Since at least 2006, the UN Human Rights Office has broken UN rules to do a “favour” for the Chinese government, providing advance information on whether specific human rights advocates plan to speak out about human rights abuses in China. This information is provided without any risk assessment whatsoever, weeks in advance of the meetings.
The UN kept this policy secret, and has never told people their names are being handed over. In fact, UN managers have ignored numerous requests from human rights advocates even to know whether their names are on the list or whether the policy is ongoing. Acts of intimidation against people whose names were handed over have included:
- Telephone calls from family members asking the dissidents to stop their international advocacy;
- Hacking of NGOs accrediting the dissidents, including posting or emails of false announcements that events were no longer taking place;
- Refusal of entry or removal of dissidents from UN premises at the request of China, against UN rules;
- Arrest, detention and disappearance of family members;
- Torture of family members in front of one another, with those witnessing forced to call the dissident to let them hear the torture;
- The death in custody of a student whose name was previously handed over, who returned to China.
I found out about this egregious policy in early 2013, and immediately reported it. The UN has refused to conduct any investigation whatsoever.
The UN’s public story keeps changing (see cover-up tab for more details). The changing UN story ranges from admission that this is an ongoing policy to outright denial that any such thing ever happened to false claims of protective measures or that only “high profile” activists were affected.
I am publishing the documents showing what actually happened in 2013, and what the UN’s internal position, including its position before the UN court, actually is. I have more documents, and will publish them to disprove whichever of its stories the UN management selects in response. It is obviously necessary, when publicly accusing the current UN management of corruption, negligence, public lying and complicity in international crimes, to provide proof of these serious allegations.
Timeline of events
| 2006 | The UN Human Rights Council is established. Its rules are often difficult for laypersons to locate, but they are clear: Any member state wishing to know the accreditation status of an individual must ask in the plenary (i.e. in front of all other countries) or in the expanded Bureau (a governing body). The Chief of the Human Rights Council Branch decides to breach these rules for the benefit of the Chinese delegation. Consent was not sought, and no protective measures were in place. |
| Jan 2012 | I joined the UN |
| June 2012 | The policy continued, with names handed over within a day of the request. He Geng’s husband, Gao Zhisheng, was arbitrarily detained in China at the time her name was transmitted. She and Dolkun Isa, whose name was also transmitted, were not contacted. Email here. |
| Sept 2012 | The policy continued, with names handed over on the same day as the request. He Geng, who lives on the west coast of the US, was likely asleep. Dolkun Isa was not contacted. This demonstrates the falsity of subsequent claims OHCHR took protective measures. Email here. |
| Jan 2013 | I took over responsibility from a colleague for NGO liaison in the Human Rights Council Branch. I was informed of a request from the Chinese delegation that the UN Secretariat provide information on whether specific individuals had applied for accreditation. I immediately objected. This caused colleagues who had previously been handing names to the Chinese delegation to also state their objection, in writing. Everyone acted like it was a novel request. I only discovered the 2012 emails much later. Email chain here. |
| 7 Feb 2013 | I attended a meeting with a senior member of the Chinese delegation. He and at least one of the other staff members present knew the UN had been directly providing the Chinese delegation with names of human rights advocates who planned to attend UN meetings. Everyone at the meeting pretended for my benefit that this was a brand new request. In light of my subsequent discovery, this is extraordinary – just how close is the relationship between OHCHR and the Chinese delegation that a very senior diplomat can be persuaded to go along with a farce for the sake of silencing a staff member? Minutes of the meeting here. |
| 8 Feb 2013 | Following the meeting, I sent an email to my superiors, recommending that no names be handed over, but that the individuals about whom the Chinese delegation was enquiring be warned to allow them to assess any danger. Email here. |
| 11 Feb 2013 | Against all of the written advice, the Chief of the Human Rights Council Branch decided that names would be handed over. He claimed the list of participants was somehow public weeks in advance despite never being published anywhere. He explicitly said this was to avoid exacerbating Chinese mistrust of the UN Human Rights Office. At the time of the purported decision, nobody knew who had applied for accreditation. Nobody. No protective measures were ever discussed or taken. Email chain here. As I subsequently discovered, the only actual change to the policy was that the main NGO contact was, on a total of three occasions, informed after the event that names had been handed over. The consent of individuals was not sought, so they had no opportunity to evaluate risk. This is an important distinction – the risk is to the families of individuals, and as the Chinese delegation to the UN works hard to prevent organisations working on China from getting official recognition, the individuals are usually accredited by organisations for which they do not actually work. |
