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 on Rwanda

We’ll start with a statement on Rwanda.

“The Secretary-General is encouraged by the statement issued today in Rome by the Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda (FDLR) by which the FDLR has renounced the use of force, condemned the 1994 Rwanda genocide, and has accepted to voluntarily disarm, return peacefully to Rwanda and to also cooperate with international justice mechanisms.

“The Secretary-General calls on the Governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda to take every action necessary to cooperate in order to ensure the voluntary disarmament and peaceful return to Rwanda of FDLR combatants in the DRC.  He has directed the UN Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) to do everything possible within its means to facilitate this process.”

It’s believed there are between 13,000 and 15,000 such fighters in the DRC.  The Mission will also ensure their safe transportation to the border where Rwandan authorities will insert them into their national demobilization and reintegration programme.

Also, the Mission hopes that the repatriation will help improve relations between the Governments of Rwanda and the DRC, as well as lead to a significant improvement in humanitarian aid access in the areas these Rwandan fighters were based.  We have more on this upstairs.

**MONUC/Disarmament Deadline

The UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo says there’s no extension to the disarmament deadline for militiamen in the Ituri district, in the country’s north-east.  The Mission says that reports which have appeared today in some newspapers in Kinshasa claiming an extension has been granted, are wrong, and the deadline of 1 April for taking part in the Disarmament and Community Reinstatement Programme for Ituri remains in place.

The Mission says the militiamen must disarm by tomorrow at the latest -- otherwise, they expose themselves to the consequences of their refusal -- namely, that they’ll be considered outlaws and will be dealt with accordingly.

**Lebanon

We have the following statement regarding Terje Roed-Larsen:

“The Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559, Mr. Terje Roed-Larsen, will depart this evening for Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.  He will have discussions with senior officials of those governments and others related to the implementation of resolution 1559 in preparation for the Secretary-General’s report to the Security Council in mid-April.

“In Damascus and Beirut, Mr. Terje Roed-Larsen will deliver personal messages of the Secretary-General to President Bashar Al-Assad of Syria and to President Emile Lahoud of Lebanon, respectively.”

Yesterday, Roed-Larsen visited Washington and met with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.  They discussed all relevant issues related to the full implementation of the resolution and decided to remain in close contact.

**Security Council

The Security Council has scheduled two formal meetings today at 5 p.m.  The first meeting is being held to adopt a presidential statement in connection with the situation in Guinea-Bissau.  That will be followed by a formal meeting to consider a draft resolution on Sudan.  Today is the last day of the Brazilian presidency of the Security Council.  China assumes the presidency for the month of April.

**Côte d’Ivoire

The UN Mission in Côte d’Ivoire reports that its peacekeepers yesterday moved in to curb an ethnic clash between two groups in a village located inside the zone of confidence.  It also issued a press release deploring the grave violations of human rights in the country.

Meanwhile, a humanitarian assessment mission sent to an area near the border with Mali found a food shortage.  A number of households had sold off their crops and produce at cheap prices to traders from Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, who last year suffered from poor harvest due to locust swarms.

**Angola

We told you earlier this week about an outbreak of the rare Marburg virus in Angola.  Today, the World Health Organization reports that, as of yesterday, 132 cases, including 12 health-care workers, have been reported.  Of these, 127 have been fatal.  This is the largest number of fatalities ever recorded during an outbreak of this rare, but extremely severe disease, which is related to the Ebola virus.  We have more information on that upstairs.

**Afghanistan

The UN Mission in Afghanistan says that flooding has affected the city of Ghazni and other villages in the province after a dam gave way on Monday evening.

The UN Mission, coalition forces and the Afghan Government have set up five working groups to respond to the flooding, including by assisting 70 families whose houses were destroyed.  The water has now decreased significantly, and the situation is described as under control.

**Statement on Dileep Nair

I have the following statement attributable to the Spokesman regarding Dileep Nair:

“We yesterday issued a charge letter against Mr. Nair based on the adverse finding made against him in the report of the IIC.  Separately, we are initiating an independent, third-party review of allegations made against him by the Staff Council to determine whether a full, external investigation is warranted.

We are also today announcing the shortlist of candidates of OIOS to replace Mr. Nair at the conclusion of his non-renewable 5-year term which concludes on 23 April 2005.”

Now on those shortlist candidates, I have the following to say.  Under the new senior recruitment procedures, the Secretary-General has today decided on the shortlist for the incoming Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight.

The following candidates will be called for interview in the next few weeks:  Mr. Claus Andreasen (Denmark), Director of Audit, UNICEF; Ms. Inga-Britt Ahlenius (Sweden), Auditor-General of Kosovo and former Auditor-General of Sweden; Mr. Franz-Hermann Bruener (Germany), Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office; and Mr. Rafael Muñoz (Spain), former Director of the Office of Internal Audit and Inspection, IMF.

There is an unnamed fifth candidate from New Zealand, who will be added to the shortlist once he has been notified.  So, five names on this list.

The criteria that these candidates will be evaluated against at interview will include:  exceptional integrity, recognized stature and proven independence, with a record of substantial achievement; expertise in accounting, auditing, financial analysis and investigations, management, law or public administration; proven skills in the management of complex organizations and a good knowledge of the UN system, as well as a commitment to the pursuit of reform; a leader who will unstintingly champion the fight against corruption and the cause of transparency and good governance; and fluency in English is required, French is highly desirable, and another UN language an asset.

