of the things I alluded to was a common definition of what terrorism is and the measures that need to be taken, even though we have been able to pass twelve other conventions without this problem standing in the way, because some of those were specific about the financing and measures that we need to take. And I hope, as I said, we will be able to get this done.

You asked me if multilateralism is an effective part of this. But of course it is because we need to work across countries, we need international cooperation. Governments need to share information, work together -- their police forces, intelligence -- and without that cooperation, without that effective attempt to work together, we will not be able to contain terrorism or defeat them.

Q. Sir, do you think that the elimination of a radical leader like Chechen leader Aslan Maskhadov is a part of the anti-terror struggle?

SG: Let me say that in the struggle against terrorism, governments tend to look for those who are seen as responsible for instigating attacks and try to either bring them to justice or to contain them. In this struggle you have seen around the world, it is not always their leaders, it is also their followers who get caught by law and they are dealt with. But the main thing is that people who have legitimate grievances should find legitimate means to bring their case across. And when I talk of terrorism, as I said yesterday, any attempt to kill civilians or maim non-combatants is terrorism pure and simple, regardless of your cause, and no cause can justify that.

Q: With terrorists not respecting any laws, don't you think a convention on terrorism is a waste of time?

SG: First of all, when you look at the issue of international law, when it comes to the use of force by governments, that is proscribed by international law and there are very specific things that governments cannot do when they are using armed force. At the same time, human rights and international law, and many national laws, have specific rules that will not allow the killing of innocent civilians. I am not saying that one should not fight for legitimate rights or claims, but that should not be allowed to include the killing of innocent civilians.

Q: Yesterday, we heard some criticisms of the definition of terrorism that was proposed. Do you hope it is going to be agreed [to] by every state? When do you accept the new convention to be approved by all states, and how do you expect to get the funding for the technical assistance that will be needed by some states?

SG: Obviously, when one puts forward a definition or a proposal, it will be discussed. Some will agree and some will disagree. I hope it will facilitate transactions, and I hope that, in the end, we will come up [with something] that everybody will live with and we can move forward.

Your second question is also a relevant one. If we are going to give technical assistance to developing countries and countries that need assistance to upgrade their legal system, I think we are going to need money. That money will have to come from governments with capacity and donor countries. We will set up a trust fund to raise the necessary amount of money and I would urge governments to be generous and give willingly so we can all tackle this scourge.

Q: What will you be doing to bring the findings of the Summit here in Madrid and have them incorporated into US foreign policy?

SG: I will take the findings here back to New York and make the Members of the organization aware. I also have here Javier Ruperez, the head of the Counter-Terrorism Directorate, and his group will also study the results of this. As for taking it to Washington, there was a very strong US delegation here, and there is the US Ambassador in Madrid, I suspect he or she will be doing that.

Thank you.