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.

**Indonesia Quake

Concerning the recent earthquake in Indonesia, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says that its priority on the hard-hit island of Nias is to provide clean water.  UNICEF reports that two of its water purification units are ready to leave Banda Aceh.  Meanwhile, the World Food Programme (WFP) has sent a landing craft with 300 tons of food and a temporary warehouse onboard, and it’s set to arrive tomorrow.  The WFP is also taking a lead role in building an air base on the Sumatran mainland, so that aircraft can reach Nias as quickly as possible.  Before this latest disaster, WFP was providing food to some 2,000 tsunami survivors on that island.  But, initial assessments now show that some 200,000 people out of the island’s total population of 450,000 people will need food aid for about two months. 

We have more information on these items, upstairs.

**Security Council - Today

The Security Council this morning voted unanimously to extend the mandate of the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, until 1 October, with the intention to renew it for further periods.

Council members then met on Sudan to agree to postpone a vote on a draft resolution submitted by France for 24 hours, until tomorrow morning. 

The Security Council is currently holding an open debate on the African dimensions of the Council’s work.  The debate also is intended as a wrap-up session for the Council’s work this month, under the Presidency of Ambassador Ronaldo Sardenberg of Brazil.

**Lebanon

Yesterday afternoon, the Secretary-General and the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Kieran Prendergast, attended the Security Council’s closed consultations on Lebanon to discuss the report of the Mission of Inquiry into the circumstances, causes and consequences of the February 14 bombing in Beirut. 

That report is out on the racks today, as is a letter from the Syrian Government responding to it.  The Mission, headed by Peter Fitzgerald, says in the report that, to uncover the truth behind the bombing, which killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, it would be necessary to entrust the investigation to an international independent commission.

**Security Council - Yesterday

In addition to discussing Lebanon, the Security Council yesterday afternoon also held closed consultations on the situation in Guinea-Bissau, on which it was briefed by the Secretary-General’s representative, João Honwana.

The Council then adopted a resolution to impose a travel ban and assets freeze on those impeding the peace process in Sudan, committing human rights violations and violating measures set out in previous resolutions.  The resolution, sponsored by the United States, was approved by a vote of 12 in favour, none against, and 3 abstentions.  And they were by Algeria, China and Russia.

The resolution establishes a committee consisting of all Council members to designate those individuals subject to the measures and to monitor their implementation.  It requests the Secretary-General to appoint, for a period of six months, a four-member panel of experts based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to assist the committee in monitoring implementation of the measures.

The sanctions measures are to enter into force in 30 days, unless the Council determines before then that the parties to the conflict had complied with all the commitments and demands set out in previous resolutions, the N’Djamena Ceasefire Agreement and the Abuja Protocols.

**Geir Pedersen

The Secretary-General has informed the Security Council of his intention to appoint Geir Pedersen of Norway as his Personal Representative for southern Lebanon.  We expect the Security Council to respond in writing shortly.  Pedersen, who currently serves as Director of the Asia and Pacific Division in the Department of Political Affairs, will replace Staffan de Mistura, who, as you know, has been appointed Deputy Special Representative for Iraq.  We have a biographical note on Mr. Pedersen in my Office.

**Iraq

The Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Iraq, Ashraf Qazi, today met the Foreign Minister of Kuwait, Mohammed Sabah al-Salim al-Sabah, in Kuwait.

Their talks focused on the formation of the Government following the Iraqi elections that were held on the 30 January.  They reviewed the security situation and the importance of stability in Iraq, as the basis for reconstruction and development initiatives.

Qazi and the Foreign Minister also discussed the forthcoming meeting of the neighbouring States of Iraq, to be held in Istanbul in April, and its importance in demonstrating the willingness of Iraq's neighbours to provide appropriate support for Iraq's transition process.

And, I saw some of our Arab journalist guests today smiling at my pronunciation of the Arab names.  Excuse me, please.

**Bougainville

The Secretary-General’s latest report on the UN Observer Mission in Bougainville is out on the racks today.  In it, the Secretary-General notes that, given the progress made in the parties’ weapons disposal and preparations for elections -- and barring any unforeseen circumstances -- the Mission will complete its mandate and formally close down on 30 June.  From then on, UN development and humanitarian agencies and the donor community will take the lead in aiding the autonomous Bougainville Government.

**Ecosystems

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a comprehensive evaluation of the world’s major ecosystems, was released today.  The study, which started in 2001, was conducted by some 1,300 experts from 95 countries.

The UN Environment Programme says the study shows that ecosystems and the services they provide are financially significant, and that to damage them is tantamount to economic suicide.  The study also sets out strategies for protecting species and habitats, and to manage the environment in poor countries.

In a video message, the Secretary-General says that the report fills a global knowledge gap, and that it shows how biodiversity around the world is declining at an alarming rate.  The Secretary-General adds that we must now hold world leaders to their promises of achieving the Millennium Development Goals.  We have press releases and copies of the Secretary-General’s message upstairs.

