DAILY PRESS BRIEFING OF OFFICE OF SPOKESMAN FOR SECRETARY-GENERAL

Press Briefing

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING OF OFFICE OF SPOKESMAN FOR SECRETARY-GENERAL

The following is a near-verbatim transcript of today's noon briefing by Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the Secretary-General.

Good afternoon.

**Sierra Leone: Freetown Is Reported Unstable and Very Tense

We just heard from David Wimhurst of my Office, who has arrived in Freetown, Sierra Leone. He says hundreds of rock-throwing demonstrators marched on the home of Revolutionary United Front (RUF) leader Foday Sankoh in the Sierra Leonean capital. RUF members from inside the house apparently threw rocks back. The situation escalated and the RUF fired at the demonstrators. There are reports of several people either killed or injured.

Sustained shooting was reported in other parts of the city.

Former rebel leader Johnny Paul Koroma, meanwhile, has mobilized his supporters, saying that he and his followers will not sit back and allow the RUF to derail the peace process. We have also had reports that RUF supporters, and leaders in fact, have been arrested in Freetown and then released.

The fate of an estimated 500 detained United Nations personnel remains a primary concern for the Organization. Efforts continue to seek their release. We are also ferrying water and food to some of them whose location is known, and evacuating some of the wounded United Nations personnel among the detainees.

At least one United Nations helicopter ferrying supplies to the detainees in the interior was fired upon yesterday. No casualties were reported. That incident happened near the town of Makeni.

Diplomatic efforts continued in the meanwhile, with the Secretary- General's Special Representative, Oluyemi Adeniji, who is attending an emergency meeting of the so-called Mano River Union. That is composed of three countries -- Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea. That meeting was called by Mali, as Chairman of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). To our knowledge, four leaders, that is, from Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea and Mali, are meeting in the Guinean capital, Conakry.

Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Bernard Miyet has been sent to Sierra Leone by the Secretary-General. He is en route today and is expected to arrive tomorrow. Mr. Miyet will address the United Nations staff and meet with the Force Commander and battalion commanders. He also expects tomorrow, on his day of arrival, he will meet with President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah of Sierra Leone and Foday Sankoh, the rebel leader.

We are starting to get reports of the impact of the latest disturbances on the people of Sierra Leone. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reports 149 Sierra Leoneans crossed the border into Guinea on Thursday, 4 May. New arrivals report that many more are ready to come across the border, but are being stopped by RUF rebels on the Sierra Leonean side.

Daily Press Briefing - 2 - 8 May 2000

UNHCR staff have been deployed in the border areas to monitor new arrivals.

People were also reported on the move in the Masiaka area within Sierra Leone.

**Security Council Discusses Georgia, Sierra Leone

The Security Council started its work today with closed consultations on Georgia, on which the members of the Council are considering a draft presidential statement. Last week, the Council considered the Secretary- General's latest report on the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), whose current mandate lasts until the end of July.

Under "other matters" today, the Council may also discuss the format for the open briefing scheduled for tomorrow on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Following that briefing, the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Wolfgang Petritsch, is also expected to meet with the press at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow.

Yesterday, as you know, the Council held consultations on both Sierra Leone and the situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Following the consultations, the President of the Council, Ambassador Wang Yinfang of China, informed the Secretary-General of the terms of reference for a Council mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea, following one made by the same delegation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and neighbouring countries over the past week.

That mission, comprising seven Council ambassadors and led by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke of the United States, will express to both those Governments the Council's support for the work of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in support of the peace process. The delegation, we are told, is shortly expected to arrive in Addis Ababa, that is, in a matter of hours if not minutes, and then tomorrow they will go to Asmara, Eritrea.

**Kosovo: One Dead and Four Wounded

Out of Kosovo there is word that one former member of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was killed and four other persons wounded in two separate incidents in the province. This was announced this morning at the briefing by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).

Ekrem Rexha, a former KLA commander and Director of Environment and Safety for the municipality of Prizren, was shot to death this morning at around 8:30 a.m. on his way to work.

Yesterday afternoon, a family dispute in Danjane, near Prizren, resulted in a shooting incident in which three people -- two Kosovar men and one 10-year- old girl -- were injured. UNMIK police are investigating those two incidents. All the injured were evacuated to a military hospital. They are reported to be in stable condition and their injuries are not life threatening. One man was arrested in connection with this second incident.

