Joint Appeal to United Nations Secretary General Guterres and High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk:
Create Independent Investigation Into the Targeting of UN Watch

Dear Secretary General Antonio Guterres,
Dear High Commissioner Volker Türk,

We, the undersigned human rights activists, former cabinet ministers, civil society representatives, families of political prisoners, and other concerned citizens are alarmed by the allegations of harassment and gross misconduct by the Chief of the UN Human Rights Council branch committed against the non-governmental human rights organization UN Watch, as detailed in the Complaint dated 6 October 2022.

Excellency, we urge you to create an independent investigation as an essential step for accountability and justice.

The late United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said: “I deeply appreciate the valuable work performed by UN Watch. Informed and independent evaluation of the United Nations’ activities will prove a vital source as we seek to adapt the Organization to the needs of a changing world.”

Likewise, we express our strong support for the vital work of UN Watch to monitor the world body and uphold the Charter of the United Nations, and to promote and protect human rights for all.

We commend UN Watch for being one of the leading non-governmental organizations in bringing human rights defenders, dissidents, victims, and family members of political prisoners to testify before the United Nations.

Accordingly, we are gravely concerned by any restrictions on the ability of UN Watch to exercise its legitimate rights to take the floor at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), as detailed in the aforementioned Complaint, which would harm not only that organization, but also the human rights of victims of urgent country situations worldwide who are regularly given a voice and platform by UN Watch.

Excellencies, we urge you to ensure that members of the UNHRC Secretariat respect the right of non-governmental organizations to participate at the United Nations, grounded in Article 71 of the UN Charter, and, in particular, that they respect the right of NGOs with ECOSOC consultative status, such as UN Watch, to participate equally in Council sessions, including through making oral presentations and written statements, as recognized under UNGA Resolution 60/251, the Council’s founding document, HRC Resolution 5/1, and ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31.

In addition, we urge you to ensure that members of the UNHRC Secretariat respect the right of UN Watch to freedom of expression, as guaranteed under Art. 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Art. 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. For the United Nations to be a place for dialogue, all voices must be heard.

Excellencies, without urgent action, the essential work of UN Watch to safeguard the principles of the United Nations Charter, and to protect human rights for all, will be at grave risk.

Accordingly, we urge you to act swiftly to create an independent investigation, to ensure accountability, and to restore the legitimate rights of UN Watch to participate fully and on an equal basis at the United Nations.

Signatories:

Human Rights Activists

Abidine Ould-Merzough
Anti-slavery activist, European Coordinator of the Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement in Mauritania

Abraham Jiménez Enoa
Prominent Cuban journalist forced into exile, grandson of the bodyguard to Fidel Castro and Che Guevara

Anastasia Shevchenko
Russian Antiwar Committee

Andrey Kurkov
Ukraine’s most famous novelist, author of “Diary of an Invasion” on Russia’s war

Antonio Ledezma
Venezuelan opposition leader, political prisoner who escaped in November 2017

Berta Valle
Nicaraguan journalist, wife of opposition leader and former political prisoner Félix Maradiaga

Biram Dah Abeid
Leader of the fight against slavery in Mauritania

Can Dündar
Leading Turkish journalist arrested and forced into exile for his brave reporting

Dang Xuong Hung
Vietnamese Defector

Dennis Chau
Rights activist and son of Vietnamese political prisoner

Diego Arria
Former Venezuelan Ambassador to the UN and President of the Security Council

Dolkun Isa
President of the World Uyghur Congress, former pro-democracy student leader targeted in China

Duy Hoang
Spokesperson for Viet Tan

Enes Kanter Freedom
NBA basketball player and human rights activist

Ensaf Haidar
Human rights activist and wife of Saudi political prisoner Raif Badawi

Evan Mawarire
Zimbabwean protest leader, arrested six times and tortured for his civil rights work

Evgenia Kara-Murza
Activist, wife of jailed Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza

Fadzayi Mahere
Constitutional lawyer, opposition spokesperson arrested repeatedly in Zimbabwe

Felix Maradiaga
Nicaraguan opposition leader and former political prisoner, targeted by the government on false criminal charges

Frances Hui
Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation

Frank Calzon
Former Executive Director, Center for a Free Cuba; former Washington representative, Freedom House

Grace Kwinjeh
Zimbabwean dissident

Dr. Gyal Lo
Tibetan activist, educational sociologist, and a leading expert on China’s assimilation and education policies in Tibet

Guillermo Marmol
Businessman and Chairman, Center for a Free Cuba

Hasler Iglesias
Venezuelan youth leader who went into hiding to escape arrest by the Maduro regime

Jewher Ilham
Uyghur rights advocate and author, daughter of Uyghur economist Ilham Tohti who is now serving a life sentence in China

Jianli Yang
Chinese dissident, former political prisoner, Tiananmen Square massacre survivor and President of Initiatives for China

John Suarez
Executive Director, Center for a Free Cuba

Julieta Abrar
Human rights activist and aunt of former imprisoned Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo López

Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera
Ugandan LGBT activist, founder and director of Freedom and Roam Uganda

Kaveh Shahrooz
Human rights lawyer and policy expert

Lyubov Sobol
Russian opposition leader and prominent social media influencer

Maria Alejandra Aristeguieta
Founder of Vision 360, former Ambassador of Venezuela and Coordinator of Iniciativa Por Venezuela

Mariam Claren
Daughter of jailed womens’ rights activist and political prisoner Nahid Taghavi

Marie-Claire Kakpotia
Survivor and activist fighting to end Female Genital Mutilation

Marina Nemat
Iranian author imprisoned for criticizing the Iranian regime at the age of 16

Maryam Nayeb Yazdi
Human rights activist, co-founder of Oslo Women’s Rights Initiative

Massouda Jalal
Former Minister of Women’s Affairs of Afghanistan

Michel Tran Duc
French-Vietnamese human rights activist

Mohamed Al-Jahmi
Brother of murderer Libyan dissident, Fathi Al-Jahmi

Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay
Iranian-born Canadian human rights advocate and co-founder of Stop Child Executions

Nurcan Baysal
Award-winning Kurdish journalist and activist, detained by Turkey

Olga Aivazovska
Forcibly displaced civil society leader & advocate for war crimes tribunal against Putin

Orhan Kemal Cengiz
Human rights lawyer and activist from Turkey

Ambassador Otto J. Reich
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs, former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela, and President of the Center for a Free Cuba

Shengchun Sophie Luo
Activist, wife of Chinese political prisoner Ding Jiaxi

Sirley Avila Leon
Cuban dissident and victim of a machete attack by the regime

Soomaya Javadi
Young Hazara activist who fled Afghanistan following the overthrow of Kabul

Taha Siddiqui
Pakistani journalist and social media activist who narrowly escaped abduction

Tatsiana Khomich
Belarusian Coordination Council Representative for Political Prisoners and sister of imprisoned opposition leader Maria Kalesnikava

Tenzin Tsundue
Tibetan refugee and writer arrested 16 times for his activism

Timothy Cho
North Korean human rights activist and defector, imprisoned in North Korea and China

Vicente De Lima II
Brother of Philippine Senator Leila de Lima, jailed for criticizing Duterte’s Drug War

Yavuz Aydin
Turkish judge purged by President Erdogan

Zarifa Ghafari
Youngest elected mayor in Afghanistan, survivor of three assassination attempts, forced into exile

Non-Governmental Organizations Accredited to the United Nations

Association Aide aux Femmes et Enfants
Democratic Republic of the Congo

Press Emblem Campaign

Switzerland

Centre Intercommunautaire Congolais pour les Personnes avec Handicap
Democratic Republic of Congo