The candidates will be interviewed by a panel of senior management officials, who will refer the finalists to the Secretary-General and the Deputy Secretary-General for final interview.  The Secretary-General will then forward his nominee to the General Assembly.  The Secretary-General feels that this is a very strong shortlist of candidates and looks forward to selecting the right person for the position.

**Clarification on Riza

I have a clarification on something I said yesterday.  I said that Mr. Riza had approved his secretary’s request to shred his chron files two months before the documents preservation order was issued.  I was referring at the time to the Secretary-General’s documents preservation order, which was, indeed, issued on June 1st 2004, two months after Mr. Riza had approved the secretary’s request on the twenty-second of April that year.

However, I should have noted that Mr. Riza had, on 12 April, written to UN agencies, funds and programmes to request that they preserve all related documents.  Of course, all of this was laid out in the IIC report.

**Dag Hammarskjöld Event

A couple of last items.  This Monday, the Dag Hammarskjöld Library will hold the first in a series of lectures and conversations to mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of former UN Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjöld.

Titled “Dag Hammarskjöld’s legacy and its relevance to the UN today”, the event will feature a conversation with Sir Brian Urquhart, former Under-Secretary-General and a close colleague of Dag Hammarskjöld, and Jan Eliasson, Sweden’s Ambassador to the United States and the endorsed candidate for the Presidency of the sixtieth General Assembly.  The conversation will be moderated by Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, Shashi Tharoor, and the Secretary-General is expected to launch the event.

It will be held in Conference Room 4, here at UN Headquarters, between 12 and 1:30 p.m.

**Press Conference

Press conference tomorrow -- Christine Chanet at 11:15.  She is the Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee, and she’ll be here to brief you on the work of the Committee’s eighty-third session, which concludes tomorrow.

**World Chronicle

Finally, UN television programme “World Chronicle” will be shown today with guest Sálvano Briceño, Director of the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.  The topic will be the new momentum for disaster reduction after last December’s tsunami.  You can see it on in-house television channel 3 or 31 at 3:30 this afternoon.

That’s all I have for you.  Mark?

**Questions and Answers

Question:  I just wondered if you could clarify this for me.  When (Deputy Secretary-General) Louise Fréchette and (Assistant Secretary-General for Central Support Services) Andrew Toh came down a few weeks ago to talk about new procurement procedures that had been put in place in 1997, I think, there was this whole thing they went through about locked doors and limited access and all that.  So, I’d be very grateful to have absolute clarity on what the rules of access to the UN Procurement Department’s premises are and whether it is permitted within those rules for someone who works for a company that bids for UN contracts is actually permitted to wander around the Procurement Department’s offices?

Spokesman:  I think I already told you that the kind of courtesy pass that’s made available...

Question:  No, I’m just looking for straight rules about access to the Procurement Department by people employed by companies that are bidding...

Spokesman:  Well, you asked two questions.  So I said, on access to the premises by persons with a courtesy pass, such as are issued routinely to children or relatives of the Secretary-General.  They can go anywhere in the building.  Now on the second question, I already said to you yesterday regarding the case of Kojo Annan:  if he was connected to a company that was bidding for a contract, is it appropriate for him to be in the be in the procurement area of the United Nations?  I don’t know what the precise rules are on that.  Of course, Mr. Volcker looked into it and reported on it to you.  I have nothing to add to what he says in his report.

Question:  Well, it would be helpful if we could have the precise rules, because we had a long briefing on all these watertight procedures that had been put in place to stop people working for companies from getting access to the Procurement Department.  Now, on people with a courtesy pass, does that mean that people with such a pass can go any where in the Building, look at any files and look through any computers?  As I understand it, a lot of confidential work goes on here, but do rules of confidentiality and restriction of access not apply to anyone who is a relative of someone working in the UN?

Spokesman:  It’s clearly not permission to go into files or invade the privacy of anyone working in this Building.  It’s just freedom to circulate through the Building.  But I will try to get for you the connection between that right to circulate through the Building and the procurement rules that you just mentioned.

Question:  Just a follow-up.  After yesterday’s briefing, where you explained what you’ve just explained again now, I was approached by several staff members who said that that actually isn’t the case, and that even staff members can’t get access to the Procurement Department, and it certainly isn’t the case that people with courtesy passes could get access.  So, I’m wondering if you could double-check to make sure you’re actually stating the correct position.  Not to suggest that you’re not stating the correct position -- I also have my doubts after what I was told by staff members yesterday.

Spokesman:  Ok.  I’ll double check that.  [He later issued a Note to Correspondents explaining the rules governing access to the procurement unit.]

Question:  On a similar point, could you tell us exactly how Kojo Annan’s former babysitter even got a position in the procurement department?  What were her qualifications?  What was the interview process?

Spokesman:  I have no idea.  I’d have to look into that.

Question:  Well, could you look into that for us?

Spokesman:  I’d be happy to.

Question:  On the same subject.  I did ask yesterday if you could get us some more details on why Diana Mills-Aryee was babysitting Kojo Annan in the first place.  That’s not entirely clear in the report.  There’s been some insinuation that she might have been slightly closer to Kofi Annan than we imagined, given that she was babysitting his child during the divorce.  Were you able to check on that?

Spokesman:  She was a very close friend of the children’s mother, not the Secretary-General himself.

Question:  Thank you for that.  Now, it says in the report that after she worked in procurement, she then moved to Iraq.  Did she work in procurement in Iraq?  What was her function at the UN mission there?