More details are in the briefing notes from UNMIK in Pristina, which are available in my Office.

**Larsen Meets with Jordanian King and Foreign Minister

The Special Envoy of the Secretary-General, Terje Roed Larsen, continued his trip to the Middle East today in Amman, Jordan, where he arrived yesterday from Damascus, Syria.

In Amman, Mr. Larsen met with Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdulilah al-Khatib, and afterward had an audience with King Abdullah. During the past hour, he was expected to board a plane for Cairo, the Egyptian capital.

Yesterday, Mr. Larsen met with Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shar'a to discuss the implementation of Security Council resolutions 425 and 426 (1978), which call for Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon.

Following that meeting, Mr. Larsen issued a statement to the press, in which he noted that the Foreign Minister had assured him of Syria's support for the United Nations, and of Syria's agreement that peace in the region could be achieved only through "a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement" based on all Security Council resolutions. We have copies of the press statement available in my Office.

**Secretary-General Calls UN Mission in Tajikistan a ‘Success’

The Secretary-General, in his final report on the United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan (UNMOT) -- which is out on the racks today -- says that the Mission can be “rated a success”, and that “Tajikistan is entering a new phase of nation-building, based on national reconciliation”.

He warns, however, that the possibility remains of renewed instability, given the existence of armed elements operating outside of government control and the unstable situation in the region as a whole. The Secretary-General tells the Security Council in the report that he will be writing to them shortly on the possible establishment of a United Nations post-conflict peace-building office in Tajikistan.

The Security Council is scheduled to discuss Tajikistan on Friday. The Mission's mandate expires on 15 May, and the remaining personnel there are currently proceeding with their preparations for final withdrawal.

**Istanbul + 5

The first session of the Preparatory Committee for what is called Istanbul + 5 started in Nairobi today. In 1996 in Istanbul, the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) resulted in a global call for action on urbanization. Under-Secretary-General Klaus Toepfer, Acting Executive Director of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), said this morning: “In this era of globalization, the urbanization of poverty is a sad reality which must be confronted.”

We have the press release from Habitat if you are interested in that subject.

**Budget

We have one payment today from Greece, which became the eighty-seventh Member State to pay its regular budget dues in full for the year 2000. That was with a check for $3.7 million.

**United Nations Correspondents Association Press Conference

The United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA) asked me to tell you about a press conference that will take place in the UNCA Club today at 2:30 p.m. with Sano Themia Halo and Thea Halo. Thea Halo is the author of the book Not Even My Name.

That is all I have for you.

**Questions and Answers

Question: The understanding was that United Nations peacekeeping forces were providing some sort of security outside of Sankoh's house. When the rock- throwing incident took place, were they there, did they leave the area or did they try to defend the house?

Spokesman: We did have a Nigerian unit in the vicinity of the house. I am not sure if it was surrounding the house. We have had a presence at the house for several days now out of security concerns. I have no further information. To my knowledge, we did not receive any direct information as of a few minutes ago from the Nigerian contingent that was at the house.

Question: It seems that from the announcements over the weekend about the rebels advancing on Freetown and then the retraction, and based on talks with the Sierra Leonean President and several people, serious questions about the credibility of the United Nations and the Mission are being raised. What is the Organization doing to try and restore confidence in the country after these mishaps?

Spokesman: I do not think the main problem in Sierra Leone is the mishaps. The main issue is that one of the parties to the agreement appears to be renouncing it. And that is the RUF. So the peace process in the country is in a profound crisis because of the recent actions by that faction, which include taking large numbers of our peacekeepers as either hostages or at least detaining and restricting their movement. The events over the weekend probably reflect the tensions in Freetown, not just among United Nations personnel, but among diplomats and the citizenry.

There were a series of coincidences involving the breakdown of communications between our people in Freetown and our people at other points along the road leading into Freetown. There had been a sighting of RUF elements on that same road moving towards Freetown. Those sightings were towards the end of the day last Saturday and then we lost communication with one of our outlying units -- the Guineans -– on that road. And then we subsequently lost contact with the Jordanian unit on the same road, closer to Freetown this time. We wrongly made the assumption that those RUF elements marched along that road and overtook the Guinean position first, and second the Jordanian position.