International Institute for Child Protection
Gambia

Human Rights Foundation
USA

Initiative for Youth Awareness on Climate Change
Nigeria

Women’s Voices Now
USA

Green Youth Council
India

Sister to Sister One in the Spirit
USA

Pleaders of Children and Elderly People at Risk
Democratic Republic of Congo

Association For Promotion of Sustainable Development
India

Pakistan Council for Social Welfare and Human Rights
Pakistan

Community Agenda for Peace
Nigeria

Association Solidarité Internationale pour l’Afrique
Mali

Initiative pour le développement de l’Afrique
Italy

Afri-Health Optonet Association
Nigeria

International Movement for Advancement of Education Culture Social & Economic Development
India

African Initiative for Mankind Progress Organization
Rwanda

Coordination des Associations et des Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience
France

Forum Méditerranéen pour la promotion des droit du citoyen
Morocco

Fundación Democrática Ítalo Americana
Portugal

Tort for Torture Victims
Cameroon

Future Hope International
Ghana

Youth Awareness And Guidance Organisation
Nigeria

Alliance for Development and Population Services
Kenya

Solidarité Agissante pour le Développement Familial
Democratic Republic of the Congo

Un Monde Avenir
Cameroon

Cause Première
Senegal

Human Development Society
Gambia

Entrepreneurship Development and Support Initiative
Nigeria

Apostolic Ministerial International Network
Ghana

Ariel Foundation International
Switzerland

Association des Ressortissants et Amis d’Eseka
Cameroon

Ben Newman Hope Care Foundation
Ghana

Coup de Pouce
Democratic Republic of Congo

Dignité Impact
Switzerland

EKTA Welfare Society
India

Jewish Renaissance Foundation
USA

Technical Centre for Fine Art and Computer Studies CIG
Cameroon

First Modern Agro. Tools – Common Initiative Group
Cameroon

Fondation Kalipa pour le Développement
Democratic Republic of Congo

The Council of Technical Education & Training
India

Global Economist Forum
Bangladesh

Internationale Gemeinschaft für die Unterstützung von Kriegsopfern
Germany

Diligent Care for Creative Intelligence Development
Nigeria

Isiziba Community Based Organizations of South Africa
South Africa

Major Alliance Education Centre
Tanzania

MIROSLAVA International Alliance
Ukraine

Canterbury & New Zealand Business Association
New Zealand

Mouvement des Jeunes pour le Réveil et le Développement
Benin

Ngoma Club
Democratic Republic of Congo

Nouveaux Droits de l’homme Cameroun
Cameroon

Partage et Action en Synergie pour le Développement
Togo

Prahar
India

Northern Citizen Community Board
Pakistan

NGO Monitor
Israel

Structural Analysis of Cultural Systems
Germany

REAL Women of Canada
Canada

Sun Charity USA
USA

Vision GRAM-International
Canada

Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia Wira Tata Buena
Indonesia

Press Release

Take Action

100 Human Rights Activists Urge UN Probe of Top Official For Harassing Watchdog

GENEVA, July 11, 2023 — A cross-regional coalition of 100 human rights activists and UN-accredited civil society organizations today called on UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and High Commissioner for Human Rights Volcker Türk to investigate Eric Tistounet, the powerful head of the UN Human Rights Council staff for the past two decades, for his campaign of “harassment and gross misconduct” targeting a human rights group that has been recognized for giving a global platform to dissidents of authoritarian regimes.

In the current 4-week session of the Human Rights Council that concludes on July 14, Mr. Tistounet blocked UN Watch from testifying in debates concerning abuses in Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Venezuela and Russia, said Hillel Neuer, an international human rights lawyer who directs the Geneva-based non-governmental organization.

Whistleblower Confirms: Head of UNHRC Staff Personally Intervenes to Block UN Watch From Speaking

“The numbers are astonishing: while groups friendly to Mr. Tistounet were allowed to speak in more than 20 debates in the current session, we have been prohibited from speaking more than once. And we know exactly what’s going on because Mr. Tistounet’s former employee revealed that he is close with China and other dictatorships that seek to silence UN Watch, and that he actually orders his UNHRC staff to tamper with speakers’ lists to prevent us from speaking.”