**Bird Flu in DPRK

Finally, the Food and Agriculture Organization is sending a team of experts to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to assess and help control a bird flu outbreak.  Poultry production is one of the few growing sectors there, and FAO says that if the industry remains healthy, it will do much to alleviate serious food shortages in the country.  We have a press release on that.

I’ll now take your questions.

**Questions and Answers

Question:  Fred, what is the significance of Ashraf Qazi meeting the Kuwaitis about the situation in Iraq?

Spokesman:  What is the significance…?

Question:  Why is he talking to the Kuwaiti Foreign Minister about the situation in Iraq?

Spokesman:  Well, you saw the reference to the meeting of neighbouring countries.  I think the cooperation of neighbouring countries is essential to the peace process in Iraq, so I don’t think you should be surprised at all.

Question:  On Lebanon, the Syrians in their letter yesterday to the Security Council and the SG asked for an omission of the reference to Syria’s President as threatening the late Rafik Al-Hariri before his assassination.  Is there a reaction from the SG to that?

Spokesman:  No, although that letter was also sent to the Secretary-General, I think I would let the Security Council react to that request.  Yes, Mark?

Question:  Can you tell us what planned steps, if any, are going to be taken against Mr. Riza and against Mr. Nair after the report yesterday?  And also, to your knowledge, has there ever been a previous incident of such widespread document shredding by top officials?

Spokesman:  We are looking at the allegations, if you would call them that, the mention of the former Chief of Staff, Iqbal Riza, as well as the Head of the OIOS, Mr. Dileep Nair.  I have nothing to say about it today; we’re still studying whether action should be taken or not.  In the case of Mr. Nair, I think you heard Mr. Mark Malloch Brown, the current Chief of Staff, say yesterday that it’s inevitable that some action would be taken.  But I have nothing further to say on that.

On shredding, this house is a paper mill.  The amount of paper that passes through here everyday is enormous, and all of us shred all the time.  In the case of the mentioning by the Volcker committee or panel in their report yesterday of Mr. Riza’s shredding of his files, I don’t think in the comments Mr. Volcker made to the press that he indicated that there could have been anything significant in those files.  He, I believe he said, he couldn’t say there weren’t -- and no one could say there weren’t -- but “chron” files are very simple records of the daily work of an office.  They are working copies, often secondary copies, of drafts or photocopies of memos in and memos out, in a given day.  Those memos were typed on computers.  The hard drives of all our computers were made available to Mr. Volcker.  So, the possibility that it was something in a “chron” file that was not available somewhere else is, I would say, rather small.

Question:  Just to follow up, the panel did say yesterday that there were a couple of documents, I believe, that couldn’t be found.  But anyway, on Riza and Nair, would this be handled with the customary procedure where they have some time to respond to the allegations, and also can you tell us what’s going on with Carina Perelli?

Spokesman:  Well, I don’t want to speculate on Mr. Riza or Mr. Nair because, I told you, we’re still looking at it.  Should some action be taken, yes, of course, as staff members, they would have the right to defend themselves.

On the unfortunate leaking of a management study of the Electoral Division of the UN, headed by Carina Perelli, all I can say is that that management study by a consulting firm that’s been working with the UN -- all the departments in the UN -- for something like 10 years, was merely looking at the Department of Political Affairs initially.  They organized a retreat for the whole Department to review management issues of the Department -- that happened, I think, in the summer of 2003 -- and there were, within the Electoral Assistance Division, identified management issues that they recommended be addressed.

There was the unfortunate bombing in Baghdad in August of that year, when Mr. Prendergast, who heads the Department, his principal assistant, Rick Hooper, was killed in that bombing, and so there was some delay in following up on that recommendation.  But, eventually the management company, or consultants, did look at the Electoral Division.  And, they submitted their report recently, and that report has now leaked.  As I said, it’s unfortunate, but the Department of Political Affairs is currently reviewing what’s in that report.  And, it will be the head of that Department’s decision to assess whether what is in that report, consists of a serious enough violation of rules to be passed on to either the Personnel Department -- if it regards personnel matters -- or to the OIOS and the auditors, if it involves a financial matter.  But, I don’t want to comment on the specifics, or even mention the specific allegations mentioned in the report, even though some of you have gotten your hands on the report and have reported on it.

Yes?

Question:  Fred, you said “all of us shred all the time”.  I’m sure that sent alarm bells ringing among the Volcker people.  But, I wonder whether you could tell us whether all of you shred all the time immediately after you’ve been given an order not to shred?

Spokesman:  Well.  You’re referring to the Secretary-General’s directive that all documentation relevant to the Volcker Commission be preserved for Volcker, but I think the report pointed out yesterday that Mr. Riza’s decision to relieve the pressure on his own files at the request of his own secretaries was made two months before -- I think it was two months before that order…

Question:  He ordered the preservation of documents by all agencies related to the oil-for-food programme.