Spokesman:  The report said that she joined the Iraq Mission.  It did not say what her job is, but she is a Procurement Officer, and she was a Procurement Officer in Iraq.

Question:  Is the UN aware of any contacts between her, as a procurement officer in Iraq, and Kojo Annan, since we know from the report that he was apparently interested in business with Iraq under the “oil-for-food” programme?

Spokesman:  I would think that that question would have been looked into by Mr. Volcker.

Question:  Well, it’s not addressed in the Volcker report, so I’m asking if the UN is aware of that...

Spokesman:  Well, I’m not aware of it, but I’m not about to redo Mr. Volcker’s work for him.  So, please accept Mr. Volcker’s report.

Question:  But the report didn’t address that subject.

Spokesman:  Then he must not have thought it was relevant.

Question:  Or perhaps he’s still working on it.  He did say in the report that he was continuing to explore serious questions about the integrity of Kojo Annan’s relationship with the work under the programme.

Spokesman:  Then that’s fine.  If he is, then we’ll wait for his next report.

Question:  Since there were adverse findings in the report regarding the shredding of documents by (former Chef de Cabinet in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General) Iqbal Riza, has there been any rethinking of his position as a paid United Nations employee after his retirement?

Spokesman:  I told you that we were looking into these findings regarding both Mr. Riza and Mr. Nair.  I announced our decision on Mr. Nair this morning.  I have nothing to announce on Mr. Riza.  Therefore, I’m not going to reflect on what we might find on him and how that might affect our current relationship with him.  So just give us...

Question:  I’m asking because you didn’t announce...

Spokesman:  Well, just give us little more time, and we’ll eventually announce whether or not we have any charges to bring against Mr. Riza in light of the Volcker report.

Question:  Mr. Riza is on “dollar-a-year” contract.  Does that confer diplomatic immunity from being questioned by, for instance, United States authorities on any possible role he may have played in all this?

Spokesman:  I’ll have to get a legal opinion on that.

Question:  Could you? And could you also release a list of all the people who are on dollar-a-year contracts, so we’ll know who benefits from the advantages that those contracts confer?

Spokesman:  Yes.  You’ve asked that before and I have asked.  I don’t have an answer yet.  There are about a dozen people in that category…

Question:  Still, on Mr. Riza.  Now that we have Volcker identifying him as a “serial shredder”, is it appropriate that he still has an office at the UN and could, therefore, continue shredding documents?

Spokesman:  There is nothing wrong with shredding documents.  As I told you yesterday, we shred documents everyday.  My Office fills up a bag about “this big” [the Spokesman demonstrated] with shredded documents every day because we have access to code cables from field missions that are generously shared with us by the Peacekeeping Department and the Political Affairs Department.  Because these are confidential documents -- copies of original documents -- we are not allowed to just throw them in the trash.  So all of us handle confidential documents every day and all of us shred those documents.  It’s the rule.

Question:  Do you shred your “chron” files in your Office, Fred?

Spokesman:  Our chron files are not confidential, for the most part.  I suppose if I wanted to shred a chron file... well, first of all, you have to define what a chron file is.  A classic “chron” file is a copy of everything that goes out of your office in a given day.  So it’s your way of keeping track of what your outgoing business was for that day.  If you start adding things to that file, then it becomes something other than a chron file.  We all keep files.  We all get rid of our files when we run out of drawer space.

On chron files, the administrative instruction is to keep them no longer than a year.  So we are all advised to shred our chron files.  Have I shredded my chron files form the beginning?  No.  I don’t think I got around to doing that and I’m probably not the only one in the Secretariat who hasn’t shredded their chron files every year as they should.

Question:  Would you agree that we only have Mr. Riza’s word that these were just chron files?

Spokesman:  The remaining chron files that were not shredded were reviewed by Mr. Volcker’s team.  So I think that Mr. Volcker has a very good sense of what it was that Mr. Riza put in those files.  And, I would let Mr. Riza speak to this point, but I believe that there was nothing relevant to oil-for-food found in the remaining years of his chron files. 

Question:  But I think Mr. Volcker also said that he doesn’t know what’s in those files.

Spokesman:  No.  You’re talking about the three years that was shredded -- of course, he wouldn’t know.  But the remaining years since then, those files were reviewed.

Question:  Since you said that you think Mr. Riza would speak to this subject and since he is still a UN employee, can you invite him to come and explain to us the whole chron files saga? 

Spokesman:  I will relay that request to him.  I think he would probably be happy to provide you with information.  Whether he would want to do it in person or in writing, I’d have to see.

Question:  You said yesterday that Mr. Riza might issue a written statement today.  Is that happening or not?

Spokesman:  I think that’s his intention.  Although it may not happen until tomorrow, but I think it’s his intention to give you something in writing to address some of these questions you’ve been putting to me.  [He later released an open letter to correspondents from Mr. Riza.]

Question:  You keep referring to the shredding of chron files as something that’s being done every day.  But the Volcker report seized specifically on the timing:  it was one day after the Security Council established the Volcker Commission and told everyone in the Building to preserve files.  That’s astounding, isn’t it?

Spokesman:  Why don’t you just let Mr. Riza answer that question?  But again, chron files should not have anything original in them.  Chron files are copies of outgoing correspondence.  So the recipient of that correspondence would have a copy.  The computer on which the correspondence was typed would have it on the hard drive. Those hard drives were made available to Mr. Volcker.  I don’t think that Mr. Riza thought that there was anything in what he had authorized to be destroyed that would be of relevance to the Volcker panel that couldn’t be found somewhere else.

