Kofi Annan | Talk to Al Jazeera

in the world of international diplomacy there are few more recognizable figures than Kofi Annan in a long and sometimes controversial career at the United Nations he played a part in some of the most significant issues in recent history now he spends his time as a mediator in global problems and an advocate for issues close to his heart like global poverty the environment and food security recently he came to Singapore to lecture at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Singapore University and also to take the chance to talk to Al Jazeera first of all thank you very much for talking to Al Jazeera how could you be here let me ask you four comments you've been making in Singapore this week and part of your focus not only here but generally is is food security and you spoken here about how you think Asia has a role to play in Africa in assuring food security and alleviating hunger but for most people who listen to the media Asia's role in Africa in this context seems to be confined only to China buying African farmland to feed its own people is there a relationship here that can be developed beyond that Asia has very useful lessons from for Africa for example about 40 to 50 percent of agriculture here is irrigated in Africa only about 5% but you're talking here about practical policy I'm wondering about the actual politics of it I mean China buying land for its own use no but I'm becoming I mean I'm coming to that and in fact as I indicated yesterday that is an issue which I will touch on but I want to build up to that in the sense that a shiaa has experiences that Africa can learn from on the specific question you've raised about by an African man to assure full security of another country it's a policy that is not a viable model it's not a viable model and is an issue that has brought together Welbeck African Union the Food and Agriculture Organization to try and come up with a policy about land use and I don't think it is viable for countries to go to another country and buy large tracts of land to produce for their own population have you made that point to the countries involved and I think I have made it publicly and clearly and also and it is even not in their interest do you support this suppose you have a poor country with starving population and then large tract of fertile land is sold to an outsider who produces for export for their own market whilst they stab how long do you think that model is going to last and how long will the government that allows the sort of arrangement to remain in power we only need to look at what happened in Madagascar to understand the dangers in this part of the reason the previous government was overthrown was a large sale of land to Korea have you seen any reaction from Korea or China or some of the countries that are thinking it is a viable model that they actually take this point on board they should is in their own interest and if they don't they're going to repeat the experience of Madagascar or future leaders will come and now they arrangements and I think they are beginning to think about it the broader context of all of this of course is one of your favorite themes for more than a decade and that is Millennium Development Goals eradication of poverty we've got five more years to the deadline that you set and a lot of people would say we're nowhere near achieving what you wanted we are nowhere near achieving it globally but tremendous progress has been made since the establishment of the Millennium Development Goals some governments have done extremely well millions have been lifted out of poverty and in fact the government's that have done well are the ones who factored it into their development plans and took it very seriously and in fact I'm telling those governments once you've achieved their goals don't stay there of higher education for example we we demand that every chat particularly the girls should be given at least a primary education when you attain that level you move on to secondary education and try to help but the resources makes some countries will meet the targets and have done very well all this will not meet all the tag as it may meet a couple of them very put it in context of something that you said some time ago when you identified the challenges facing the whole planet and you said global dangers include not just international wars but also civil violence organized crime terrorism and weapons but there's poverty infectious disease and environmental degradation now those people those governments that are really calling the shots seem to have focused much more on the former set of problems than the latter isn't that actually acting against your Development Goals I wouldn't say certain against it if they had acted in another way in the other way it would have been much more positive and much more helpful to the attainment of the goals you are right we've had lots of promises huge sums have been thrown out billions but at the end of the day the development countries do not see these promises I mean I'm a member of a group they call they progress by the Africa progress panel we are to monitor the promises made by g8 to ensure that they are being met and to encourage African governments to improve governance and fight corruption when you look at the the results and the amounts of money that have been released since Gleneagles for example you're nowhere near even have let's be more specific what about the promise made one year ago at L'Aquila that does say also an invite is even more recent example more recent example and this is where the poorer countries are wondering the product the discussions in Copenhagen were thirty billion dollars were promised for the next couple of years and hundred billion dollars a year by 2020 we all wondered where the money is going to come from unless you have transparent sources of funding renewable sources of funding with their very clear targets for disbursement you're not going to convince the countries of the south that they are indeed going to see this money which comes back to the question I posed a moment ago which is why is it and what can you do about what seems to be the fact the countries that really can make the difference are busy making promises and failing to deliver yeah but this is where public opinion is very important and we've been working