PRESS BRIEFING BY UNDER-SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS

PRESS BRIEFING BY UNDER-SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS

The following is a statement by Jean-Marie Guéhenno, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, at a Headquarters press briefing this afternoon on the Israeli request for information regarding the 7 October 2000 abduction of three Israeli soldiers in south Lebanon:

“I would like to share with you a detailed chronology of what the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and United Nations Headquarters have done since 7 October 2000 to address the concerns of the families of the three soldiers that were abducted by Hizbullah on that date.

“The soldiers were abducted at 1330 on 7 October 2000.  This was a serious breach of the blue line, and was condemned as such.  On 8 October, two vehicles were retrieved by UNIFIL alongside a road in south Lebanon.  UNIFIL attempted to remove the damaged vehicles, but they were intercepted by Hizbullah.

“On 9 October, the Israeli military requested a meeting with UNIFIL.  A meeting was immediately scheduled on 10 October, but owing to constraints on the Israeli side, it eventually took place on 11 October.  At that meeting, the UNIFIL Force Commander informed the Israelis of what had been found in the vehicles, and of the circumstances that led to the eventual interception of the vehicles by Hizbullah on 8 October.

“Several months later, on 2 March 2001, the Ambassador of Israel to the United Nations complained that ‘UNIFIL has not been sufficiently forthcoming with information relating to the incident’, and noted in a letter to us that ‘Israeli liaison officers had presented UNIFIL with a videotape which showed United Nations troops towing away two vehicles that had been used in the abduction and which appeared to be disguised as official United Nations vehicles.  Despite the existence of this videotape [the letter continued], UNIFIL remained reticent in response to repeated Israeli requests for information’.

“So as to be in a position to reply to that letter, United Nations Headquarters asked UNIFIL to provide relevant information.  UNIFIL replied, referring in detail to the meeting they had had with the Israelis on 11 October, and confirming that their response had been prompt and forthcoming.  On that basis, I replied to Ambassador [Yehuda] Lancry on 14 March 2001 that the ‘United Nations has no further information that would shed light on the condition of the Israeli soldiers’.

“Two months later, we were again approached by Israeli authorities.  At the end of my trip to Israel, on 29 May, I was asked at the Israeli Ministry of Defence to review again whether we had any material, including photographic material, that could shed light on this issue.  I then promised to review the matter upon my return.

“The day after my return to the office, on 6 June, I was informed that there was a videotape, which had been brought to Headquarters by the Force Commander on the occasion of his debriefing in mid–May, but that it was not relevant, since it was taken the day after the abduction, in another location -– the road where the vehicles allegedly used for the abduction had been abandoned -- and did not contain any information that would shed light on the circumstances of the

abduction or the condition of the abductees.  I nevertheless reviewed the tape and requested that it be reviewed by senior officials with experience of these matters, to determine whether anything in it was of humanitarian value.

“This was being done when, on 16 June, the Israeli Ambassador specifically mentioned in a written request ‘photographic material taken at the scene of the abduction of the three Israeli soldiers, on 7 October 2000’.  A few days later, on 27 June, in Tel Aviv, the Israeli Minister of Defence told Mr. Roed-Larsen [Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Personal Representative of the Secretary-General to the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority] that such a tape did exist and Mr. Roed-Larsen denied it, because, like Steffan de Mistura [Personal Representative of the Secretary-General for South Lebanon], he was not involved in its review and -- I would like to emphasize -- had no knowledge of its existence.  As soon as we learned that Mr. Roed-Larsen had unwittingly misled the Israeli Minister of Defence, I called the Israeli Ambassador to make clear the facts and to make sure that the United Nations would continue to have frank and open relations with Israel.

“I therefore described the tape to the Ambassador in detail, as I am going to describe it to you:  it is not a tape filmed on the day of the abduction, nor at the location of the abduction.  It was filmed on the morning of 8 October, on the road where the two vehicles allegedly used in the abduction were found.  It shows the two abandoned vehicles and their contents, both in close-up and more general views.  It then shows the efforts of UNIFIL, with a tow truck, to tow one of the vehicles.  Its last segment shows the interception of the vehicles by armed Lebanese, allegedly from the Hizbullah.  In our view, nothing in that tape sheds light on the circumstances of the abduction or on the condition of the abductees

-- so that, unfortunately, what I wrote in my letter of 14 March remains valid.

“The Israeli Minister of Defence yesterday asked that this tape be handed over to Israel.  The United Nations has a duty to protect the confidentiality of its internal documents.  It also has a duty to take into consideration the security of its personnel.  There are also important considerations of impartiality, which would be breached if we were to give sensitive information about one side to the other.  UNIFIL could not function effectively with either side on any other basis.  At the same time, we understand the plight and anxiety of the families, who want to know as much as possible.