Question:  When this information goes over to Volcker on a hard drive, are the chron files mixed in with thousands of other files?  Is it possible to specifically locate the chron files on the hard drive?

Spokesman:  That’s a technical question I can’t answer, but it’s my understanding that computer hard drives contain everything produced on that computer.

Question:  On Dileep Nair, what exactly is a “charge letter”?  Can you explain what kind of impact that would have on his service here?  Will it follow him when he leaves?  Does it go into a permanent file?  Is it more than that?  And also, can you flesh out the citing of the third party investigation into the other charges? 

Spokesman:  A charge letter, in this case, would refer to the findings -- or adverse finding -- in the Volcker report.  And it triggers a process by which Mr. Nair would respond to that finding in his own defence, and we have asked him to do that within a week.  We are aware that he is coming to the end of his five-year term here.  But, this is the beginning of a process:  he has been charged with a finding by the Volcker Commission; he has seven days to respond, and we’ll see where it goes from there.

Question:  On the staff compliant against Mr. Nair, you talked about a third party probe that would then determine if a full investigation is warranted.  Given that process, is there really going to be enough time to get to the bottom of this before Mr. Nair leaves his post?

Spokesman:  There may not be, but we’re committed to proceed with this.  So let’s take it step by step and see whether there is a determination by this third party -- and I can’t give you any specifics now about who this third party is -- that a full investigation is required.  If they find that a full investigation is required, then we’ll go ahead with it, whether Mr. Nair is still here or not.

Question:  Is this third party somebody outside of the UN?

Spokesman:  It’s outside of the UN Secretariat.

Question:  Why has it taken almost a year to put a third party on this?  These charges have been lying around since, I think, May or June.  Why has it taken so long?

Spokesman:  You know the history of this.  There was an interim finding on the part of the Management Department on the charges from the Staff Committee that he had violated the rules on hiring.  Management reviewed all his decisions in that area and found that he had not.  On the other charges -- these were anonymous charges -- Management decided that they were not worthy of following up since no one would attach their name to the allegations.

The Staff Committee then protested that that was unfair and we went back to them and said “Ok.  If you have specific charges to accuse Mr. Nair of, give them to us in writing and we will evaluate whether they should be investigated.”  In other words, whether we would re-open that investigation.  There was then the constitutional issue, which he raised in his statement that he released to you, of whether he could be investigated by the Secretariat, given his independent status and [that he] in fact, reports to the General Assembly.  Our response to that is what I announced today:  that we will now go to a third party to evaluate these charges and see whether a full investigation is justified.

Question:  Yesterday, British Ambassador Emyr Parry Jones was asked about the charges against Carina Perelli, and he reportedly praised her and said that she should be given due process.  Should due process also be given to Mr. Riza?

Spokesman:  First of all, we have not yet laid any charges against Mr. Riza.  We are studying the Volcker report and we told you we will get back to you when we’ve made a decision there.

Question:  Can you explain to us why no action has been taken on the management review of the electoral assistance division considering the seriousness of the allegations in the report, and that fact that it was completed a month-and-a-half ago?

Spokesman:  I don’t think that this is an undue or suspicious delay.  As I explained to you yesterday, this started as a routine management exercise.  Complaints were raised that had not been anticipated.  A charge letter then went to Ms. Perelli -- or rather, a copy of the management report went to Ms. Perelli asking for her response.  And (Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs) Kieran Prendergast is looking at those same issues from within his own department through his Executive Office.  It will then be Mr. Prendergast’s judgement call when he gets her response to this management study, his own internal evaluation of the charges as to whether it’s a management issue that can be dealt with within his department, or whether he has to refer it down to the Personnel Department for action.

Question:  But there have been suggestions that this whole thing has been delayed by the 38^th floor.

Spokesman:  I have no knowledge of that.

Question:  Doesn’t this contribute to what many have begun to call a culture of impunity at the very time when the Secretary-General is talking about clamping down on this type of thing?

Spokesman:  We’re following, I think, a fair process here, giving Ms. Perelli a chance to respond to the Management Consultant’s findings, and we’ll see where it goes from here.

Question:  Can you confirm that one of the electoral experts who went to Iraq with Ms. Perelli and who plays a leading role in the activities in the Electoral Assistance Division is a military intelligence officer and now holds arguably the number 2 role in that Division?

Spokesman:  I have no idea.

Question:  Can you give us any more information about what privileges are conferred on dollar-a-year staff members?  What are the visa implications?  Can you clarify anything about the third party looking into Dileep Nair?  What kind of organ would be undertaking that review?

Spokesman:  I can’t give you anything more on the third party –- at least not now.

Question:  Are they lawyers?

Spokesman:  I can’t say anything about it now.  Now, on your first question, I have to assume that if you are given the status of staff member at a “dollar-a-year”, you would have the legal right to ask for a visa to work for the United Nations in this country if this was your duty station.  So I think that there are immigration implications of the dollar-a-day status.  I was asked if there are any tax implications, and the answer there is no. 

Question:  Can you clarify the tax issues?

Spokesman:  I’ll have to bring the experts down to...

Question:  Can we get a proper briefing or a proper written statement explaining the dollar-a-year status, because if you’re a “G” visa, which is the UN visa, you might feel that you would not have to declare US taxes.  We need people to explain these really nitty-gritty details.

