DAILY PRESS BRIEFING BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPOKESMAN FOR THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPOKESMAN FOR THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

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

Good afternoon.

**Statement Attributable to the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

We have a slightly different format this morning.  I’ll read a statement attributable to the Spokesman and then we’ll take questions on that matter before we go to the other items of today’s briefing.  Starting then with the statement:

“We have seen today’s media reports alleging that the Secretary-General’s phone conversations were tapped by British intelligence.  We would be disappointed if this were true.

“Such activities would undermine the integrity and confidential nature of diplomatic exchanges.  Those who speak to the Secretary-General are entitled to assume that their exchanges are confidential.

“The Secretary-General, therefore, would want this practice stopped, if indeed it exists.

“The Secretariat routinely takes technical measures to guard against such invasions of privacy, and those efforts will now be intensified”.

I’ll take any questions you have on this matter now.

Questions and Answers

Question:  A question from Rob Moore from British TV ITN.  You say you’re disappointed.  That sounds like mild language.  I think the question many will want to know is:  Is the practice of bugging the Secretary-General regarded here as illegal?

Spokesman:  It is indeed considered illegal.  There are three pieces of international law that are relevant in this case.  The first is the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.  That’s the most important of the three from our point of view.  I’ll read you one relevant paragraph from that, article II of that Convention:

“The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable.  The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference -- my emphasis there -- any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action.”

So, from our point of view it is indeed illegal.  The other relevant items or treaties or conventions are the 1947 agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America which places obligations on the United States in its dealings with the United Nations.  And finally, the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which governs relations among States in their diplomatic relations.

Question:  Fred, what means does the UN have for establishing whether the allegation is true?  And if it does turn out to be true, what recourse does the UN have?  What steps will the UN take in practice?

Spokesman:  We can take certain steps within our power to protect the confidentiality of phone conversations.  We can use secure phones, secure faxes.  As I mentioned at the briefing yesterday in a different context, we routinely check the Secretary-General’s office and other parts of the UN premises for any bugging devices.  I don’t know that anyone has protection against satellite intercepts, but although this 1946 Convention was written more than 50 years ago, clearly it would apply to all forms of interference, including things that weren’t even imagined then, namely, satellite intercepts.

Question:  Sorry Fred, what I meant, Fred, is that if it turns out that the allegation is true, does the UN have a recourse against the party that actually carried out the bugging?

Spokesman:  This statement says that we want this action to stop, if indeed it has been carried out.  It undermines the Secretary-General’s conduct of business with other leaders.  It’s, therefore, not good for the United Nations’ work and it’s illegal under the Convention that I mentioned to you.  I don’t think we can go beyond that.  The United Nations doesn’t have a police force or any other means of enforcing these laws.  But these are conventions signed by Member States.  So, it’s a commitment, it’s an agreement among Member States to honour their commitments.  Colum?

Question:  Fred, has the British Government formally given you any explanation as to what happened?  Have you asked them?  I mean, did they tell you that they deny that they did this?  Have you asked them whether they did it or not, formally?  And also, you say that you generally take measures to try to prevent this sort of thing from happening.  You’ve done it in the past and that you’ve intensified that.  Is that an indication that you sort of do expect that this is a sort of widespread practice or that there is sort of a constant concern that governments are trying to, you know, listen in and are interested in such conversations of the Secretary-General?

Spokesman:  Taking your second question first:  Whether or not this is widespread, we don’t know.  Whether or not this happened, this specific incident happened, we don’t know.  But we will take whatever measures we can to protect the confidentiality of the Secretary-General’s phone conversations, realizing that no system is foolproof.

Question:  And on the British, the question of any contact with the British Government, have they denied this?

Spokesman:  The Secretary-General did speak with the British Ambassador to the United Nations this morning.  He is in London, but they did speak.  I can’t give you the elements of their conversation.  I can’t tell you what they spoke about.

Question:  But you can’t say that the British Government denied that they were engaging in espionage or...?

Spokesman:  No, I can’t tell you anything that took place in that conversation.  Yes, Mark?

Question:  Do you have any plans to speak with Clare Short as the originator of the allegations?

Spokesman:  I am not aware of any intentions to speak to Clare Short.

Question:  What steps will you be taking to try and ascertain if this is true or not?  And have there been any suspicions before that the Secretary-General’s conversations were being listened in?

Spokesman:  I don’t know frankly whether we had any specific indications.  Clearly, we take the steps we do because we realized there is the potential to violate this confidentiality and because we prize this confidentiality.  Yes?

