Press Briefing
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING OF OFFICE OF SPOKESMAN FOR SECRETARY-GENERAL
19990107
....................
Asked about the Secretary-General's thoughts concerning the editorial in The Washington Post today, Mr. Eckhard reiterated that if those allegations were true, it would be damaging to United Nations disarmament efforts worldwide. The reports in today's newspapers tended to lend more credence to those allegations, but since nothing had been proven yet, it was too soon to make firm judgements. The United States Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, called the Secretary-General yesterday morning and they discussed that issue. Those discussions would likely continue as the story unfolded. It was ultimately a matter for the Security Council, however, since UNSCOM was a subsidiary Council body. As such, the Spokesman would not want to say anything that would prejudge its action.
In a follow-up question, the correspondent said that although the Spokesman said it was a Security Council issue, everyone knew that senior United Nations Secretariat officials had been thinking of ways forward on the Iraqi issue. Concerning yesterday's newspaper reports, was the Spokesman completely denying whether those aids had said what they did?
The Spokesman said, "We don't know who those aides are". The Secretary- General would like to know who felt at liberty to talk to a newspaper, in this case inaccurately, about his views. He was not into witch hunts and he was not conducting any kind of investigation, but he might want to review United Nations guidelines on press relations. He wished to maintain the Secretariat's relationship with the press, which was open and transparent, but the people who spoke to the press needed to do so accurately.
The correspondent repeated that despite the fact that UNSCOM answered to the Security Council, it was well known that the Secretariat had been thinking through the Iraqi issue, and he wished to know the Secretary-General's views on possible options?
Mr. Eckhard said that on that matter, the Secretary-General had consistently tried to facilitate the work of the Council, but it was the
Daily Press Briefing - 4 - 7 January 1999
Council's responsibility. When the Council was divided, the Secretary-General pulled back. He did not have administrative authority to "move in and break a deadlock"; he might act only with the support of Governments, and in a matter such as Iraq, with the Council's support. So, he was not going to go public with any thinking he might have on the way forward. He would share such thoughts with Council members.
Replying to a question about whether it was time for the Secretary- General to address the press directly, the Spokesman said no, the issue was not what the Secretary-General thought and it was not about UNSCOM's Executive Chairman. The issue was how to get on with the disarming of Iraq, and that was for the Council to decide.
Asked how the Spokesman would describe the current relationship between the 38th floor of the Secretariat and the United States State Department, he said the Secretary-General spoke with some regularity to the United States Secretary of State. If they did not have a good working relationship, those conversations probably would not be as frequent. The Spokesman did not wish to comment on the recent aspects of the coverage, specifically yesterday's Washington Post story. That was the only newspaper which had focused so sharply on the Secretary-General angle of the story, and it did so again today in an editorial.
The Washington Post article and editorial had most likely caused a reaction in Washington, the Spokesman went on to say, and he could not imagine that it was positive from the Secretary-General's point of view. The Secretary-General hoped that as focus sharpened on the real issues, any ill feeling that might have been generated would dissipate, and his good working relationship would continue.
The correspondent, noting that United States Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, James Rubin, yesterday had "pinned this squarely as a leak on the 38th floor", asked if that was something the Spokesman flatly denied.
He said that no, he did not know. The Washington Post quoted someone whom it described as a confidant of the Secretary-General. "We don't know who that is; we don't know who could have said what that person said", he added. He gave The Washington Post the benefit of the doubt that the quotation was not made up and that there was some substance to it, but frankly he did not know who had said it. It was an embarrassment to the Secretary-General, and it had focused the issue where it did not belong, thereby distracting everyone from the real question.
The correspondent, noting that was the second time in the last couple of months that the Spokesman emphatically had to distance the Secretary-General from something that had been attributed to him by an unnamed confidant, asked if there was a problem up there.