“What is shocking is that nine months ago, a senior aide to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres promised that they would review our Legal Complaint, which details how Mr. Tistounet wilfully and systematically rigs the system to block us from speaking. In the June 2021 session, we registered for 31 debates and were denied 30 out of 31 slots, and in June 2022 he barred us from all 36 debates. Only 10 NGOs get to speak in each debate, so he maliciously moves UN Watch down the list so that we are silenced. Coming from a UN human rights officer, this kind of unethical conduct is disgraceful,” said Neuer.

Leaked Emails: Eric Tistounet Orders Staff to Anonymously Smear Hillel Neuer Online

“According to leaked emails, Mr. Tistounet also engages in wilful and illegal harassment by instructing his Human Rights Council staff to go to internet cafés to anonymously spread false information about me online, and he told his employees to think of ways to have me physically detained by UN security, in order to block me from entering the Council chamber in Geneva.” (See pp. 18-24 of the Complaint.)

100 Activists Say Blocking UN Watch Silences Victims Worldwide

The signatories of today’s joint appeal — including some of the most prominent human rights dissidents and former political prisoners from China, Russia, Cuba, Turkey, North Korea, Libya, Belarus, Venezuela and Zimbabwe — said they were “gravely concerned by any restrictions on the ability of UN Watch to exercise its legitimate rights to take the floor at the UN Human Rights Council.”

The dissidents said this would harm “the human rights of victims of urgent country situations worldwide who are regularly given a voice and platform by UN Watch.”

“We express our strong support for the vital work of UN Watch to monitor the world body and uphold the Charter of the United Nations, and to promote and protect human rights for all,” said the activists, many of whom have been hosted by UN Watch to speak at the United Nations, either in the Human Rights Council or at UN sessions held as part of UN Watch’s annual Geneva Summit for Human Rights.

“We commend UN Watch for being one of the leading non-governmental organizations in bringing human rights defenders, dissidents, victims, and family members of political prisoners to testify before the United Nations,” said the human rights activists.

The joint appeal called on the UN officials to “create an independent investigation as an essential step for accountability and justice.”

Background: Tistounet Handed Names of Dissidents to China

More than any other group at the Human Rights Council, UN Watch routinely brings high profile dissidents to address the council, from China, Cuba, Libya, Russia and elsewhere. Many of the regimes have in turn pressured Tistounet’s office, as China recently did when UN Watch hosted Hong Kong activist Tania Chan.

In March, Venezuela’s Maduro regime filed a complaint to the UN calling to shut down UN Watch, after the group gave the floor at the Human Rights Council to opposition figures Leopoldo Lopez, María Corina Machado and Diego Arria.

As reported by the BBC and Le Monde, Mr. Tistounet is accused of putting in place a UN policy of handing over to China in advance the names of dissidents registered to speak at the UNHRC, putting their lives and their family members at risk, as Uyghur activist Dolkun Isa has testified.

Tistounet handed UN Watch speeches in advance to his friend Jean Ziegler,
the UNHRC expert who created the “Qaddafi Human Rights Prize”

In a June 2006 report, UN Watch exposed the role of UNHRC expert Jean Ziegler in co-creating and managing the Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize, an award that was given to dictator Hugo Chavez, antisemite Louis Farrkhan and convicted French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy, in the same year that Ziegler himself won the prize.

Tistounet participated in a panel honoring the controversial Qaddafi supporter, who in turn wrote the preface to one of Tistounet’s novels.

According to Emma Reilly, “Mr. Tistounet extended his targeting of UN Watch to his personal friend Mr. Jean Ziegler, whose UN appointments have
often been criticized by UN Watch. Uniquely among mandate holders, Mr. Ziegler would frequently come to the NGO liaison office and request to see lists of speakers to verify whether UN Watch would take the floor.”