Spokesman:  No one escapes the IRS. 

Question:  What about per diem?

Spokesman:  A person who is on a dollar-a-year could be given an assignment to travel, let’s say, in which case, the travel costs would be borne and part of those costs would be a daily subsistence allowance.

Question:  Would there be anything like that for someone who’s working here in the Building?

Spokesman:  No.

Question:  If he lives in Philadelphia, does he get the per diem while he’s in New York?

Spokesman:  Well, it depends on where he’s doing official business, in Philadelphia...

Question:  If he lives in Philadelphia but comes to do official business in New York at the UN?

Spokesman:  No.  New York would be his or her duty station.

Question:  I think you realize that it would be great if we could have an official explanation of this as we had requested yesterday and the day before...

Spokesman:  And I’ve requested it yesterday and the day before and I’ve not been given any guidance, so I hope they’re listening up there.

Question:  While you get one dollar a year, in Mr. Riza’s case, does he also get retirement?

Spokesman:  Once you retire, you may work for the United Nations with a dollar limit as to what you can earn in a given year while still collecting your retirement, I don’t know exactly what that is.  [He later said it is $22,000.]

Question:  So he does still collect his retirement, right?

Spokesman:  He would collect his retirement and he would have the right to earn a certain amount per year.

Question:  I was on a dollar-a-year contact and having such a contract comes with accountability and responsibility.  That’s just for the sake of the discussion here.  On Mr. Riza, I’m wondering why not go to the General Assembly to remove what he thinks is his immunity form prosecution, because if he thinks...

Spokesman:  Prosecute him for what?  No one is talking about prosecuting him for anything.

Question:  I’m sorry, Mr. Nair.  If Mr. Nair thinks that he cannot be investigated because he was appointed by another body, then that body can be approached and asked to remove his immunity.

Spokesman:  Ok.

Question:  Following the initial findings in the report, Mr. Stephanides was suspended when he was served with his charge letter.  Why not suspend Mr. Nair, as well, while he gets a chance to respond to his charge letter?

Spokesman:  That’s a judgement call by the personnel department:  whether they think the evidence is so compelling that immediate suspension is justified.  In this case, they are giving Mr. Nair the chance to reply first.

Question:  Fred, I had a couple of questions referring to yesterday, and I have one new question.  A couple asked of you yesterday, I didn’t find answers to.  Pierre Mousselli, the Kojo Annan business partner, I didn’t find in the Volcker report.  It says that he remembers getting a UN pass from Kojo Annan.  Have you checked for us to find out if Mr. Mousselli was issued with some kind of UN pass, and what kind of UN pass that was?

Spokesman:  (talkover) that’s for ’98, what you’d ask me for ’98.

Question:  I think it was in ’98.  In the report, as I remember, I think it was for ’98 during the Assembly that he said he got his...

Spokesman:  I did ask the Accreditation Unit across the street if they had any record of him in ’98, and they said they did not.  So, there’s no record of their having issued him a pass in ’98 or any time since ’98.

Question:  Thank you for checking that.

Question:  Just to clarify, was that they didn’t have the records from ’98 at all for anyone, or they didn’t have a record of issuing him a pass?

Spokesman:  They didn’t have anything with his name on it; that they did not issue him a pass in 1998.

Question:  ...shredded that record.  Now the second thing I asked was a readout of Mr. Riza/Mr. Annan meeting at the residence on Monday night, whether you’ve got anything on that?

Spokesman:  Got nothing on that.

Question:  My third question to you is new, which is a new press report today that there’s a U.S. Attorney’s criminal probe of Kojo Annan.  Is the Secretary-General aware of any criminal probe by U.S. authorities into his son?

Spokesman:  I’d have to ask him, but it didn’t come up in our discussions today.

Question:  Can you check?

Spokesman:  I will.  Mark?

Question:  Before the release of this Volcker report, you announced that there’s going to be an announcement of new whistle-blowing regulations and all the rest of it.  What happened to that?

Spokesman:  In the works.  You’ll be hearing from us soon on that.  Benny?

Question:  One more on Mr. Nair.  He circulated earlier this week a letter from, reported to be from, the Singaporean Foreign Ministry.  Is that proper, according to UN rules?

Spokesman:  I didn’t see that it circulated that, so I would have to see what it is that he circulated, and then (talkover).. please do and I’ll ask for you.

Question:  Fred, I’m going back to a question we didn’t get a straight answer to yesterday.  Kofi Annan says he’s exonerated.  The inquiry committee members, including Mark Pieth and Judge Richard Goldstone, say he is not exonerated.  Who’s right?

Spokesman:  It’s up to you to judge the report that they issued.  You heard our interpretation of the report, that the Secretary-General is exonerated.

Question:  So, Mr. Annan is saying that the committee members are wrong?

Spokesman:  He has given you his view.  I have given you the United Nations’ view, and we’re not going to get into an argument with members of the panel, or whatever they might be saying to you.  We’ve given you our view.  You, as journalists, have to judge independently what you think that report says.

Question:  Fred, given that the Volcker report hinged on the issue of whether Mr. Annan knew his son’s firm Cotecna was bidding on a UN contract, and the whole thing hinged really on the state of Kofi Annan’s knowledge at the time that Cotecna was bidding, and given that the Volcker report also raised questions about the integrity of Kojo Annan’s business dealings with Iraq, is the Secretary-General currently aware of any other business dealings, or any business dealings that Kojo Annan has under the oil-for-food programme?  Can you clarify whether he’s currently aware of any business dealings Kojo Annan has under the oil-for-food programme?