As it turned out, the next morning when we did a helicopter reconnaissance, there were no RUF elements near Freetown. We had a quiet day yesterday. Of course, the events of today also reflect the instability caused in the country as a whole by RUF's actions. People do not know what they are up to or what they are trying to accomplish. But clearly, the peace process is in deep trouble.

Question: In light of the detention of peacekeepers by the RUF, would you not acknowledge that the United Nations peacekeepers have not put up the fight they were authorized to put up? It seems that people are looking to the Mission to do more than they are doing in order to calm down the situation. That, coupled with the erroneous reports, inflamed the situation this weekend. Did the United Nations not accept any responsibility for this?

Spokesman: For the erroneous report, yes. That was a mistake. Clearly, it increased the level of anxiety in Freetown. But that level of anxiety is not from one misreporting incident by the United Nations. It is from the military movements of the RUF and from the detention of the Organization's peacekeepers by that faction. Passing judgement now on whether the detained peacekeepers could have fought back or not is second guessing in the absence of detail.

The Mission is still in the process of being deployed. Those of you familiar with peacekeeping know that the early months of a mission are always unstable ones. Supplying is taking place. Setting up the mission and establishing lines of communication are elements that are all in the process of happening. A number of units stepped off the plane and within hours or a few days they were moved to the interior of the country into terrain with which they are still becoming familiar.

I think there are lots of explanations you could give for why the peacekeepers were caught a bit off-balance in their early confrontations with the RUF. The question, however is why is the RUF doing this? We are there because they said "we are ready to make peace". So that is the dilemma that now faces us and will eventually face the Security Council.

Question: On Saturday night, some United Nations peacekeepers were believed to have engaged in fighting with rebels. The peacekeepers were also backed up by government helicopter gunships that attacked the rebels. Is it admissible in this Mission for the United Nations to fight alongside one of the parties if the other party was the one responsible for breaking the ceasefire? There are 2,100 peacekeepers in Freetown. If it was attacked, should they fight side by side with government troops to protect the city? Would that give the appearance of taking a side? Secondly, at one point would you give up and evacuate the Mission?

Spokesman: The essence of peacekeeping, of course, is that you do not have an enemy and that you do not take sides. Once you start taking sides in a conflict, you are immediately put in a defensive situation that you should not be in. The mandate of this Mission says, however, that it can take offensive action to defend the people or the Government of Sierra Leone. So they do anticipate that should there ever be a breakdown in the peace agreement, the Mission can take military action to defend itself or to defend the people and the Government.

Once we cross that line into taking offensive action against one of the parties, of course, we become part of the conflict. The last-ditch efforts being made by the Presidents of the region who meeting in Conakry today, and by Mr. Miyet who will arrive in Freetown tomorrow, is to put the peace process back together, to bring the RUF back in, get everyone working according to the same ground rules, and get the peace process back on track. If that cannot happen, then the Council will have to make a decision on how they want this Mission to proceed.

Question: And those choices will be: to stay and fight and send reinforcements, or extra deployment that has been approved, or withdrawal?

Spokesman: Clearly, withdrawal is an option. The Secretary-General mentioned last week strengthening the Mission, first by putting in the remaining three battalions that have been authorized but have not yet arrived, and second by possibly providing a rapid reaction capability on the part of countries that could put together well-equipped, well-trained troops who could be deployed quickly. Those, I think, are two of the options.

Question: What is the United Nations' reaction to the arrival in the area of 700 to 800 soldiers from the British Paratroop Regiment and British warships?

Spokesman: To my knowledge, London has told us that those troops are there in case they are needed to evacuate British nationals. Whether they could be a stabilizing element or not? They might be, but to my knowledge, we have not discussed any other use of those British troops other than what the United Kingdom told us they are there for.

Question: It seems that the Nigerian troops outside Mr. Sankoh's house were reduced to simply begging the RUF not to execute civilians. Where did that leave the United Nations? Could it not guarantee law, order and protection? Also, if there is a reluctance by the Organization to take sides and put down the people who have abused the peace process, is the obvious alternative not withdrawal?