Daily Press Briefing - 5 - 7 January 1999
The Spokesman said that no, he did not think so, and added that it was partly the openness of the system. When the Secretary-General assumed his position, the Spokesman's Office orally spread the word that everyone in the Secretariat was free to speak to the press within their areas of competence and with the blessing of the head of their department. That was a very liberal policy, and one which would occasionally take a few falls.
.....................
Did the Secretary-General, in his conversation yesterday with Secretary of State Albright, say that she must now accept that some alternative to UNSCOM be found if the process of disarming Iraq was ever to be concluded, especially given that even some United States Government officials were admitting to the newspapers that American spies had worked for UNSCOM?
The Spokesman said he doubted that anything like that was said during yesterday's conversation, and he did not wish to speculate on any future conversations between them.
Could the Spokesman state right here that the Secretary-General had no problem with Mr. Butler remaining until the end of June? another correspondent asked.
Mr. Eckhard said that the Secretary-General wanted to follow the wishes of the Security Council concerning all UNSCOM matters.
Then, why had the Secretary-General not issued a ringing endorsement of the man he had selected? the correspondent asked.
Mr. Eckhard said that if the correspondent was aware of some of the differing views of the Council members, he would be able to answer that question.
Daily Press Briefing - 6 - 7 January 1999
Another correspondent, referring to a statement made by Mr. Butler as reported in a Sydney, Australia, newspaper today that he was contemplating not staying beyond his term, asked if the Secretary-General was aware of that and whether he was looking for some kind of replacement.
He had not discussed that report with the Secretary-General, the Spokesman said, nor had he seen it in the Sydney Morning Herald. The report was on the news wires, but he did not know if the Secretary-General was aware of it. As the Spokesman had said yesterday, the Secretary-General was not looking for a replacement for Mr. Butler because as far as he knew, Richard Butler had no intention of leaving. That was the first time of such a hint, and he did not know if the quotation was accurate. The correspondent would have to confirm that with Mr. Butler.
Another correspondent asked about the Secretary-General's reaction to today's newspaper reports that Washington seemed to have changed its tune and was now saying it had used UNSCOM for spying and intelligence gathering and had put people in there to help UNSCOM, and in turn, to receive information from it.
The Spokesman said the Secretary-General had only seen the same press reports as the correspondent. They quoted unnamed United States officials, and that was not yet a firm enough basis on which to judge what might have gone on in UNSCOM. "I think he's holding back and waiting to see what else, if anything, emerges", he added.
...................
Another correspondent said that while the United Nations seemed to be distancing the 38th floor from the attempt by The Washington Post to get into the mind set of the Secretary-General, the United Nations did not seem to be distancing itself from the actual facts of the case. Was the United Nations looking into the allegations seriously and where did it go from here, now that so many people were reporting the story, based on both United States and United Nations officials? she asked.
"The United Nations is not Scotland Yard", the Spokesman replied. It did not have a professional investigative capability to get into allegations that the intelligence organizations of some Member States were doing this or
Daily Press Briefing - 7 - 7 January 1999
that. "So we sit and we wait and we see what, if anything, gets corroborated", he added.
At any point, had the Secretary-General or anyone from his Office directly approached the Secretary of State or anyone else from the United States Government and asked what was going on? In other words, had the United Nations demanded the facts, at least in terms of the allegations? a correspondent asked.
The Spokesman said he did not wish to get into the substance of any contacts the Secretary-General or any members of his staff had had with the United States Government on the subject, beyond what he had already said.
Did the Spokesman's comment that the United Nations was not a Scotland Yard mean that the Secretary-General was taking for granted the words of Mr. Butler when he said that the allegations were absolutely not true? another correspondent asked.
Of course the Secretary-General had to accept Mr. Butler's assertions and take them at face value, the Spokesman said.
To a question about whether the Secretary-General had spoken with Iraqi officials in Baghdad about those stories or any other developments, the Spokesman said that no, not to his knowledge.
Asked what the United Nations could report about what was happening inside Sierra Leone, Mr. Eckhard reminded the correspondent that the Secretary-General had a representative in the region, and he followed developments to the extent possible.
..................
* *** *
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
