PRESS CONFERENCE BY UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME ON OPERATIONS

IN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

 

All manner of allegations had been raised with respect to the operations of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and new claims had now been made about how the agency had treated one of its former workers there, David Morrison, its Communications Director said at Headquarters today.

Reading a short statement at a previously unscheduled press conference, Mr. Morrison said UNDP was aware that United States legislators had raised concerns with the Secretary-General about alleged retaliation against a UNDP worker who had questioned the agency’s former programme in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  Aware also of reports circulating in the press, UNDP took the issue “very seriously” and had looked into it.

He said UNDP was not aware of any evidence to support the claim that the individual in question had raised valid concerns that had gone unaddressed.  Neither was the agency aware of any evidence to support the claim of allegation of retaliation against that individual.  Given the recent publicity, UNDP wished to take the opportunity to set the record straight regarding the “inaccuracies and misconceptions”, which the Programme wished to put to rest.

For that reason, UNDP had supported the recent audit process, supplying the auditors with every single document requested, and facilitated access to all personnel they wished to interview, he said.  Since then, the agency had repeatedly urged that the audit process be continued in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  It was also on record as saying that, if for any reason the auditors did not, or could not, enter that country, UNDP would arrange to have its records, which remained in safekeeping there, copied and transported out of the country, in an effort to put remaining concerns to rest.

He said the individual making the allegations was not a 13-year UNDP veteran, as had been reported in the press, nor was the agency aware of him having served in Bangladesh, Timor-Leste or other places.  Press reports had also apparently confused a letter written in December 2006 by a colleague attempting to help the individual get another position within UNDP.  That had apparently been confused with an annual performance appraisal written by the individual’s supervisor.

The individual in question had worked for UNDP in a variety of short-term contracts dating back to the 1990s, including service in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in 2005 and 2006, he said.  With the possible exception of a four-month period, he had not been on a staff contract, but on consultancy with UNDP.  The agency understood that, from the 1990s to the present, the individual had also worked in other parts of the United Nations system, as well as for his national Government.  His latest consultancy contract for UNDP, which had lasted four months, had expired in March.  If the individual concerned would agree to release UNDP from its normal confidentiality provisions, the agency would be happy to show those contracts to the press.

Regarding a claim that the individual’s concerns had been ignored by his supervisors in Pyongyang and New York, he said the individual had met with UNDP Administrator Kemal Derviş and other senior officials earlier this year.  He had been invited to submit evidence but had so far not done so.  He had been interviewed fully as part of the recent external audit process.  If there was any evidence that no action had been taken regarding valid concerns raised, the agency wished to see that evidence and would then act accordingly.  Regarding the more recent claim of retaliation for raising concerns about UNDP operations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the agency had found that claim to be without basis, given available information.

He said UNDP had invited the individual to submit all relevant information to its office dealing with internal inquiries, but the individual had, so far, declined.  The agency would take evidence of retaliation very seriously.  The issue was now before the United Nations Ethics Office and that aspect should be addressed to the appropriate Secretariat officials.

During the ensuing question-and-answer session, Mr. Morrison said: “The only way that we can fully respond to such things is to be transparent and to have independent folks actually look at what’s happened and come to the appropriate conclusions.”  Coming before correspondents and trying to respond as effectively as possible to the allegations was “part of us trying to set the record straight, simply because we have a very different view based upon the information available to us, as to what was going on in [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] and what has happened with this individual in question”.

Asked whether UNDP, at the termination of the contract, had advised the individual to leave the country, he was not aware of the agency having done that.

In response to a follow-up question, he explained that United Nations grounds passes expired on the day a contract expired, and it was his understanding that the individual’s contract had expired either on the 26 or 27 March 2007.  For reasons he did not understand, his grounds pass had not expired until 1 July 2007.

He added that, when there was a discrepancy between the expiration date on the pass and the contract, it was the expiration date of the contract that actually gave a person access to United Nations premises.  Only those with valid contracts enjoyed such access.  No special procedure had been taken in his case.

What about claims about the claims about the files in [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] and the payment in euros, as mentioned in today’s Wall Street Journal article? another correspondent asked.

Mr. Morrison suggested that the correspondent return to the audit and its findings.  For example, it found something very different to what the individual was claiming about site visits and visits by international personnel.  Just a look at that audit told a very different story from what appeared in the Journal.  It would not be possible to resolve a lot of the individual’s claims until auditors or independent authorities accessed the documentation, which remained in Pyongyang.  The Secretary-General would like the audit to continue, with a visit to Pyongyang and, if that did not happen, “we will bring the records out of Pyongyang to settle these questions once and for all”.

As for UNDP’s efforts to safeguard the “whistleblower”, who could be carrying a lot of important information, he said the agency was very concerned about his allegations and had repeatedly asked him to come forward and provide evidence so that it could look into them and take appropriate action.

Responding to another question, he said all the computer information had been safeguarded, adding that the United Nations Board of Auditors could visit Pyongyang and review those records.  The authorities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had made it clear they would facilitate the auditors’ access, and they would be able to visit the World Food Programme (WFP) compound where all the records were housed.

The Secretary-General had written to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) asking that a second-phase audit be undertaken, he said in reply to a further query.

Asked to deny that the individual’s contract had been allowed to expire, he said he did deny that

In response to a further question, he said WFP, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and all other United Nations agencies operated the same way in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record