Spokesman: I have already addressed the question of the options. On your first question, I already said that we have no direct information concerning the events at Foday Sankoh's residence in Freetown. Be careful not to place on the heads of peacekeepers the job of law and order enforcement. That is not what they are there for. Can they protect journalists? Can they protect the population? Can they protect Foday Sankoh? That is really not what they are there for.

The Mission will help to the extent they can. They are there to help the two parties carry out a peace agreement. One party has pulled out, and the situation rapidly appears to be moving in the wrong direction. How far it will go and what our eventual reaction will be remains to be seen. But we are coping with it first and primarily by political means and then, militarily, we are trying to stabilize things to the extent we can on the ground.

Question: Regarding the communication problem experienced over the last few days: is the United Nations using sub-standard equipment? And if they are, is there anything other countries can do to improve the quality of that equipment?

Spokesman: We are doing peacekeeping these days on a shoestring. Our infrastructure to launch peacekeeping operations and sustain them was cut back throughout the mid-1990s. Frankly, governments have not given us the strengths we need here at Headquarters to do the kind of professional job we would like to do. The communications equipment we have in Sierra Leone is not good. It is always breaking down. It resulted in this embarrassing incident over the weekend, where we reported an RUF advance when there was none.

Can other countries help? Well, it is a little late now, but maybe it's never too late. We did ship some additional equipment from our storage facility in Brindisi, Italy. But it is still not the kind of communications we would need that would be absolutely reliable. We are using one of the least reliable systems right now. Do we need help? Yes.

Question: Should the United Nations perhaps take a decision to just say no to a mission due to poor contributions?

Spokesman: I was speaking more broadly about what has happened in the peacekeeping department in the last five to six years in terms of our capacity. Our numbers have been reduced, our budgets have been reduced. It was looking for a while there in the late 1990s like there would be no new peacekeeping mission of any size. Governments now have changed their minds. They created large missions in Sierra Leone, Kosovo and East Timor, and they have authorized a large one for the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

This requires a substantial infrastructure to do the job right. Frankly, we do not have it. Would we say no? I think we would merely ask governments to give us the support we need to do the job right. We have been doing this. We have been asking for more resources. We have been getting some increase, but, with the departure of the gratis military personnel, basically our capacity was substantially reduced and we have not recovered from that.

Question: Why did the gratis military personnel depart from the Department of Peacekeeping Operations?

Spokesman: The General Assembly ordered us to replace them with budgeted personnel. Of course, we did not have the budget so we could only replace a small number of them.

Question: Is that not the Assembly then undercutting potential peacekeeping operations?

Spokesman: It was a policy decision taken by the Assembly to reduce the size of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, and I think their assumption then was that we would not need people of that capacity. Kofi Annan, then head of the Department, warned that peacekeeping went through hills and troughs and that the capacity might be needed again. Reduce it, but do not eliminate it. But the numbers were cut so substantially that we did not maintain that minimal core capacity to do the kind of things we are being asked to do now.

Question: President Kabbah said the United Nations would protect Freetown and you said differently. Can you explain the contradictions?

Spokesman: I did not say we were not going to defend Freetown. I did not say that the decision in the field was not to hold firm to the extent that we can. I said that, militarily, we are trying to stabilize the situation.

Question: How concerned is the United Nations for the safety and well- being of detainees and the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)?

Spokesman: The ICRC was asked to help arrange for the return of the bodies of the dead. The last thing we told you, I think, was that we thought there were four presumed dead. That has been further revised downward. We think there is one Kenyan dead and we have seen the body, but we have not recovered it. There is a second Kenyan that we have classified as missing in action. So, in fact, there is only one dead now. We did ask the ICRC to help us get that body so it can be sent to Kenya.

As for the hostages, the latest 200 that were taken -– Zambian -– we have no contact. We do not know where they are. The first 200-plus Zambians that were taken we have traced to an RUF stronghold in Koidu in the eastern part of the country,. But we do not know about their condition. There is an Indian unit that has not had its weapons taken away from it. The commander of that unit has also been allowed to send trucks out to get supplies and bring them back. So the conditions may not be uniform with the various groups of detained soldiers. But are we concerned? Yes.

Question: Have there been any demands? Do you know why any of these people are being detained?