| 13 Feb 2013 | After my further pleas not to do this were ignored, I started reporting this up the chain of command. When that failed, I reported it externally. I continue to do so. The UN continues to refuse to investigate or stop the policy. |
| 18 Feb 2013 | The temporary staff member responsible for accreditation for the Human Rights Council began her contract. Prior to this date, nobody in the UN Human Rights Office even knew who had applied to attend the session. |
| 1 Mar 2013 | The NGO accrediting the individuals (but not the individuals themselves) was informed their names had been given to the Chinese delegation. On the same date, the Chinese delegation sent a memo alleging a security threat, and UN Security was asked to assess the security threat the individuals posed to the Chinese delegation. This is the only security assessment ever carried out. No assessment of the security of the individuals was conducted at any point |
| 2 Feb 2017 | Following a leak of some documents in my case (here), the UN issued a strongly worded, false and defamatory press release. The press release is deliberately phrased to confuse, and claims measures I individually took against instructions to try to warn people as UN policy, but clearly admits this is an ongoing policy. The press release is here, the witness statement of the NGO president refuting it is here. |
| 14 Mar 2017 | The former High Commissioner, Prince Zeid, stood by the admission that the policy continues in an internal memo, here. |
| June 2019 | The UN argues in court that the policy is ongoing, standing by the claim that the list of participants is somehow public weeks in advance despite never being published anywhere. Listen to my cross-examination by UN lawyers on this point below. |
| July 2019 | The UN removes without notice the judge who had heard the case and who was about to publish his judgements. He had discussed the policy from the bench, and the UN lawyers did not like the direction of his reasoning, which agreed with my own: “If we look at the United Nations as an Organisation. We have a member state that asks, I think in this case it was a ‘favour,’ wants to know the names. And we have bureaucrats within the Organisation, that is international civil servants, who are making a decision in respect of the provision of information to a member state, or not. I’m just wondering where the international civil servants get the right to say yay or nay, and whether it isn’t a matter for decision at the level of member states. Because you’re allowing international civil servants, you’re empowering them, with making decisions rather than saying to the member states ‘Look, it’s a matter for you, it’s not a matter for us.’ How is it that it becomes a matter for the international civil servants, and not for the member states themselves? Because the international civil servants, do they not do as they are told and directed by the member states? And if there is no direction, are they not in a position where they should go and seek the direction of the member states?… How do they get to act without such?” (Judge Rowan Downing, public hearing in case of Reilly vs Secretary-General of the United Nations, 12 June 2019). |
| Today | The court case continues under the UN’s preferred judge. The UN position is unchanged – the secret policy continues, and I was “unreasonable” to report it because every senior manager knows and has done nothing. The Secretary-General and High Commissioner are both completely aware of this legal position (letter here). Either they are lying to the press, for which they face no consequences, or they are lying to the court, for which they could face dismissal. |
I left the Human Rights Council Branch of the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR) in September 2013, but formally remained against my post in that Branch. Every time I was due to return, I asked to see the last list of names handed to Beijing. At that point, the UN realised I would have access to the most direct, written evidence of the policy continuing, so I was banned from returning.
OHCHR has a central registry of communications with member states, which show that Beijing still knows, weeks in advance, exactly who has applied to attend the Human Rights Council. The confidentiality of those communications is legally not mine to waive, but I have provided copies to member states whose nationals’ names were transmitted.
There is a lot of written evidence that the policy continues, and the UN has never provided any evidence whatsoever that it changed its policy at any point.
The UN has never responded to queries from the individuals whose names were handed over as to whether or not the policy continues. The UN has not responded to my requests for correction of false statements by its spokespeople.
The need for investigation could hardly be clearer.