Spokesman:  I would think that that would be something for Mr. Volcker to look at.  I think Mr. Volcker has looked at everything that he could find on Kojo Annan.  He’s given you his report, he’s...

Question:  I understand that he is looking at that.  That’s why I’m asking the question.  Mr. Annan got in trouble before because it wasn’t clear that he didn’t know about the firm, his son’s business activities, and he might get in trouble again if he was discovered to have known things that he didn’t, wasn’t forthcoming with.  So, I’m giving you the opportunity now for the Secretary-General to be forthcoming about what he knows.

Spokesman:  I’ll relay that to him.

Question:  Yesterday, [inaudible] conversation between father and son.  Here, he said he would urge his son to cooperate and start talking.  Do you know if that conversation has taken place?

Spokesman:  No.

Question:  And, the Secretary-General will address the staff next week.  Is that still planned as a closed meeting, or will that be open to press, to us.

Spokesman:  Well, we haven’t announced that event, but yes, I can confirm that the Secretary-General wants to meet with all the staff next week.  It’ll probably happen on Tuesday.  We’ll confirm it on Monday.  I believe it will be open to you, as well.  Mark?

Question:  Has Kojo Annan even held parties at Kofi Annan’s residence?

Spokesman:  I was asked that question yesterday.

Question:  I’m sorry, and what did you answer that?

Spokesman:  I said I checked with UN security when those rumours were going around a few months ago, and they said that he had never had a party at the residence in the absence of his parents.  And, I think they said he’s never had any party at the residence at any time. 

Question:  You said you were going to check, again... [inaudible]

Spokesman:  Well, I said... I might have to go up to the Secretary-General, himself, but the people who guard the residence, day in and day out, told me that, no, that’s never happened.

Question:  On the question of Kojo Annan’s access to procurement offices, would a courtesy pass get him into the UN office in Baghdad, and did Kojo Annan ever visit the UN office in Baghdad?

Spokesman:  I have to assume again that Mr. Volcker would have looked into this.  I can ask for you, but, if it’s not in the report, I have to assume it didn’t happen.

Question:  Well, it might still be under investigation, as [inaudible] keep saying, that the investigation is continuing into Kojo Annan…

Spokesman:  Well, then let’s wait to see what the next stage of the investigators’ reporting is.

Question:  On another subject, yesterday the former Special Representative of the Secretary-General to Rwanda said that, concerning the genocide, many parties bear the responsibility, including the Secretary-General, whom, he said, has not visited Rwanda.  Has the Secretary-General visited Rwanda prior, during or after the genocide?

Spokesman:  Just check the travel record.  He’s been there twice.  Yes, Richard?

Question:  How disappointed would the Secretary-General be if the U.S. vetoed this resolution on war crimes suspects?  Is he involved in any of the discussion?

Spokesman:  Hypothetical.  He has been in touch with the various parties active in this debate.  Let’s wait and see what happens this afternoon.  We may be issuing a statement, or he may even have a few words to tell you in person after the vote. 

Question:  By the Secretary-General or by you?

Spokesman:  He may -– I don’t know yet.  We’re waiting to see what happens this afternoon, and then we’ll decide.  Joe?

Question:  Some clarification on Nair -– it seems to be linked with Volcker that he’s being investigated now by this panel.  They’re looking only into what Volcker brought up -– which is employment of his assistant, or the sexual harassment charges again?

Spokesman:  Two things, two things.  On the adverse finding of Mr. Volcker against Mr. Nair, he has been given seven days to respond.  So, a charge letter has gone to him, and he’s been given seven days.  On the separate set of issues raised by the Staff Council, we are giving that to a third party to assess whether it should be further investigated.

Question:  ...the sexual harassment charges and the hiring practices?  Both of them will be looked at?

Spokesman:  Whatever is in the Staff Council’s written charges against him would be taken up by the third party.

Question:  Right.  Given that a charge letter is going to Mr. Nair on the one finding of fault against him, is a charge letter going to go to Kofi Annan for the finding of fault against him?

Spokesman:  What would you charge him with?

Question:  Well, he was at fault in the Volcker report for failing to instigate an adequate inquiry.

Spokesman:  Lapses in management is all I heard them accuse him of. 

Question:  So there’s no chance of a charge letter going to Mr. Annan?

Spokesman:  I don’t think you go to jail for that.  Betsy?

Question:  Concerning Mr. Nair’s letter, the seven days starts today, yesterday, days ago?

Spokesman:  I think it starts today.  So, I believe seven days would be next Thursday, the 7^th.  Yes?

Question:  Fred, just to clarify -– what is the charge exactly?  I mean, presumably there’s a specific charge –- it’s not just “you have been found with an adverse finding” or something.  What is he actually charged with?

Spokesman:  Well, just look at the report.  It’s in the report.

Question:  And what are the charges that the third-party review would investigate?

Spokesman:  Whatever the Staff Committee put in writing as their charges against Mr. Nair. 

Question:  Generically, what are those?

Spokesman:  I’m not going to characterize them.

Question:  [inaudible]

Spokesman:  I don’t know.  You should ask the Staff Council. 

Question:  Fred, just one thing more, one more thing about Nair.  You said before that the first investigation into the allegations against Nair found that there were no wrongdoing in hiring practices.