with this their own civil society to maintain the pressure and to encourage them to do what they've promised to do a campaign like Mick poverty history which was organized around the Gleneagles issue made a difference it encouraged governments to write up debts this some of these countries couldn't pay anyway and I think we need that sort of movement we need to push the poverty issue higher up the political agenda again and of course there the African governments are also working hard trying to improve their own regulatory environment and the their governance but on this issue on the Millennium Development Goals on the issue of Iraq on the issue of global poverty and education so many issues that you have spoken long about and you've always been very diplomatic and measured in your in your response have you ever thought that sometimes you may get more of a action if you bang the drum a little harder if you made some explicit criticism no I have I do make a criticism but often to the people concerned and privately ended guest results if you get into the shouting matches sometimes they have bigger megaphones and you have and it doesn't necessarily get you where you want to go there are times when you have to raise your voice and there are times when I have had to but generally I can get results without shouting let's edge a little bit sideways on this but with a similar theme you mentioned Copenhagen we saw the conference there the conversations there going nowhere one of the areas that money keeps being promised or action keeps being promised but rarely seems to arrive is the environmental problem and again we have the media talking about how the environmental issue is nowhere near as bad as some people like you are trying to make out how do you tell you deal with this I think I think the science is clear the science is clear on the threats we face with climate change we have had people who denied this process for a long time the sceptics have always been are there they are picking on certain mistakes which were made which have been accepted and recognized by the IPCC to argue that climate change doesn't exist is all in the imagination of some people I think the case for climate change has been made most scientists accepted and we have to work on that assumption why is it then that the general consensus amongst the ordinary population seems to be that look you lied about the Himalayan glaciers how can we believe you on anything else I'm not sure if this is something that the general public is saying or the skeptics are drumming up yes a mistake was made on the Himalaya admission has been made and when you are doing this kind of massive research it is inevitable that some errors would let me ask you about that word mistake because some people are calling it a lie why would they want to lie about that I ain't know when you why would they want to lie about that a particular issue and not about a whole range of others obviously those skeptics who are making these claims could have come up with other lies and say the whole report was a pack of lies they have not been able to do that because they can't you know they run out of arguments now they've found an excuse and attacking the IPCC and the scientist does it make you angry that the media seem to focus on that minority of scientists who say no and ignore the majority who say it's clear it is unfortunate but it sells newspapers it is unfortunate and some newspapers and media focuses on that and I hope over time they will come to realize that the skeptics are wrong and that the science is proven and we need to act we'll take a short break if we if we could come back and talk a little bit about your role in the UN in the past you're watching talk to Al Jazeera with Kofi Annan we'll be back in just a couple of minutes as Secretary General you were a key figure in the run-up and the execution of the invasion of Iraq recently we've seen Tony Blair giving evidence of the Chilcott inquiry in which he has insisted that everything was done properly and according to best practice and best principle now you have said in the past that the invasion was illegal contrary to UN Charter why is it that we are still debating this are these things not clear in international law in my mind is clear I think where where you sit depends on where you stand but the reality is that where we stand right now is a US administration that in its reviews of its own military strategy in its own Pentagon policy now has explicitly committed itself to the idea that it can do what it likes on any basis that it chooses whereas the UN Charter appears to be fairly clear aggressive war is against international law except when it's in self-defense was was Iraq in self-defense f- in self-defense or empty air or to a pre-emptive action to prevent attack I think I was very clear on my Iraq the Iraq situation the council indicated it was a Security Council that said Iraq has to conform or there will be consequences so in my mind they need for a second resolution was absolutely clear if the council that made that determination which had come to the conclusion that he Iraq had not not performed the consequences that Iraq was to suffer who should have been determined by the Security Council one cannot go outside the Security Council and take action action Austin's ibly intended to strengthen the Security Council in by contravening the Security Council since then we have seen Israel acting in Lebanon we've seen Israel acting in Gaza we had President Obama in Oslo accepting a prize for peace in which he said the instruments of war have a role to play in preserving peace president Obama has clearly committed himself to the principles laid down in the US quadrennial review and their security strategy which basically says as I say that this principle as far as the u.s. is concerned is no longer the UN Charter principles are no longer valid and we now face a situation in which Iran looks to be the next target are you feel I'm not here to defend US policies I don't speak for therefore the US but what is clear is that in accordance with international law and UN air practices you can use force in self-defense I have made it clear nom on the record that if one is going to take action to deal with broader threats of security broader threats to our security collective security you cannot do that without going