“He would also request advance copies of UN Watch speeches, which we were instructed to provide. No other NGO was targeted in this manner, and no other mandate holder was accorded this favor.”

Tistounet intercepted UN Watch speeches, drafted reprimands for chair to read,
tampered with the time clock to run out UN Watch’s speaking time

Tistounet personally obtained all UN Watch speeches in advance, so he could draft unjustified reprimands for the chair to read out afterwards.

“Mr. Tistounet had a standing instruction that when a statement was received in advance from UN Watch, it was to be given directly to him either in his office or on the podium, and placed on the desk of his office if he could not be immediately located. This instruction did not exist for any other NGO,” testified whistleblower Emma Reilly.

“On occasion, when a UN Watch speech was received in advance, Mr. Tistounet would request that I draft new language for the President to give a false impression that the speeches broke the rules.”

“He was fully aware that his advice to successive Presidents to reprimand UN
Watch for disobeying rules was false, and that no rule was in fact being broken.”

In addition, when he could get away with it, Tistounet manipulated the clock to remove time from UN Watch.

“When points of order are made during speeches, the NGO liaison and Secretary are responsible for pressing a button on the podium to pause the NGO speaking time. it.”

“Mr. Tistounet issued a standing instruction that the button was not to be pressed during UN Watch speeches, but instead that their speaking time should be deemed to continue during the point of order. This instruction applied only to UN Watch.”

“Mr. Tistounet made clear on a number of occasions that his ultimate aim was to exclude Mr. Neuer and UN Watch more generally from UN premises.”

To sign the petition, click here

The post Joint Appeal by Human Rights Activists to Investigate Abuse by UN Official Eric Tistounet appeared first on UN Watch.

Remarks by Jianli Yang,  UN Watch Press Conference, New York, October 3, 2022, concerning the Complaint filed against the UN Human Rights Council’s senior official Eric Tistounet for systematically targeting UN Watch.

The fact that we cannot hold this event inside the UN headquarters speaks volumes about the question we’re asking today: Does the United Nations have the will or means to provide a voice for the voiceless?

This question is particularly grave when it comes to the oppressed people living under tyrannical autocracies such as the Chinese government that does represent the people of China at home or at the United Nations.

UN Watch has been instrumental in helping victims of human rights violations from around the world speak truth to power. It has lent a voice to the voiceless and empowered the powerless. And it tries to do everything in its capacity to help the UN defend its Charter and the UN Human Rights Council uphold its principles.

But unfortunately, the secretariat of the UN Human Rights Council is now aggressively engaging in discriminatory actions against this UN-accredited NGO, attempting to silence it and the voice it helps bring to the UN — the very voice that should be heard and yet would not otherwise be heard by the UN and the world.

The secretariat of the UN Human Rights Council, by doing so, is in effect helping the world’s dictators in their efforts to dampen criticism of their human rights abuses and weaken the UN’s ability to foster better human-rights conditions. This is a very serious issue that deserves the immediate attention and actions of the world’s democracies.

It’s no surprise that the Chinese government seeks to obstruct human rights activists’ participation in UN processes. What is surprising, however, is the UN’s handling of such situations.

According to the courageous whistleblower Emma Reilly the Chinese government regularly submits a list of individuals that it portrays as “security threats” and requests that the UN inform the Chinese Mission in Geneva if any of these individuals are accredited as participants for the upcoming Human Rights Council session.

The UN Human Rights Office has cooperated with China for many years by sharing the names of activists — including Uighurs, Tibetans, Hongkongers and Chinese dissidents — who took part in UN activities, including myself.

In 2013, as an accredited NGO participant at the UN General Assembly, I was forcefully ejected from the UN headquarters while attending a forum challenging China’s membership qualification for the Human Rights Council.