Question:  Fred, just how did you find out about this?

Spokesman:  The media reports this morning.

Question:  Just through the media or did you have any indication prior to that?

Spokesman:  Well, the former Minister of the British Government made a comment to the media saying that this had taken place and that’s what triggered this whole thing.  Joe?

Question:  Fred, can we say concretely that you will be making changes in the way the Secretary-General communicates?  A more secure line?  If you have secure lines –- I know when you speak to peacekeeping missions, will you be using that equipment...?

Spokesman:  I am not going to discuss what measures we’re going to be taking other than what I said, that we’d be increasing our efforts to secure the lines and communications.  Yes, Joe?

Question:  Is there any other in history, are there any other examples that you know, that you can think of, off the top of your head, of the SG being spied on?  The Soviet Union?  The Americans previously?

Spokesman:  I don’t have any historical recollections of precedents.  Yes, sir?

Question:  Sorry, from the Daily Telegraph in London.  Who initiated the conversations this morning with the British Ambassador and the Secretary-General?

Spokesman:  I believe it was the Secretary-General who called the Ambassador.

Question:  And has there been any offer or attempt by the British Government (inaudible) Tony Blair to have a conversation with the Secretary-General this morning?

Spokesman:  Not that I am aware.  But I believe ...  and I may have gotten it wrong when I said that the Secretary-General initiated the phone call because I believe that the Ambassador in speaking with the Secretary-General said he was calling on behalf of the Prime Minister.  So, let me double-check who initiated that call.  Yes, Philippe?

Question:  Fred, you said that the building and other offices are routinely checked for bugging devices.  Have you ever found anything in any part of the building?

Spokesman:  I am not at liberty to say, I am afraid.  Yes, sir?

Question:  Fred, can the UN sue a MemberState over an issue like this?

Spokesman:  I don’t believe so, no.  Yes?

[He later clarified that under Article 104 of the UN Charter, such action is theoretically possible.]

Question:  Fred, the British Prime Minister said that the revelation of this bugging was irresponsible.  I am wondering if, in the SG’s estimation, that’s exactly the opposite?  That, in fact, Clare Short was being responsible in informing the international community of what’s going on?

Spokesman:  I am not going to get into the middle of that domestic dispute.  Colum?

Question:  Yes, on the question of the previous allegations of eavesdropping on the conversations of six members of the Security Council.  Is that in the view of the Secretariat an illegal act as well?  And also, you know, is that something that – well, actually sort of a separate question as well -- are you going to conduct any sort of investigation into either of these claims?

Spokesman:  I think I have already addressed the issue of claims of Member States spying on other Member States outside of the premises of the United Nations.  So, that’s not our purview and we’d have no view on that, except to cite the relevant Convention that I mentioned earlier here that governs relations among nations.  So, there is an international legal basis for one State to complain to another State about such bugging.  And your other question, I am sorry?  Or was it the only one?

Question:  Yeah, yeah, the investigation.  Is there a formal way ... are you conducting a formal investigation into either of these cases to determine whether, you know, basically point out what happened?

Spokesman:  No.  We’re reaffirming the principle that these premises are inviolable under international law and we expect all Member States to respect their commitments under this legal instrument.  David?

Question:  Fred, I don’t know if this is what Colum was intending to ask, but under (interruption).  On the issue of routinely checking the SG’s office, I don’t think you’ll comment.  Has the SG’s office been checked since this revelation?  I know you won’t disclose it, but I will ask you has anything been found?  And beyond that, typically your office would say, in a forum like this, that you won’t comment on media reports.  But in this case you’ve chosen to.  I am wondering to what extent does that reflect the inclination upstairs and throughout the building that these reports are true?

Spokesman:  I am not going to talk about specific things that we do that are security-related.  So, when the last time the Secretary-General’s office was swept, I am just not going to comment on.  As for the...  Okay.  So, I am corrected now.  It’s the UK Permanent Representative who called the Secretary-General, not the other way round, and said he was calling on behalf of the Prime Minister.

As for responding to press reports, I am not aware that we have a blanket policy there.  There are certain circumstances under which we don’t think it’s appropriate to comment on a press report.  But I don’t think that means we can’t comment any time there is something that comes to light through the press.  Yes, Joe?

Question:  Fred, given how close the United States and Britain were together in the lead up to the war, does the Secretary-General intend to speak with Ambassador Negroponte, as well as Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was Ambassador at the time, at least in the beginning?