Spokesman:  Let me take a fresh look at the report, but the report says what it says.  We say we accept everything the report says.  Where the report criticizes us in areas of management, we’re taking a good hard look at that to see how we can correct what needs correcting.

Question:  Fred, with all due respect, you’re rewriting history.  Every person in this room knows that the report says Riza ordered the shredding of the documents 10 days after he had told all the relevant UN departments not to shred.  You can’t just sit there and rewrite history; we know that, you know that.

Spokesman:  But take a look at the report, and I believe the decision to shred those documents was taken something like two months before.  Yes?  [In Section V.1, the report states that Mr. Riza approved a request in writing of 22 April 2004, by his secretary, to shred chron files for 1997, ‘98 and ’99.  The Secretary-General ordered the preservation of documents on 1 June 2004.]

Question:  Can you explain to us where the shredding took place?  How far is Mr. Riza’s desk from Mr. Annan’s desk, and how far is the shredding machine from Mr. Annan’s desk?

Spokesman:  I don’t know what the relevance of that question is, but I’ll do my best to answer both of them.  In between Mr. Riza’s office and the Secretary-General’s office is a waiting room, a VIP waiting room, and a room where the Secretary-General’s secretaries sit.  They might be 12 feet wide each, so 24, 25 feet between those two offices.  There’s more than one shredder on the Secretary-General’s floor.  I think the one that most of the secretaries use is in a common area at the other end of the hallway, down towards the Deputy Secretary-General’s office, where there’s a large photocopier.  And, I would assume that’s the shredder that Mr. Riza’s secretaries would use.

Question:  And, was Mr. Riza in the habit of shredding documents without consulting his boss, considering some of those documents, all of those documents, bore on the business of his boss?

Spokesman:  Well, as I say, my understanding is the decision to do this predated the order to preserve documents.  As I’ve explained to you, “chron” documents are not significant.  The UN archives usually won’t accept them.  They were copies of routine documents, the originals of which are in the hard drives of computers, which were already made available to Mr. Volcker.  And, any important documents would be found in the central registry on the 38^th floor.  So, these are an office’s working documents that take up a lot of space in files, and occasionally, have to be dumped.

Question:  Have the “chron” documents from ’94, ’95, ’96 in the Chief of Staff’s office been destroyed as well?

Spokesman:  Well, I don’t know that.  You’d have to ask what the previous Chief of Staff did.  He might well have cleared out all his files to make room for the new Chief of Staff coming in.  I can try to find that out for you.

Question:  Mr. Riza was seen coming out of Mr. Annan’s residence at 7:00 on Monday evening, just before the Volcker report.  What was Mr. Riza doing with Mr. Annan shortly before the Volcker report came out?

Spokesman:  Uh, I don’t know that that’s true.  I’d have to see if I could confirm that for you.  But, I see no reason why, if that did happen, that, in the normal course of events, the Secretary-General and his former Chief of Staff shouldn’t be getting together on whatever it might be, even if it was on the Volcker matter. 

Question:  Can you check if you can get a read-out of that meeting?

Spokesman:  I will ask, but it’s a private meeting in the Secretary-General’s residence.  I don’t think there’s an obligation for us to give you a read-out the way…

Question:  Often, there are private meetings in the residence and you’ve given us read-outs…

Spokesman:  “Often” is a bit of an exaggeration, but I’ll see if I can.  Mark, before I get back to you, let me take some others.  Richard?

Question:  Did the Secretary-General speak to his son, following the Volcker report and the press conference, do we know?  First question.

Spokesman:  I don’t know that.  I’m not given the log of his personal phone calls.

Question:  Is the Secretary-General planning on any special meeting with press, General Assembly, countries in the wake of the Volcker report this week, in terms of moving forward?

Spokesman:  There are the meetings that I described to you, I think yesterday, on the follow-up to the reform report, where the Deputy Secretary-General and Assistant Secretary-General Robert Orr together, are briefing each of the regional groups over a matter of three days.

Question:  What room is that in?  Is that in the GA hall, or is that somewhere else?

Spokesman:  Not in the GA hall.  I’d have to check, but if you check with my office, we’d probably know what room those meetings were taking place in.

Question:  Did Mr. Riza, before shredding the document, make anybody else aware of that?  And shouldn’t Mr. Riza be given time to explain himself before he’s lynched?

Spokesman:  I think he did explain in a letter to Mr. Volcker, which is appended to the report.  And, again, this is routine stuff; it’s not significant stuff that would have to be reported up and down the chain.  So, it was between him and his secretaries.  His secretaries say, “we’re running out of space.  Can we shred some documents?”  He said, “yes”.

Question:  What about the Secretary-General?

Spokesman:  What about him?

Question:  I mean, was he consulted in any way?

Spokesman:  You would not consult the Secretary-General on such a routine matter.  Joe?

Question:  Fred, if you read the press release of Volcker it seems that the Secretary-General has been exonerated.  When you read the report, it seems to condemn him.  It’s like a jigsaw puzzle with a few pieces missing, but you see the picture that it’s creating.  My question is, has the Secretary-General actually read the entire report?  And my second one is, One of the investigators was quoted this morning as saying that the report does not exonerate him along these lines.  Your reaction to that, and whether the Secretary-General has actually read the report.