Spokesman:  That’s correct.

Question:  However, the charge that Volcker made against him exactly has to do with hiring practices.  He used money that was supposed to -– the 2.2 account, Iraqi money –- to hire someone that had nothing to do.

Spokesman:  That was not an issue that the Staff Council raised against Mr. Nair. They...

Question:  Does that indicate that hiring practices are not... [inaudible]

Spokesman:  That’s now a separate issue, and we have issued a charge letter, and let’s justice run its course. 

Question:  ...the time-frame, I believe the Staff Council resolution did mention hiring practices and didn’t specify anything beyond that.  They just said generically “hiring practices”.  So, why was that missed by that investigation?

Spokesman:  I don’t know specifically what the charges were, but I believe the charges were more specific than that, involving certain nationalities and certain procedures.  And, we found that the proper procedures had been followed.  In this case...

Question:  [inaudible] ... to the sage first of all that the Staff Council complained they weren’t consulted.  They passed a resolution.  Catherine Bertini investigated on the basis of the resolution.  The Staff Council, when Catherine Bertini exonerated, to coin a phrase, Mr. Nair, the Staff Council then complained that they hadn’t been consulted, and they were then asked to present specific charges.  So, it was only at that stage that the Staff Council presented any specific charges.  So, my question is, why did Ms. Bertini’s investigation miss this problem with the person being hired with 2.2 money?

Spokesman:  It’s two different kinds of issues.  The first accusation by the Staff Council was that he didn’t follow procedures, and he favoured certain nationalities.  And, they looked into every single hiring procedure, and they found that he did follow procedures.  In the case of the Volcker report, it wasn’t how he hired this person; it’s the fact that he relied on, he is accused of relying on oil-for-food money so that this person could work on oil-for-food for him, and that this person then did not work on oil-for-food for him.  So, it’s two different kinds of…

Question:  [talkover]

Spokesman:  I’m sorry?

Question:  Was that person, could that person not be defined as preferred nationality since he’s the same nationality as Mr. Nair?

Spokesman:  Let’s let, the charge letter has gone out.  Let’s let Mr. Nair reply and let the...

Question:  Just because our scepticism about these internal inquiries has been heightened by the Volcker report and its comments on the Connor investigation into Cotecna, which it described as a one-day investigation.  How many days did the Bertini investigation last?

Spokesman:  I don’t have that information.  Richard?

Question:  Why should we have faith in the Secretary-General when he addresses them Tuesday because the practice seems to be talk and meet the staff only after disaster or awful bad news.  Some staff members say it’s too late now, they have so little confidence in some of these management hires –- it must be five or seven names that have an asterisk, let’s say [inaudible]

Spokesman:  I’ve reported to you several times in the past when the Secretary-General has paid courtesy calls on different departments, working his way through the Secretariat, talking to staff, trying to build up their morale.  His second term, as you know, has been a very difficult one, and it’s not just for him, but he realizes it’s difficult for them, too.  So I think it’s appropriate that he talk to them.  But even in the first term, he did staff visits.  This has been something he’s been doing with some regularity.  So it’s not like just because there’s a crisis now, he’s deciding to talk to the staff on Tuesday.

Question:  Fred, will the staff have a chance to question -- to pose questions and comments -- or is it a one-way meeting?

Spokesman:  I’d have to find that out.  I think it’s going to be in the General Assembly, but I think he will probably welcome the chance to take their questions.

Question:  When was the last time he had a meeting like this kind?

Question:  Will he have another one?

Spokesman:  He’s done a department visit, I think just within the last month.  The last time he met everyone in the General Assembly might have been the first term.  I’d have to check that.

Question:  Carina Perelli, if I may, if I remember, she received the Manager of the Year award not too long ago.  How did they determine that -- to give that award to her?  In other words, did they talk to employees that work with Ms. Perelli, or how was that determined, that she should get this award?

Spokesman:  I’d have to look into that.  You know, she has a very strong, professional reputation in the election field.  What has emerged is questions about her management style.  But I don’t know on what basis that judgement was made.

Question:  What kind of award [inaudible]

Spokesman:  I don’t know.  Let me look into it.

Question:  Is it a United Nations Secretariat award?

Spokesman:  I don’t know.  Let me look into it.  That’s my impression that it is.

Question:  Is it just a plaque? 

Spokesman:  I don’t know.  I’m sorry, I don’t know.

Question:  Is the recipient of the Manager of the Year award meant to provide a role model for other managers to use their management techniques in their own departments.

Spokesman:  In theory, yes.  In this case, we’re looking at it.  [He later issued a Note to Correspondents saying Ms. Perelli had been nominated for the award, but it went to someone else.]

Question:  You said that before.  Has Ms. Perelli responded yet to the consultants report about sexual harassment, etc, and if she hasn’t done, how much time is the Secretariat willing to give her to respond?

Spokesman:  She was given a specific amount of time.  I’d have to check.  I think the original deadline might have been, might even be today.  It was either yesterday or today.  They didn’t tell whether she submitted anything by the deadline.  I can check for you to find out.

Question:  A number of us have tried to contact Ms. Perelli and have been unable to, and, of course, it’s unfortunate to have to write a story based on a management review without being able to get a comment back from the person involved in it.  I would just like you to convey to her our willingness to hear what she has to say, if she’d like to come to meet with us.

Spokesman:  I will do that.  I think her first priority, though, is to submit her formal defence.  It’s now practically a legal process.