Spokesman: To my knowledge, the RUF has not made any demands or set any conditions for their release. In fact, Foday Sankoh, the head of that faction, denied that they are detained. So it is a little confusing.

Question: What equipment are the United Nations peacekeepers equipped with?

Spokesman: No tanks, but armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and vehicles. Each battalion is asked to arrive in theatre fully equipped. They are supposed to come in with their transport, their communications, their weapons and even things like helmets and flak jackets. I have to say that not every unit has come fully equipped and we have scrambled to get supplies out of Brindisi to compensate for some of the shortages. But these are kind of normal growing pains at the beginning of a mission. And when a mission like this runs into a deep crisis at the very early stages, it's always a bit off-balance.

Question: Are they bringing major artillery pieces?

Spokesman: No artillery pieces.

Question: Are there any new demands by Mr. Sankoh for a political settlement?

Spokesman: No.

Question: What is the purpose of the meeting between the Secretary- General and the United States Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright? Spokesman: The United States Secretary of State is here to see the Secretary-General on a variety of issues. To my knowledge, it is not a one-item agenda. The United States, as of just before the briefing, had not answered our request for airlift assistance to bring in the remaining three battalions that were pledged. We were told by the countries that had pledged those units they were ready to move, or would be ready to move in the next week or two if we can provide airlift. We are told that decision is to be made soon.

Question: Is the United Nations still saying that there is only one dead?

Spokesman: Yes, they are now saying that it is just one confirmed dead, and one missing in action.

Question: Are questions going to be allowed on a pool basis in the follow-up to the Secretary-General/Madeline Albright meeting?

Spokesman: Normally, no questions are allowed at the photo opportunity. We would have to negotiate with both the United States and the Secretary-General if they were to make an exception and allow questions. So we will try to do that for you. Then you would also have to ask the United States Secretary of State what door she would either enter or leave from.

Question: Do you think it was a wise decision not to penalize Foday Sankoh back in 1999, but to appoint him instead as a senior leader in the Sierra Leonean Government?

Spokesman: I do not want to make a judgement as to whether something was wise or not. The main thing is that this was a peace agreement to which everyone put their signature. The RUF today is not living by it and that is the heart of the problem.

Question: Was the loss of contact with the Guineans and Jordanians due to the quality of their equipment or because they left their posts?

Spokesman: The equipment just did not work. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. That was the fault of the equipment. The peacekeepers were at their posts. The reason we then contradicted the earlier statement was that communication with the Guineans came back on at about 10 p.m. Saturday, New York time. They said that there were no RUF people there and that they had not passed through. That was when we knew that the position had not been overrun by the RUF, and that they had not advanced from there any closer to the city.

Question: Will you replace the arms of the peacekeepers who have been seized?

Spokesman: Yes, we will make every effort to resupply those peacekeepers. But we are also making an effort to get them released and get what was taken from them returned.

Question: Johnny Paul Koroma is talking about rearming his forces. Does this look like the beginning of return to civil war?

Spokesman: It is certainly not a good sign that these various factions are talking about rearming. There have been shooting incidents around Freetown and these are very worrying developments. All we can do is hope that this is not the beginning of a return to civil war. We will make every effort we can to get these people to go back to disarmament, to cooperate within one Government, and eventually to elections.

Question: Are discussions still under way for a rapid reaction force?

Spokesman: I am not aware that there have been any offers of troops for rapid reaction. But I do not think that the Secretary-General is ready to take the option off the table. In fact, I have been given a statement to read on the subject of Sierra Leone that came in after the briefing began, and I will read it after I answer your other questions -- which were ...?

Question: Has the United Nations seen the condition of the detainees?

Spokesman: The Indian condition is unique. The bulk of those detained are Zambians -- two groups of over 200 each. The second group detained we have not even established contact with, and we do not know where they are. The first group, as I mentioned, had been identified as having been taken further east to Koidu, an RUF stronghold. We do not have any information on their condition. So we have no contact with over 400 of the 500.

Question: Do you have any information on any of those who have been disarmed? Have they been tied up, for example?

Spokesman: I have nothing to tell you at this time about any information we might have gotten from people who had been detained.

