The UN cover-up consists of two linked elements:
- Lying to the press and member states
- Refusing to investigate
The UN’s changing public story
There has never been any investigation whatsoever of the policy of handing names to China. Depressingly, my reports are simply sent to the Chief of the Human Rights Council Branch – the very person who decided names should be handed over way back in 2006 – and he gives whatever version of events he thinks will prevent investigation. Below are just some of the UN’s stories, in chronological order:
| Dec 2013 | After I reported the policy to the European Union, the Chief of the Human Rights Council Branch was challenged about it at a meeting with the 27 member states of the European Union. He lied that no names had ever been transmitted to the Chinese delegation, and even went so far as to object that to claim otherwise was a slander against him. |
| Feb 2017 | After the leak of some Ethics documents in my case, OHCHR put out a strongly-worded press release. While it defamed me and falsely claimed protective measures, it clearly admitted this was an ongoing policy. |
| Mar 2017 | The Chief of the Human Rights Council Branch was challenged about the policy in a public meeting at which he represented the UN. He claimed no names were ever handed over, and that saying otherwise was part of a right-wing conspiracy against the UN. Here, from 39 minutes (French language, translation here). |
| May 2017 | Someone at the UN read the Ethics documents in detail, and realised I had falsely believed in 2016 that my reports had been successful and the practice had stopped. The UN therefore started to claim I had been correct, despite its earlier admission that the policy continued in 2017. The first time this claim was made was in a letter to UN Watch, here. |
| August 2017 | The former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid, lied that no names were handed over in a letter to Human Rights Watch. Here, at p.107 (response to question 1). UN Watch noted the changing story, here, asking, “in February 2017 names were still being handed over, by May 2017 this had stopped in 2015, and by August 2017 all trace of it had disappeared. OHCHR, which is it?” OHCHR never answered. |
| August 2018 | In response to objections to its award of a human rights prize worth €100,000 to Prince Zeid, explicitly for his work as High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Dutch government asked OHCHR about my reports. OHCHR lied to the Dutch government that no names were handed to China, and repeated the defamation that my claims were “unsubstantiated.” Because governments, unlike UN managers, are subject to laws, the evidence was considered. The Dutch Foreign Minister corrected the parliamentary record, here and here (Dutch language), and I won a court case which required the former Dutch Ambassador to the UN to correct his tweet on the issue, here. |
| June 2019 | Before its own courts, the UN legal position is that the policy is necessary, and I am “unreasonable” to have reported it. The UN approves the reasoning of Ethics Officers in this regard, see excerpt from their court filings here. See Retaliation tab for the findings of the Ethics Officers. |
| November 2019 | The Human Rights Council spokesperson lied that OHCHR would “never, ever dream” of handing over names, explicitly because of the obvious danger in which this would place human rights defenders, video here. |
| February 2021 | The Secretary-General’s spokesperson lied that no names had ever been handed over, video here. |
| March 2021 | Only a week after his outright denial, the Secretary-General’s spokesperson adopted the story that nothing was wrong with the policy, while also claiming it had stopped. Video here. |
| November 2021 | The Chief of the Human Rights Council Branch, speaking “off the record” to Le Monde, admitted that names are handed over to the Chinese delegation by telephone, apparently to avoid any written evidence following my reports. He justified the policy on the extraordinary basis that, if the UN’s Human Rights Office did not break the rules and secretly hand over names, Chinese diplomats may ask for the information in the meeting of the Human Rights Council. That is in fact what the rules explicitly require – any government that wants to know which human rights advocates are accredited to the meeting must ask in public, so other states can object. The Chief of the Human Rights Council Branch further admitted that he has no idea whose names have been handed over, or even how many, falsely claiming that records he simply never kept were “stolen.” I reported that alleged theft to the UN’s investigators, but they declined to investigate. The UN spokesperson, quoted at the end of the article, repeated his position of March 2021, despite the direct contradiction with the position of the Chief of the Human Rights Council Branch earlier in the same article. |
| June 2022 | Immediately after the testimony of Dolkun Isa on the retaliation to which his family was subjected as a direct result of the UN secretly handing his name to China, the UN claimed in a BBC documentary not to be aware of any harms caused by the policy. The UN further repeated the March 2021 position, falsely claiming protective measures despite Mr. Isa confirming that the UN never informed him of the policy or that his name was being handed over every time he engaged with UN human rights mechanisms. |
Why would the UN admit an obviously dangerous policy continued in 2017 if it had in fact stopped it from 2016?
The policy of the UN communications department, as confirmed to me in November 2018, is now to first lie that no names were ever handed over, and then lie that the policy changed. Terms like “historical practice” are used to discourage reporting, and if that does not work, the spokespeople defame me personally. I was explicitly told by the OHCHR Spokesperson, Rupert Colville, that this technique is used because it worked to kill reporting on the child sex abuse scandal in the Central African Republic (see whistleblowing tab).
Even if the UN were telling the truth, and they are clearly not, the difference is whether they were complicit in international crimes committed against human rights advocates for 10 years (2006-2016) or for 15 years (2006-present). It would mean names were handed over nine more times after I reported it. Judging from the communications received from the Chinese government just for that period, that would mean around 30 people were deliberately endangered after senior managers were fully aware of what was happening. All I have ever asked is that the policy stop, and that there be an investigation. Why does the UN still refuse? These are not the actions of an organisation with nothing to hide.
Refusal to investigate
At no point since I first reported this policy in February 2013 has the UN conducted any investigation whatsoever of the policy of secretly handing names of human rights advocates to the Chinese delegation.
Internal UN investigations are carried out by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). The Director of Investigations of OIOS has consistently refused to investigate this policy, and its impact on human rights advocates and their families. One of the many email exchanges in which he reiterated his refused to open an investigation is here. The quite extraordinary position of the most senior UN official responsible for investigations is:
“OIOS’ position is that, notwithstanding your serious allegations concerning the possible endangering of the lives of human rights activists and/or their families, the current position, in which you find yourself with OHCHR and the other way around, in which OHCHR find themselves with you, is one that should have been resolved by a strong and proactive management response provided by OHCHR some time ago.
Any investigation by OIOS would not provide any satisfaction, solution or succor to any party. I have been firmly of the opinion and remain of the opinion that OHCHR management are responsible for resolving the issues between you, a view I have repeatedly expressed.”
I cannot challenge the UN simply ignoring my reports and continuing to endanger human rights advocates for years. Until 2019, I could, however, challenge the UN simply ignoring my reports of abuse of authority and harassment as a result of reporting it. I won my case, forcing the UN to open an “investigation” into the final paragraph of the defamatory press release. The judge explicitly found that António Guterres had taken “a unilateral decision to deviate from the applicable rules, which is not permitted” (judgment here, at para. 50). The UN response was to remove the judge and rewrite the policy, to prevent even this tiny possibility of accountability. Managers hand-pick “investigators” for these “investigations” from among UN staff, and consistently choose individuals upon whom they can rely to destroy and ignore any inconvenient evidence. In this case, when one of the retaliators accidentally admitted it, the “investigators” decided to breach best practice guidelines and actively destroy the tape recordings of all interviews. I was unable to prevent this blatant cover-up. Opening even such an “investigation” is now entirely at the discretion of senior managers. Those same senior managers (see “name and shame” tab) direct the cover-up.