Question:  Mark Malloch Brown said the other day after the Volker management report:  the story’s over.  Based on the questions here, it doesn’t seem to be.  Does the Secretary-General feel that he can focus on reform, go through the next year and a half, and that these articles that will be written in the broadcast, will just go to a select audience?  Is the story -– you’re a wise man around these issues –- is the story over?

Spokesman:  What story?  I mean, clearly --

Question:  Oil-for-food, management ...

Spokesman:  The oil-for-food investigation started with the Secretariat, which is a very small piece of what Mr. Volcker intends to investigate.  He indicated that his next report, if there isn’t another interim report, his final report will come the middle of the year.  I think that’s when we’ll be able to sit back and look at the oil-for-food issue in a broader context. 

In the meantime, the Secretariat side of the investigation we think is largely over.  Mr. Volker said he is still looking into some aspects of Benon Sevan and some aspects of Kojo Annan and that, obviously, will go forward.  But the Secretary-General can’t sit still and wait for this thing to finish.  He feels that their report this week vindicated him.  You don’t seem to think so, but that’s his judgement.  And now he’s pressing on.  He’s only got so many months left until the heads of State come here in September, when his reform agenda is going to face the ultimate test:  will governments buy it or not?  So that’s his focus right now.  He’s got to put this behind him.  He has put it behind him, and you’ll see him in the next weeks moving aggressively on this reform agenda.

Question:  About 1991, after the Gulf War, the Security Council set up what was the first oil-for-food programme.  It never got off the ground.  Kofi Annan was the Controller at the time; my reading of the documents back then, he was in charge.  He was sort of the Benon Sevan in the first phase of the programme.  He was negotiating with the Iraqis to get them to agree.  He was also tasked with getting frozen account money in various countries -– Iraqi money –- to be put into an escrow account.  How far did that work go?  And also, more importantly, was one of his tasks to award contracts?  What role was that?  What happened -- Cotecna got the contract, it never panned out, because the programme didn’t get off the ground?  Was he involved also in awarding contracts then?

Spokesman:  I’ll get out the history books and try and get an answer for you.

Question:  It’s an important question, Fred, whether the Secretary-General in his previous job was involved in awarding a contract to a company that employed somebody who, we now know, was an old friend of his.

Spokesman:  I heard the question, and I said I’ll look into it.

Question:  You dismissed it by saying you’ll get out the history book.  I doubt it’s in the history books.  What we need is for you to do some research on it with people, real life people, who are still here.

Spokesman:  Is there anything else?

Question:  Picking up on Richard’s point of the Secretary-General’s wounds.  You say he needs the cooperation of Member States to carry through his programme of reform.  Given that he can’t even get his own son to cooperate with him, does he really have a chance of pushing through these reforms?

Spokesman:  I think you have seen expressions of support from MemberStates and groupings of Member States for the Secretary-General.  So he feels he has the confidence of his bosses and he is trying –- he’s made an ambitious set of proposals to them –- and he will be consulting with them by regional group, initially, to try to get this programme adopted in September.  That’s his priority. 

Question:  His powers of persuasion seem somewhat limited right now.

Spokesman:  I don’t see why you would say that.  I mean, it may be a reading of your editorials.  I’m sorry?

Question:  Because diplomats are telling us that.

Spokesman:  Well, they’re not telling that to him, and he’s in touch with heads of State all the time.  He feels he has their full confidence, particularly on this reform agenda.

Question:  Does the Secretary-General feel he retains as much confidence amongst his staff after the issuance of this report as before?

Spokesman:  Well, that’s one of the reasons he’ll be talking to them next week.  He wants to give them encouragement.  He wants to focus them on the work ahead.  And it will be a bit of pep talk to build them up, and motivate them.

Question:  Will the United Nations guarantee that if any staff ask personal questions that there rights of future employment prospects can be absolutely guaranteed, not harmed by asking that question.

Spokesman:  This is not a gulag.  It’s the United Nations.

Question:  The Secretary-General, over the next few months and few months, working here on the inside to try to push his reform agenda.  Does he plan to do any “PR” per se beyond that, to talk to real people, other than just people on the inside and other than just heads of State, if you will?  Will he have any sort of contact or any sort of a PR initiative to talk to just average people to try to convince them, as well, that this place needs the reform that he’s proposing?

Spokesman:  We don’t do PR, or if we try, we don’t do it very well.

Question:  I’m just saying a communications initiative of some sort.

Spokesman:  When the Secretary-General travels, he very often meets with citizens groups.  He addresses university students.  He reaches out to average people.  He has probably done more than anyone else to bring the United Nations closer to non-governmental organizations, a very important constituency for him on this reform agenda.  So I think he reaches out in his own way to the man and woman on the street, if you will.  But, ultimately, the decisions will be made by the heads of government coming here in September.

Can we wrap this up please?

Question:  Is the Secretary-General or anyone in his office going to be meeting with the Republican delegation that’s reported to be coming up here?

Spokesman:  This visit was scheduled a long time ago, but it’s one of a series of visits where we invite congressional staff to come up and get more familiar with our work.  Robert Orr, the Assistant Secretary-General in the Secretary-General’s Office, has organized these visits.  If you like, you can give him a call to find out what they’re doing today and what the agenda is.

Question:  You said it was a United Nations invitation [inaudible].

Spokesman:  That’s my understanding, but double check with Robert Orr.

Thank you very much.

* *** *