I will just read this statement before I take any further questions:

"In view of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Sierra Leone, we are issuing this statement, attributable to the Spokesman for the Secretary-General:

"'The Secretary-General is extremely concerned about the rapidly deteriorating situation in Sierra Leone, in particular the reports of continuing military movements by the RUF and shooting in Freetown. He calls upon all parties to do their utmost to defuse the situation. He once again urges the RUF and its leader, Foday Sankoh, to cease immediately any hostile action.

"'The Secretary-General has appealed to the leaders of the region to redouble their efforts to bring the situation under control and restore normalcy. He also calls on the Governments of neighbouring States to do everything possible to prevent the reported movement of rebels from the territory of their countries into Sierra Leone.

"'In the circumstances, the Secretary-General continues to stress that, in addition to United Nations efforts, a rapid reaction force may be needed in Sierra Leone as soon as possible to assist in restoring conditions conducive to the resumption of the peace process.'"

The Secretary-General has also announced the relocation of non-essential civilian staff of the United Nations Mission.

Question: Do you have any indication of rebels from neighbouring countries going into Sierra Leone?

Spokesman: We have had reports, though we would not call them confirmed reports, of movements of RUF from positions in Guinea and Liberia.

Question: How large?

Spokesman: I have no idea.

Question: Will the non-essentials be evacuated to Conakry?

Spokesman: I understand that Conakry is full. The hotels are filled to capacity with people evacuated from Freetown. We may have to go to another capital in the region.

Question: Has there been any talk yet of dangling out in front of Sankoh the possibility of a diamond ban -- since that is his source of funding?

Spokesman: On the United Nations side, I have not heard any discussion of that. I cannot speak for members of the Security Council, and I certainly cannot speak for the African heads of State who are trying their best to have a positive impact on the situation. You would have to ask them directly.

Question: Which countries would you need agreement from for a rapid reaction force, since the United Kingdom and France were believed to have really shot the idea down?

Spokesman: The Secretary-General did not characterize the responses that he received from various governments, but clearly there are a limited number of governments in the world who have the sophisticated military capacity to transport well-trained and well-equipped troops over long distances quickly. So his options are limited.

Question: A Reuters report says that several thousand chanting peacekeepers marched to Sankoh's home -- is that a mistake?

Spokesman: That sounds like a mistake to me.

Question: Regarding the evacuation of the non-essential personnel -- do you know roughly how many people are leaving and how many non-military are staying?

Spokesman: No, I have no numbers yet. We will see if we can get any further information on that from the security coordinator.

Question: Would the rapid reaction force try to oppose the RUF?

Spokesman: I think that it would oppose any elements that were acting in ways that were not consistent with the peace plan. I assume they would go in as riot police to just calm the situation. Anyone walking around the streets would be disarmed. They would also try to impose law, order and peace so that the political process could move forward.

Question: That cannot happen at the moment because the United Nations people who are there are literally overwhelmed?

Spokesman: It is more than that peacekeepers as a military unit are not configured or equipped to fight a war. They are not expected to have to fight. There was a limited rapid reaction capability built into this force -- there is an Indian rapid reaction unit. But that is only 100 or 200 strong. And while that might help in a little riot control situation, it cannot cope with what is going on in Sierra Leone today.

Question: Have all of the parties agreed on the security for Mr. Miyet or any other high-ranking United Nations official going into the country?

Spokesman: I do not know what security arrangements were made for Mr. Miyet. We will just have to see what the situation in Freetown is like tomorrow morning. So far, he is scheduled to fly in from Conakry tomorrow morning, security situation permitting.

Question: Is the Security Council mission considering going to Sierra Leone?

Spokesman: I understand that they are not. They may have landed in Addis Ababa by now. They go to Eritrea tomorrow, and then come back to New York.

Question: What happened to the joint United Nations/rebel search team that was supposed to go into the bush yesterday to look for detainees?

Spokesman: They went into the bush yesterday, but there were some incidents of fighting that prevented them from reaching any sites where detainees were held. They did visit two sites where they had been fighting on Saturday, Rogburi Junction and Masiaka, and then they returned. They took some journalists with them. There was some talk that they would try to get out a second time to the original sites they wanted to visit, but to my knowledge that did not happen today. We will just have to see when they go out again.

[In a later announcement, the Spokesman said that 266 non-essential persons would be relocated from Sierra Leone, while 55 civilians would remain in the country.]

* *** *