Spokesman:  I can’t add anything to the report itself, which was compiled over a year on the basis of all the hard drives made available, not just from the 38^th floor but from Political Affairs and other departments.  All the phone records, all the appointment books.  I mean, if your individual lives had to undergo scrutiny like this, think about it.  Every e-mail that you might have sent over the last seven years being poured over by dozens of investigators.  Anyway, we made everything available to him.  They concluded with the report of yesterday.  We’ve accepted the findings of that report. 

If you want to say that the glass is half empty instead of half full, that’s your right.  But we accept the findings of the report, and we stick to our original version of the events that we gave to you at the outset, which was that our internal investigation found that there was no connection between Kojo Annan’s being hired by the Cotecna firm and the Cotecna firm getting a United Nations contract.

Question:  What about Pieth’s remark?  Could you react to that?  This investigation [inaudible] one day … do you recall an investigation [inaudible] one-day inquiry --

Spokesman:  A one -- I don’t understand what your saying.

Question:  There was an exchange of memos over one day, which you’ve been calling an investigation for months.  The report says it was only an exchange of memos that lasted one day.  But what about Pieth’s remark?

Spokesman:  I really don’t know what you’re talking about.  They have been looking into this matter for almost a year. 

Question:  I meant your own investigation.  Can you remark on Pieth’s remark that they did not exonerate….

Spokesman:  Oh, you mean the Connor report.  Yes, that was quickly done, but we feel that the Volcker report, after an exhaustive look at the documentation, confirms our initial finding.

Let’s take Mark.

Question:  Just another issue that was raised about Kojo Annan’s relationship with some people in the procurement department.  And one of those people said that Kojo often appeared in the Procurement Department, and helped them out with their computers.  Is it normal that non-United Nations staff have access to United Nations computers on a sort of ad hoc friendly basis?

Spokesman:  I wouldn’t make too much of that now Mark.  The family members of Secretaries-General have access to the building.  They have courtesy passes.  It’s always been that way and these are one-year passes, one-year renewable passes.  Kojo Annan happened to have someone very close to him working in the Procurement Department.  Volcker looked into this.  This woman did not have anything to do with the Cotecna contract.  But it’s someone who was close to him, and he visited her in her offices.  So, in the process of hanging out there, there was something about her saying that, everyone knew him and he was friendly and he helped out with their computers -- because he knew so much about computers or something; he was helpful.  I don’t see anything significant in that.  If you do, that’s fine.

Question:  To follow up on that.  On the issue of passes, is it clear that Kojo had a family pass and not some other kind of pass.  Also, my understanding of the family pass is that it allows people into this building and the United Nations procurement office is across the street.  So, did he gain access to your procurement office with the family pass or in some other way?  And also at the time, he was working for Cotecna, which was a company that had already bid on United Nations contracts, although it hadn’t obtained United Nations contracts.  Is it appropriate that somebody that works for a company that has already bid on United Nations contracts should be in the computers of the United Nations Procurement Department?  And if it isn’t, what is the United Nations doing about it?

Spokesman:  Well, as far as the pass goes, the only pass he had was a courtesy pass.  He would have no other basis for having another United Nations pass.  He had no contractual --

Question:  Have you checked, as a matter of fact, that he --

Spokesman:  I did, I did.  I checked this morning, because you asked me first thing this morning.  The way United Nations passes work, it’s not a pass for a given building, it’s a pass for the premises.  So, whether it gets you into this building or a building across the street, it’s the same. 

Question:  Well, with my pass I can’t go into the United Nations Procurement Department, for instance, and I’m sure that’s true with a number of types of passes.  And I think that’s true with a courtesy pass.

Spokesman:  There are specific restrictions on press passes where you can go to certain public areas, but when you want to go to a working area, you need to have an escort or an appointment. 

Question:  Is that not true for courtesy passes?

Spokesman:  No.  Courtesy pass -- I mean, why would it be?

Question:  Well, I was told that family members aren’t allowed to go anywhere they want to in the building.  So any United Nations family member with a courtesy pass can go into the United Nations Procurement Department.

Spokesman:  That’s my understanding that they can go into any –

Question:  Even if they’re working for some company that has bid on a United Nations contracts?

Spokesman:  Well, I mean, now that’s a question of propriety.

Question:  What’s your view of the propriety of it?

Spokesman:  I have nothing to tell you on that.  All of this was investigated by Volcker.  It’s in the report.  We have no further comment on the report.

Question:  The Volcker report raises further questions, Fred, questions that we’re putting to you, about the propriety of somebody who is a family member of a United Nations official, who’s working for a company that’s bidding on United Nations contracts, who’s going into the Procurement Department -- accessing the computers in the Procurement Department.  So, we would like a comment on the propriety of that.