Before speaking as an accredited NGO speaker at the March 2018 UN Human Rights Council session, I was aggressively photographed by Chinese officials.

In March 2019, I was stopped by UN security officials at the Palace of Nations in Geneva for the “reason” that I didn’t hold a passport of any UN member country.

The UN’s actions have endangered not only myself but also my family. Each time I participate in UN activities, my relatives in China are harassed, surveilled, interrogated, and subjected to psychological abuse.

The UN’s kowtowing to China shows how powerful member-states are able to work within the UN system to undermine its ability to enforce compliance with global human rights standards.

The UN should be held accountable for such spineless, cowardly, irresponsible and corrupt practices.

The post Chinese dissident Yang Jianli condemns UNHRC targeting of UN Watch appeared first on UN Watch.

In a 30-page legal complaint filed in New York today with Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the independent non-governmental organization UN Watch charged Eric Tistounet, the chief of the Human Rights Council branch of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, with “systematic harassment, censorship and discrimination.”

Tistounet, a French national, helped negotiate the creation of the council in 2006, has overseen its running ever since, and is considered its institutional memory and central figure.

UN Watch targeted for being critic of UNHRC

Tistounet, 61, is accused of instructing his staff at the UN Human Rights Council to systematically discriminate against UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, an outspoken critic of the council.

Based in Geneva for 18 years, the Canadian-born human rights advocate was the one of the first to call out the supposedly reformed council’s dysfunctionalities, double standards, and dominance by dictatorships, in op-eds published in the International Herald Tribune, the Wall Street Journal, and CNN.

In March 2007, Neuer addressed the council to say that it was “turning Eleanor Roosevelt’s dream into a nightmare.” When the Mexican chairman responded by castigating Neuer, and threatened to strike his speech from the records, video of the exchange went viral on YouTube, and was reported in newspapers worldwide.

More than any other group at the Human Rights Council, UN Watch also routinely brings high profile dissidents to address the council, from China, Cuba, Libya, Russia and elsewhere. Many of the regimes have in turn pressured Tistounet’s office, as China recently did when UN Watch hosted Hong Kong activist Tania Chan.

Tistounet has separately been accused of putting in place a UN policy of handing over to China in advance the names of dissidents registered to speak at the UNHRC.

Tistounet was obsessed with trying to cancel UN Watch speeches, ordered staff to manipulate lists

Increasingly, UN Watch began to be targeted by Tistounet. According to new testimony by UN whistle-blower Emma Reilly — a former UN human rights officer, lawyer and Cambridge University graduate, who worked for Tistounet when she was in charge of overseeing speeches by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — Eric Tistounet “repeatedly instructed me to move UN Watch further down the list for interactive dialogues and panel discussions, such that they would fall below the maximum number of NGO participants and lose the opportunity to speak.”

According to Reilly, Tistounet was determined to preserve his power to remove UN Watch from lists.

When she proposed to publish NGO lists online, to save the activists from making repeated trips to the UN to find out their placement and schedule, he turned it down.

“Mr. Tistounet refused this suggestion, explicitly on the basis that it would prevent him from manipulating the lists. He once again referred only to UN Watch as an NGO that he would move down a list to prevent them from
taking the floor.”

Other methods used by Tistounet to to cancel UN Watch’s speaking slots included his creation of a fictitious requirement that the texts of speeches be submitted in advance, and his orders for staff to suddenly cut off the NGO portion of a debate, just when it was the turn of UN Watch to take the floor, Reilly reveals about her former boss.

Tistounet handed UN Watch speeches in advance to his friend Jean Ziegler, the UNHRC expert who created the Qaddafi Human Rights Prize

In a June 2006 report, UN Watch exposed the role of UNHRC expert Jean Ziegler in co-creating and managing the Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize, an award that was given to dictator Hugo Chavez, antisemite Louis Farrkhan and convicted French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy, in the same year that Ziegler himself won the prize.