“In view of these conflicting considerations, and although we continue to believe that the tape does not add anything to what has already been made public about the circumstances of the abduction, and does not shed light on the condition of the abductees, we have decided to offer both the Government of Israel and the Lebanese authorities an opportunity to view this tape, but with faces of non-United Nations personnel obscured.

“We believe that the humanitarian considerations put forward by the Government of Israel warrant this exception to the principle of confidentiality, but that security considerations also require that some precautions be taken.”

Asked by a correspondent why providing copies of the tape would undermine UNIFIL security and why the faces would be obscured, Mr. Guéhenno replied that it was clear that south Lebanon was a war zone.  The last segment of the tape showed the interception of the damaged vehicles by Lebanese people who seemed to belong to Hizbullah and showing their faces would be considered by one party as providing intelligence to another party, and would certainly endanger the security of United Nations personnel in Lebanon.

Might not those on the tape be precisely the people who had abducted the Israeli servicemen? another journalist asked.

The Under-Secretary-General said he could not tell.

Asked by the same correspondent why the United Nations would cover up information on who had kidnapped the soldiers, he said the Organization was not covering up anything.  The faces were being obscured for the security of United Nations personnel.

Mr. Guéhenno said that the Organization understood fully that the Israeli request had a humanitarian basis and that the families of the abductees wanted to know as much as they could about the circumstances of their abduction and about their condition.  The United Nations could not provide intelligence as UNIFIL would not be able to function under such circumstances, he added.

Asked if the United Nations had a standard policy on what to do with television footage, he said the tape had been made on an individual basis and not according to UNIFIL policy.  The Organization had to handle the tape in a way that was compatible with the constraints of peacekeeping, and which at the same time addressed the concerns of the families.

Another correspondent asked if there was not another tape of the actual abduction.

The Under-Secretary-General replied that he had seen media reports to that effect and could say only that he was sure there was no tape in the possession of the Secretariat that showed the abduction.  However, he could not tell whether somebody in Lebanon had made such a tape and he could not prove that such a document did not exist.

He added that at the time of the abduction, there had been shelling in the area and the UNIFIL personnel closest to the area were in shelters.  It was very unlikely that there would be such a tape, he added.

Asked whether there was an aim of tracking down the perpetrators of the abduction -- which was essentially a crime -- in addition to humanitarian concerns, Mr. Guéhenno reiterated that the tape did not show the kidnapping, but only the vehicles being retrieved and then intercepted.

The Security Council had not mandated UNIFIL to carry out a criminal investigation and neither did the Force have the resources for that task, he said.  Its role was to try and defuse tensions so that the situation did not escalate into war.  UNIFIL could assist the Government of Lebanon, but could not establish law and order.  South Lebanon was not run by the United Nations.

Who had reviewed the tape and on what basis had it been determined that the tape did not contain useful information? another journalist asked.

The Under-Secretary-General replied that when they viewed the tape, the representatives of the Israeli and Lebanese Governments would see that vehicles abandoned by the roadside did not shed light on the circumstances of the abduction that had taken place several miles away.

Another correspondent asked why the Force Commander had brought the tape to Headquarters and why UNIFIL had made it in the first place.

Mr. Guéhenno said that the Force Commander had brought the tape because the abduction was a very serious violation of the blue line that had raised much concern in the United Nations.  The Organization had requested as much information as possible on the incident.  The filming was an individual initiative, he added.  There was no standard policy on filming or not filming, he added.

Would the Organization actively pursue the existence of another tape? another journalist asked.

The Under-Secretary-General replied that UNIFIL would be asked again if another one existed, along with “whatever they had that could shed light from a humanitarian or a non-humanitarian standpoint”. 

Another correspondent asked if there really was an inclination to find anything that could be useful in an investigation.

Mr. Guéhenno replied that he wished he had more, such as anything filmed on the day of the abduction.  UNIFIL knew that kind of thing was wanted but no such thing had come to its attention.

Responding to questions about UNIFIL's interest in the vehicles, given that they were not genuine United Nations vehicles, he said that its following up on the vehicles showed they were actually going beyond their mandate in looking for information, which they could only do up to a point.  The fact that a couple of United Nations uniforms were found in the vehicles had been shared with the Israelis in the October meeting.

Asked who had shot the tape, Mr. Guéhenno said:  “It was shot by a soldier in one of the battalions of UNIFIL”.

* *** *