Spokesman:  If Mr. Volcker has further questions about this, I’m sure we’ll be hearing about it in one of his subsequent reports.  It’s his investigation.  I’m not going to say anything more about it.

Who haven’t I heard from yet?  Nick?

Question:  Just to change gears, on Dileep Nair, what’s the result of the Staff Union investigation?  Is it still, as far as I know, unresolved?  Where do things stand with that?

Spokesman:  I think that has now, in a sense, been superseded by the Volcker report of yesterday.  I have nothing fresh to say to you about that, today.  I suspect that, later on, when we do have something to say about the Volcker side of things, we may also tell you where we stand with the staff complaints against Mr. Nair.  Huh?

Question:  Does the Staff Union know that its complaints against him have been superseded by another report, I mean is that, do you have any thoughts about that?

Spokesman:  You’d have to ask them.  I don’t know that we have talked to them.  We’re in the middle of looking at the Volcker report, as it regards Mr. Nair.  In terms of our priorities, that has superseded the staff complaints.  We’re not saying that the staff complaints have been dropped, but we’re not ready to say anything fresh on them, today.  Yes, please?

Question:  I’m sorry.  Just to clarify -- there’s a release put out by Mr. Nair, I understand, which said that, at least prior to this report, the complaints against Mr. Nair had been dropped.  So, I just would like to know if, until the moment of the release of this report, had the complaints previously against Mr. Nair been dropped -- because we saw a piece of paper which suggested that, and a letter which suggested that?

Spokesman:  I can’t comment on that because I haven’t seen it myself.  But, nothing has changed.  We have the written complaints by the Staff Committee against Mr. Nair.  We are evaluating them, and we will eventually tell you whether it will be our intention to reopen an investigation on the basis of those complaints provided in writing, or whether we decide we don’t feel it’s justified by what the Staff Union put on paper.  Steve?

Question:  Fred, the fact is that Mark Pieth, one of the investigators, feels very strongly that the Secretary-General shouldn’t be saying he’s been exonerated, and saying, instead, he owes a “mea culpa”.  So, is the Secretary-General planning a “mea culpa” on the parts of the report that are definitely not open to interpretation, where the administration and the Secretary-General have made wrong decisions, not…

Spokesman:  His [Volcker’s] communication to the Secretary-General is in the form of the report.  So, what comments an individual member of the panel might have said to the media in the sidelines of the press conference yesterday, I don’t think I need to respond to.  Betsy?

Question:  I want to follow up on the question of the disciplinary proceedings that Mr. Malloch Brown mentioned yesterday.  Mr. Riza’s described as retired from the Organization, for the most part, and Mr. Nair leaves in three weeks.  How much of a priority is this, really?

Spokesman:  Well, the report only came out yesterday.  There are things that clearly we need to look into that we’re now looking into.  As you’ve already been told, Mr. Riza has been retained at a dollar a year as adviser to the Secretary-General.  It is true that Mr. Nair comes to the end of his five-year term in the month of April, but that doesn’t mean that we would not follow up on these questions raised by Mr. Volcker.  And we will, and we’ll let you know as soon as we decide, and it will be soon.

Question:  Just to follow up with that, the short list, as I understand it, to succeed Mr. Nair in OIOS is long closed.  Or, I’m sorry, is there a short list yet? 

Spokesman:  I’ll have to check.  We still have a few other appointments in the works, one of which is OIOS, another of which is, I think, the head of the UN Relief and Works Agencies for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.  I’ll have to check on the status of the short list publication for those jobs, and whether, in fact, we do intend to issue one.

Question:  Okay, just to take that one more step -- there’s an interview panel that winnows the main field of candidates down to the short list.  Do you have, is it the same interview panel for all of these positions?

Spokesman:  There is a pool of Under-Secretaries-General and Assistant Secretaries-General, which is a fixed pool of people from which we draw small panels, usually of about four members, to review a given set of candidates for a particular job.

Question:  And, then that list is submitted to just the Secretary-General, he and who else?

Spokesman:  Well, it depends on the job, whether the Secretary-General on receiving the list, and then doing his second round of interviews with the Deputy Secretary-General and deciding on a candidate, would then might have to consult the Executive Board, which I think is the case with the UN Development Programme, and then submit the name to the General Assembly for a vote.  But, there would be different procedures for different Funds and Programmes.  Is there anyone I haven’t heard from?  Let me take you, Madame.  Yes?

Question:  [unofficially translated from Arabic to English]  The first question is -- is the UN considering sending peacekeepers to replace the departing Syrian troops from Lebanon?  And, do you think that Syria has fully complied with resolution 1559?

Spokesman:  The Security Council, to my knowledge, has not considered UN peacekeepers for Lebanon, apart form the Force that we’ve had for many years in the south and that we’re in the process of shutting down.  On Syrian compliance, that will come according to the Security Council resolution when the Secretary-General reports to them at the end of April.  So, you’ll have to wait until then to see what his report says.  [He later clarified that, while we were in the process of reducing the size of that force, its size has remained stable for the last three years.]