Spokesman:  This incident seems only to involve the United Kingdom.  I don’t think the Secretary-General intends to speak to anyone else.  Mark?

Question:  Before these allegations were made through the media today, had you had any private indications that it was possible anyone could have been bugged?  And are you investigating any other offices apart from the Secretary-General or is that the only office that you think might be bugged?  Have there been any suggestions that anybody else’s conversations have been listened in on?

Spokesman:  I think I have already answered that, at least indirectly.  We’re aware that there is the theoretical possibility that there can be eavesdropping.  We take whatever measures we can to preserve or to protect the confidentiality of our phone conversations.  I am not going to comment on whether we’re aware of any specific incidents in the past.  Yes, Philippe?

Question:  Is there any concern or any investigation on people working around Kofi Annan or with Kofi Annan to see whether anybody could have been part of the spying operation, if indeed there was one?

Spokesman:  I am not quite sure what you’re asking.

Question:  You’re talking about bugging devices.  It could be people just reporting what Kofi Annan is saying through conversations.  So, is there also a concern about human intelligence here, about people working with Kofi Annan being part of that?

Spokesman:  No.  I mean, the people that we hire commit themselves to the Organization, the Secretary-General.  They are expressly prohibited from taking any instructions from a Government.  That’s the basic rule of being an international civil servant.  Should we discover that that’s not the case, certainly we would take against it.  But we have no reason to suspect anyone close to the Secretary-General.  Yes, Benny?

Question:  You’ve partially answered or non-answered that already.  But since the Clare Short allegations were talking about bugging in the context of the Iraq war, can you specifically refer to whether there was sweeping in UNMOVIC’s offices, because that would be a proper target in that context?

Spokesman:  We’re not getting into those kinds of details, telling you what offices we sweep and what offices we don’t.  It’s just not the way to do business.  I am sorry I’m not going to answer that.  Yes, sir?

Question:  You were saying it appears to be explicitly a United Kingdom operation.  Is that drawn purely from the remarks that Clare Short made?  Because, from her remarks it actually seems to me more vague.  It just said she’d read the transcripts and (inaudible) necessarily exclude the Americans or do you have additional reasons to believe that it was just the British (inaudible)?

Spokesman:  We’re basing ourselves on the comments by Clare Short today.  Yes?

Question:  Fred, you have talked today in terms about sweeping of offices.  Do you take any counter-measures against bugs on persons when they walk into the Secretary-General’s office?  Because that’s one thing that’s a little bit difficult to protect against.

Spokesman:  I am not going to get into any details like that.  Anyone else?  Joe?

Question:  Fred, I am sorry, it might be, I think, in your answer to Colum you said that you’d not be conducting investigations.  How will you determine if these allegations are true?

Spokesman:  We are not in a position to determine whether this is true or not.  A former minister of a MemberState says this happens.  We’re saying if that is true, we’re disappointed and I gave you the reasons in the statement.  And we would expect every MemberState to respect the legal underpinnings to guard the confidentiality of communications.  That’s all.  We’re throwing down a red flag and saying if this is true, please stop it.  Yes, Tony?

Question:  Fred, is there going to be any effort to see how, if information did leak out by this means, how it might have affected some of the diplomacy that was going on at the time?  In other words, are you going to try and go back and see how something that the SG was trying to do was in some way undermined?

Spokesman:  No.  My statement says that everything he tries to do can be undermined if the people he is speaking to don’t have confidence that what they say to him would be kept confidential.  That’s the threat to his ongoing work in all areas and that’s why we’re saying this must stop, if it in fact took place.

Question:  Fred, I am talking about looking back and looking in a very practical sense.  For example, Ambassador Zinzer, former Ambassador Zinzer, I guess I should say, talked about how an initiative that Mexico was pursuing was undermined because he believed the United States had gotten hold of information from private conversations that were going on in the Mexican Mission.  Is the SG going to ask his people to have a look in initiatives that he was taking that might have been undermined by the fact that what he was discussing was not confidential?

Spokesman:  I am not going into what he is going to do or what he might not do.  Besides, we don’t know what specific communications Clare Short might have been referring to.  So, it would be very hard to do an analysis.  Yes, sir?

Question:  Since Clare Short’s allegations, have any other Members States come forward to the SG about possible bugging?

Spokesman:  Not to my knowledge, no.  Okay.  Serge?