through the Security Council any such action in my mind would be illegal you call for reform of the Security Council a long time ago and the issue of the permanent veto the members of the of the Security Council has long been a vexed one are you seeing any movement in that do you think any movement is imminent I think ultimately there has to be a reform the council as it stands does not affect the geopolitical realities of today we need to move with a change in world you cannot have a council that does not have a country like India on it without a permanent seat you cannot have a cancer that doesn't have a single permanency for Latin America and no permanent seat for Africa and Europe are several pregnancies and when you look at the real situation in the world with the shifts that are can please how do you justify them does it worry you that we've now approached a point in in political thinking in the Western world that the nuremberg and everything that we've done since Nuremberg principles don't seem to apply me but I'm not sure the situation is static I'm not sure whether in Britain or the u.s. if one were to be confronted with another Iraq type situation that the population and the politicians will not be much more assertive and much more alert and so I'm not as pessimistic as you are let me put a case you in which exactly that has happened and the international community hasn't been assertive at all the Goldstone report has been roundly ignored and completely dismissed in any context that is relevant to what we're talking about now let me quote to you again what you have said the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning it cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians what is I studies go ahead well why then is the international community still seeming to accept practices and attitudes that the UN and you seem to say as well the international community has been very clear on the Goldstone report I mean the UN and the the body that looked at it asked the two parties in the Israeli government and Hamas to to undertake very serious investigation and I think they should because these are very serious charges and and goes to an is a very honorable man outstanding jurist whom I know very well and of course we have now adopted this habit if we do not like a report and the report poses a problem for we begin by thrashing the report we thrash the report our allies joining join us in thrush in the report and nothing gets done and this is something that we really have to find a way of also resisting resisting the temptation to thrash the report in my judgment the Goldstone report was a sound one and action must be followed nothing the council or the General Assembly is going to debate it and likely to ask again the parties to investigate is it your feeling that President Obama is going the right way around solving the Middle Eastern issue I really don't want to comment on President Obama's approach if he's going the right or wrong way he's only been there he's only been there for a year let me let me rephrase the question not long ago I was saying we should all help him by reducing our expectations let me rephrase the question do you think that there is progress there can be any progress in not only the broader Middle Eastern question but in the question of solving this so-called war against terror without first solving the Middle Eastern issue first of all let me say that one of those who believes at the palestinian-israeli conflicts it's not a conflict like any other there is no other conflict in the world today that has such a charge and has impact on people and groups far away from the theater if we were to be able to resolve that it will have very positive impact on the whole region and another air conflicts I'm not pleased with the progress that is being made if any progress is being made at all and I'm not sure that we are going to see the effective action some of us had expected between now and end of the year let me ask you quickly about Kenya your role in mediating agreement between President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga was was widely praised but we read only this week that a group is now hatching an elaborate plan I read this from the Kenyan newspapers at pushing the African Union to end your mandate in Kenya saying that you've actually been harmful to the process that well it depends on who is saying that I think of course these are unnamed sources quoted in a Kenyan newspaper but nonetheless you do you think let me read to you a little bit more he is taking it too far almost micromanaging Kenya Odinga thinks he is our headmaster they do you know these men Eric I think it's a overreaction from certain quarters I have not micromanage dear Kenya I don't have the capacity nor the inclination but the content now appears to be rising again do you think it's going to right no I think the Coalition will stick I think they have made quite a lot of progress on reform and if the parties work together I do respect Kenya in the course of this year to have a new constitution a new electoral law in a new land law so a lot is happening there are tensions within the coalition between the partners and within the parties so you do have a tension and I think this issue came up because of the recent tension between the Prime Minister and the president and the Prime Minister called on me to intervene which air and come and settle their differences and I didn't go to Kenya to do that I did issue a statement appealing to them to resolve it themselves because I was confident they can do it but because he did that the other side is saying we don't need a headmaster we should be able to resolve our issue I don't forget hi I was a colonial subject myself I don't want to be a colonial governor in Kenya and then we will have to leave it thank you very much indeed for talking to answer thank you very much you you

Channel: Al Jazeera English

Views: 56,619

Keywords: al Jazeera, Talk To Jazeera, Kofi Annan, Teymoor Nabili, united nations kenya, kofi annan al jazeera, al jazeera kenya, future of kenya, kofi annan talk to al jazeera \, china-africa relations, middle east peace deal, al jazeera english, secretary-general of the United Nations, poverty of kenya, al jazeera, united nations africa

Id: yRIFHjRYB9I

Length: 22min 8sec (1328 seconds)

Published: Thu Mar 11 2010