Question:  Fred, Mr. Annan’s built his reputation on being a man of honour.  Now he seems happy to let long-term friends and colleagues take the blame for any and all wrongdoing in the oil-for-food programme while wrongly claiming he’s exonerated; he’s even throwing his own son overboard to save the ship.  How is Mr. Annan living with himself right now?

Spokesman:  There’s so much bias in that question, I don’t know where to start.  The Secretary-General’s views on this were given to you in a statement yesterday.  He said he loves his son, and he also said he’s disappointed.  He is not jettisoning loyal staff members; he is responding to documented findings and taking what I would describe as responsible administrative action. 

He, himself, has not been proven to have done anything wrong.  It’s always been his contention that he did not interfere improperly in the awarding of this contract, and that was Mr. Volcker’s conclusion of yesterday.  So, I would have to say that I think your question twists the facts as we see them.

Question:  His conscience is clear?

Spokesman:  Very clear.  Let me take David?

Question:  I want to thank you and your office first of all for trying to get a photo opportunity for television media yesterday.  Just on the issue of EAD, why is it that it would go out of house for an investigation into the workings of EAD, rather than having OIOS handle it from the beginning?  And, if it’s subject to an OIOS review, would that be subject to the terms -- I don’t quite recall the specific terms -- but, the transparency terms that were issued by your office, or by the Secretary-General, a couple of weeks ago?

Spokesman:  It wasn’t an investigation.  This was a routine management exercise, where consultants took members of the department out of town for a retreat, discussed management issues.  In the course of those discussions, certain problem areas emerged.  When they came back from the retreat, the head of the department then asked the consultants to look into those problem areas.  The Electoral Division wasn’t the only problem area; there was another one that resulted from that retreat.  The consultants looked into it, presented findings. 

Now, the findings involved something more serious than just mismanagement.  And, now it’s up to the Department head to conduct a preliminary investigation into those issues, which he’s now doing.  If he finds that there’s something serious there, that the seriousness of these findings of the consultants is upheld by his preliminary investigation, then he will turn it over to personnel, if it’s a personnel issue, or OIOS if it’s a financial issue.

Question:  Just a follow-up because you mentioned.. What was the other issue that was brought up in that retreat?

Spokesman:  Please don’t ask me to tell you that.  There were two units, this is internal stuff -- one unit has been exposed by your intrepid reporting.  We will let you know what the outcome of that is.  The other was purely management issues, as far as I know, and they are being dealt with by the department.  Mark?

Question:  Fred, the report yesterday was quite explicit in saying that it had gone to Mr. Riza and said that there would be an adverse finding against him, and got a reaction from him that was included in the report.  They said they’d gone to Mr. Riza saying, “there’ll be an adverse finding against you”, and he said, well, he didn’t realize that these documents were connected to the inquiry.  My question is, if Mr. Riza’d been informed early of what the findings were against him, I suspect the Secretary-General must have been as well.  When was he informed by the people on the Volcker Commission that he would be so-called “cleared”?  How long before yesterday did he know, and is it the case that when Mr. Malloch Brown came to speak to us a few days ago before the report, when he say he expected to be cleared, that in fact, you’d already heard that from the panel?

Spokesman:  It is, as I understand it, standard procedure for the investigators to inform the people who will be mentioned in their report and give them a chance to respond.  I don’t have the information of when or whether that was done for the Secretary-General.  So, I really can’t answer your questions.

Question:  You don’t know if the Secretary-General had heard anything at all from the Volcker panel before yesterday?

Spokesman:  I don’t know whether they sent him a letter of adverse findings, if that’s what it’s called.  I don’t know if, under their procedures, what they found on him would have constituted adverse findings.  You really should ask the Volcker people what they did.  First, I don’t know, and second, I’m not sure it’s for me to say.

Question:  Volcker did say that it was an adverse finding against the Secretary-General, yesterday.

Spokesman:  Then, I think you should ask them whether they informed the Secretary-General in a letter, what was the date of that letter.  I don’t think it’s for me to talk about how they went about their work.

Question: [inaudible] response was included in the annex?

Spokesman:  Sorry?

Question:  The legal counsel for the Secretary-General did respond to the findings that..

Spokesman:  Well, then that’s a public document, and you have that piece of the puzzle, but please don’t ask me to give you other pieces that should probably come from Mr. Volcker.

Question:  I know you’re reluctant to comment on it, but there really is that discrepancy that this was an adverse finding against the Secretary-General.  Paul Volcker himself said so, and then there was another committee member who said in interview yesterday that this did not exonerate the Secretary-General.  I know you’re reluctant to comment, but there is that very wide discrepancy.  The Secretary-General, when he came yesterday, claimed he was exonerated, and only very briefly mentioned this adverse finding.  I mean, it’s not just…

Spokesman:  I would ask you to focus on the big issue.  Your editorials, your cartoon drawings with the Secretary-General with mounds of money on his desk, that he had improperly interfered in the awarding of the contract, and that he had benefited financially from that –- that’s what was going around the world, smearing the Secretary-General’s reputation.  Volcker said very clearly yesterday that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General had interfered in the contract or benefited financially.  So, the main allegation against the Secretary-General was not sustained by the investigation.