Question:  Fred, are you sure that those conventions that you cited protect the Secretary-General?  Are you sure that those conventions, you know, were made for the protection of the conversations, or...?

Spokesman:  No.  I think the wording that I read out to you from the 1946 Convention clearly applies to the Secretary-General and these premises, generally.

Can I continue with the briefing now?

**Statement Attributable to the Spokesman on Death of Boris Trajkovski

I have second statement attributable to the Spokesman on the death of Boris Trajkovski:

“The Secretary-General learned with deep sadness of the tragic death of the President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mr. Boris Trajkovski, and members of his delegation in a plane crash today.

“President Trajkovski will be remembered for his crucial role in preserving the unity of his country and laying down the basis for the stability of a multi-ethnic MacedonianState.  A true European, Mr. Trajkovski greatly contributed to the development of regional cooperation and led his country towards membership in the European Union and NATO to ensure prosperity and stability for his people and for the entire region.

“The Secretary-General conveys his heartfelt condolences to the family of President Trajkovski and the families of the members of his delegation, as well as to the people of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.

**Trajkovski

Also today, Security Council President Wang Guangya said that the members of the Council expressed their profound sadness at President Trajkovski’s death, and offered their condolences to his family and the Government and people of his nation.

We also have upstairs a statement from Harri Holkeri, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Kosovo, conveying his deep shock and sorrow.

**Security Council - Haiti

The Security Council is currently holding consultations on Haiti, in which Council members are considering a draft presidential statement, which was submitted by the United States.

Council members also have before them a letter from the French Mission, transmitting a declaration by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin that calls for the immediate establishment of an international civilian peacekeeping force and international assistance for preparing presidential elections in Haiti.

This afternoon, starting at 3 o’clock, Council members will hold a formal meeting on Haiti, which was requested yesterday by Jamaica, acting on behalf of the Caribbean Community.  The Secretary-General will attend that meeting.

Yesterday, the Security Council President said in a press statement that Council members deplored the decision by Haiti’s opposition to reject the plan of action presented by the Caribbean Community and the Organization of American States.  They call on Haiti’s Government and opposition to accept and implement the provisions of that plan and call on both sides to respect human rights and cease the use of violence to advance political goals.

**Security Council - Georgia

Earlier today, the Security Council held a formal meeting to hear from the new President of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili.

President Saakashvili will also meet with the Secretary-General today, at 2:15 p.m.

**Afghanistan

The UN Mission in Afghanistan confirmed today that, last night, Afghan aid workers were attacked in a village approximately 25 kilometres north of Kabul, with five aid workers killed when unknown assailants fired on them.  The UN Mission called the attack “absolutely unacceptable”.

The Mission, in today’s press briefing in Kabul, also said that more than 1.1 million Afghans have now registered to vote in the eight cities where voter registration is taking place.  About one quarter of the registrants so far are women, with a slight increase recorded in recent days in the numbers of women who are registering.

**Southern Africa

The future of millions of children in six southern African countries is being put in jeopardy by a massive lack of funds and international support for crucial aid projects, according to a warning issued today by eight UN agencies at the launch of the Mid Term Review of the Consolidated Appeal for southern Africa.

To this date the UN has received $324 million, but only $24 million is for non-food activities, which adds up to only 14 per cent of what is needed.

The UN Special Envoy for Humanitarian needs in Southern Africa noted that after millions of children have been saved from starvation, it is tragic that their lives now remain at risk from a lack of clean water, adequate sanitation and proper health care.  We have a full press release upstairs.

**Tribunals

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda today ordered the conditional release of two Rwandan suspects, including the former Minister of Transportation and Communications, following their acquittal yesterday on charges that they organized and participated in the 1994 genocide.  We have a press release with more details.

Also yesterday, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia confirmed that the prosecution had formally closed the case against former President Slobodan Milosevic.  We have press release on that, as well.

**UNDP/Africa/Markets

And finally, the UN Development Programme is calling for greater inclusion of African countries in international financial markets through the continued expansion of credit ratings in the continent.

UNDP hopes that the ratings will help provide better access to financing, which, in turn, will help African countries to tackle a broad range of poverty alleviation issues and provide an incentive to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.  You may recall that the Millennium Development Goals are a set of measured targets for reducing poverty and improving lives that world leaders agreed on at the Millennium Summit in 2000.  We have more details on that in a release, as well.

And that’s all I have for you.  No further questions?  Thank you very much.

* *** *