At a secondary level, they said, however, we do say that there were lapses in your management judgement, and they laid those out.  And we said “fair enough.  We’ll look at those and see what we can fix”.  So, to try to turn it around and say, “now wait a minute –- Volcker found him guilty”, I think is standing the whole thing on its head.  Richard?

Question:  If I could, just a few quick questions.  What’s the Secretary-General’s reaction to the support, in quotes, of the State Department, White House, France and Russia?

Spokesman:  He did not give me his reaction, but it’s also important to remember that, throughout this turbulent period when all these allegations were being laid against him, Member States repeatedly expressed their confidence in him –- individual governments and regional groupings of governments.  There might have been a lawmaker here or there who called for his resignation, but no MemberState did.  So, I think he’s always felt confident of the political support he’s had from Member States.

Question:  Any news on Benon Sevan on the extension of the relationship?

Spokesman:  No, I have nothing new on Benon today.

Question:  And, David’s point I want to pick up on –- you tried to help on the photo op, but when the Secretary-General yesterday talked about transparency, and we’re going to be more transparent, we’re going to move forward –- and yet to refuse to allow a camera to capture that moment, that’s where people start raising questions or... just to have that, and I don’t if he had second thoughts afterward.  And, the other question is that, for months, Secretary-General Annan said, “wait ‘til Volcker, wait ‘til Volcker, can’t comment”.  We were respectful in the hallways, at various stakeouts, and yet, three questions were taken.  Yes, I was fortunate to have one of them, but that’s where there’s still, I think, a disconnect, where he doesn’t understand why people even raise questions based upon appearances and ability to discuss a detailed report, which is left to you.  I can ask you that -– why did he not realize he’d met with Massey, even though he’s met with hundreds of world leaders, but he was at dinner with the son and Massey and you kind of remember because there aren’t many dinners with the son overseas –- you kind of remember, why answer “I didn’t meet him”.  Why not wait and check and think.  Why already immediately say, “I never met him”.

Spokesman:  Well, all of that’s laid out in the report, and he didn’t remember.  Now, do you want to believe that or not believe that?  That’s up to you.  On the photo op, I did call to everyone’s attention upstairs your feelings on it, your strong feelings on it.  I don’t think there were second thoughts.  They felt they had a good reason for doing it.  They know they made you unhappy.  And, that’s the best I can do, to deliver the bad news to them.  Betsy?

Question:  Were there UN photographers there?  Has anyone recorded that moment?  Nothing.  It’s gone.

Spokesman:  No.  Private moment, private meeting...

Question:  But, it was approved by the Security Council.  I mean, it’s not that private, it’s uh...

Spokesman:  Yes?

Question:  Taking the sting out of James’s question and the [inaudible] question, but there is a feeling that is just very pervasive, that the Secretary-General, there’s so many people taking the fall for the Secretary-General, from Benon Sevan to Mr. Riza.  Wouldn’t the Secretary-General eventually stand by his friends at one point in time?

Spokesman:  Stand by what?

Question:  His friends.  And, his officials who’ve helped him an awfully long time.  The feeling that all these people are taking the fall for him.

Spokesman:  No, the people who have been suspended have been suspended because charges were brought against them.  So, the Secretary-General is following procedures.  As staff members, they have a chance to defend themselves, which they’re in the process of doing.  Eventually, we expect that justice will be done.  But, it’s not a matter of loyalty or friendship; when you’re administering a large secretariat, you’ve got to go by the rules.

Question:  Where does the buck stop?

Spokesman:  Where does the buck stop?

Question:  Yes.

Spokesman:  Well, the buck stops always at the top, and I’ve always said that.

Question:  When is Mr. Annan going to acknowledge that?

Spokesman:  He acknowledges it readily every day.  Mark?

Question:  Fred, just to go back.  Something I didn’t quite understand.  A couple of weeks ago, I suppose like a lot of people in this room, and you as well, we’ve lost track of the weeks over the past recent time, it’s been quite busy -– but at some point, Mr. Malloch Brown said to us, or perhaps it was you originally, well we’ll hear about Nair, Dileep Nair on the Staff Union thing; it’ll be tomorrow, or the end of this week, and then it was put off until the following week.  It’s been put off and put off, and now still today, you’re not telling us anything.  Is it the case that your announcement of anything on it has been delayed because you already knew what was going to be in the Volcker report about Mr. Nair?  Is that why it’s been superseded?

Spokesman:  I would not be able to answer that definitively.  The reason for the delay was not the Volcker report.  I think that’s all I can say on that now - that the arrival of the Volcker report has been a kind of added complication.  James?

Question:  Can you cast any light on the relationship between the Secretary-General and the woman who works in procurement who Kojo Annan knew as “Auntie”.  It said in the report that, at a certain point during Mr. Annan’s divorce, this woman looked after, or babysat, Kojo.  Was the woman actually living with the Secretary-General at the time?  What is their relationship precisely?  Can you clarify that?

Spokesman:  I saw that description in the report.  I honestly don’t know what the relationship with the Secretary-General was.  I’d have to ask for you.  But, as far as I know, it had to do with the woman’s relationship with the son, which I think stemmed from her relationship with the mother.

Question:  If you could you just find out for us why, what were the circumstances that the woman was babysitting...

Spokesman:  Yeah.  I’ll try to do that.  Yes?

Question:  Could you check, or if you know the answer, please tell us –- and I’ve heard this whispered over the last few months, I’m going to put it on the record here, maybe you’ve already answered this –- was there ever an incident at the residence involving Kojo and friends who were holding a party while the Annans were away, involving missing items, things not the way they were supposed to be.  Can you check with security?  Do you know anything about it?

Spokesman:  When those reports circulated a number of months ago, I did check with UN security, and they told me that Kojo Annan had never been at the residence when the Secretary-General wasn’t there.  That the idea of his throwing parties at the residence was ridiculous, that that kind of thing never happened under Kofi Annan’s watch.  So, I don’t speak for security; I did ask security, the security people who watch the residence, and that’s what they told me.  I can try to get something more official from the Secretary-General if you like, but I’m pretty confident that security told me the truth.  Yes, Joe?

Question:  Does the Secretary-General at least acknowledge that he made some unfortunate decisions such as meeting with the CEO of a company that was under consideration for a United Nations bid that leads to an appearance of wrongdoing, even if nothing was done wrong?

Spokesman:  We’re looking at everything that’s in the Volcker report, and we want to learn whatever lesson we can about how to do things better in the future.  So, I don’t want to comment on that specific thing, or any specific aspect of the report.

Question:  Given that the Secretary-General has been in office as Secretary-General for eight years now, and that he’s the head of the United Nations biggest humanitarian programme is under -- stands under accusation, the head of the OIOS’ investigative arm stands under investigation, that his Chief of Staff has been shredding documents at variance with this own directive not to shred documents and after the Security Council approved the Volcker inquiry, why does Mr. Annan think he’s the right person to spearhead United Nations reform?

Spokesman:  The Secretary-General, this Secretary-General, is in a better position to lead the United Nations reform than any of his predecessors.  I remember Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali once said on the record, “I’ve been here for two years and I still haven’t figured out how this place works”.  Kofi Annan ran the budget and ran personnel and ran peacekeeping.  If you want to get to the heart of the United Nations and how it works, try heading those three departments.

Question:  Is the Secretary-General proud of his record of reform in the eight years he’s been Secretary-General?

Spokesman:  Absolutely.  Step back, James, and look.  I can give you a little handout that kind of ticks off the number of things that have been accomplished in the eight years.  But, this is an intergovernmental organization, so as the administrator, there’s only so much he can do.  There’s a big chunk of the stuff that he needs support from the governments, the Member States to do.  And this initiative he took this month is his last push to get governments to do the things they need to do to really turn things around on Security Council reform, Human Rights Commission reform and so on, as well as committing to -- recommitting to meeting the Development Goals.  These are really big objectives.  And, I think 10 years from now, maybe I shouldn’t say this, but 10 years from now, I think he’ll look back proudly at his leadership and what he accomplished.  But a lot depends on what Member States give him this September.

Question:  Just, if you can follow on that.  There’s talk in some of the more conspiracy-minded quarters that what certain powerful members of the United Nations would like is to have a weakened Secretary-General who doesn’t resign, is still in place, but cut off at the knees.  Does the Secretary-General feel that this report on the whole has weakened him?

Spokesman:  You saw him in his press conference; you’ve seen him in action in recent times.  He is as strong as ever, maybe stronger than ever, in terms of his determination, his state of mind, his centeredness, which has always been one of his characteristics of personality.  He is looking at September.  He has laid out the agenda; he’s working the floor of the General Assembly with these meetings of regional groups, laying the ground work for achieving these reform objectives in September.  If he gets that done, if he gets a significant portion of it done, then I think he’ll feel he has capped an eight-year, which will be then almost a nine-year effort at United Nations reform.

Question:  Just to follow up, you’re saying he’s feeling as personally as strong as ever, but how about politically?

Spokesman:  You have seen the expressions of support from key Member States and, as I already said, he’s always felt that he’s enjoyed broad political support from Member States.  Yes, there have been significant fallouts.  There have been fundamental and debilitating disagreements among Security Council members over Iraq.  But he has tried to keep their focus on the Charter issues, collective security.  He set up the High-Level Panel.  The High-Level Panel has put forward recommendations.  He’s trying to get those recommendations adopted this September to heal the wounds.  He’s got a very big agenda.  He’s got his teeth in it.  He’s just not letting go.

Let’s cut it off, shall we? Thank you very much.

* *** *