Tistounet participated in a panel honoring the controversial Qaddafi supporter, who in turn wrote the preface to one of Tistounet’s novels.

According to Emma Reilly, “Mr. Tistounet extended his targeting of UN Watch to his personal friend Mr. Jean Ziegler, whose UN appointments have often been criticized by UN Watch. Uniquely among mandate holders, Mr. Ziegler would frequently come to the NGO liaison office and request to see lists of speakers to verify whether UN Watch would take the floor.”

“He would also request advance copies of UN Watch speeches, which we were instructed to provide. No other NGO was targeted in this manner, and no other mandate holder was accorded this favor.”

Leaked emails show Tistounet instructed staff to use internet café to anonymously post negative material against UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer

According to disturbing internal emails from the first tranche of those leaked to UN Watch by other concerned UN colleagues of Tistounet, when the latter learned in November 2007 that Hillel Neuer was the victim of a wrongful arrest by U.S. police in a case of mistaken identity, his response, copied to the team of some 50 UNHRC staff, was “You made my day.”

Tistounet wrote to his staff: “Question is: how to put it on youtube without leaving a trace. It would be nice if someone (obviously from outside the UN, and as was suggested recently from an internet café for instance) could place it discreetly next to his videos concerning the Council…” 

Tistounet dreamed of Interpol arrest warrant against Neuer,
told staff to violate rules to comply with it if it came

Tistounet also wrote to his UNHRC staff:

“Forgot to mention: Should the individual below [Hillel Neuer] be subjected to an Interpol arrest warrant (so called ‘red notices’), do not hesitate to let us know. I have the feeling that in this specific circumstance we may ponder about the validity of these Interpol tools in a less dogmatic manner. It may be the case that together with the civil society unit we may forget to raise our usual objection to the Security Unit when they will exclude him from the list of those authorized to enter our premises… Cheers, eric” 

In other words, the chief of staff to the world’s highest human rights body instructed his staff to violate their own UN procedures to comply with any false Interpol arrest warrant that might be filed against Neuer, in order, he hoped, to block his entry to UN premises in Geneva, and thereby prevent him from testifying before the Human Rights Council plenary.

Tistounet personally intercepted UN Watch speeches, drafted unjustified reprimands for chair to read, tampered with the time clock to run out UN Watch’s speaking time

Tistounet personally obtained all UN Watch speeches in advance, so he could draft unjustified reprimands for the chair to read out afterwards.

“Mr. Tistounet had a standing instruction that when a statement was received in advance from UN Watch, it was to be given directly to him either in his office or on the podium, and placed on the desk of his office if he could not be immediately located. This instruction did not exist for any other NGO,” said Reilly.

“On occasion, when a UN Watch speech was received in advance, Mr. Tistounet would request that I draft new language for the President to give a false impression that the speeches broke the rules.”

“He was fully aware that his advice to successive Presidents to reprimand UN
Watch for disobeying rules was false, and that no rule was in fact being broken.”

In addition, when he could get away with it, Tistounet manipulated the clock to remove time from UN Watch.

“When points of order are made during speeches, the NGO liaison and Secretary are responsible for pressing a button on the podium to pause the NGO speaking time. it.”

“Mr. Tistounet issued a standing instruction that the button was not to be pressed during UN Watch speeches, but instead that their speaking time should be deemed to continue during the point of order. This instruction applied only to UN Watch.”

“Mr. Tistounet made clear on a number of occasions that his ultimate aim was to exclude Mr. Neuer and UN Watch more generally from UN premises.”

After Tistounet Manipulated Speakers List of June 2022 Session, UN Watch Registered for 36 Debates, Received 0

In its complaint, UN Watch produced the lists of speakers for the UN’s June 2021 and June 2022 session, to demonstrate how Mr. Tistounet clearly tampered with the results generated by the computerized registration system in order to prevent UN Watch from speaking.

In the 50th session held in June and July of 2022, UN Watch registered promptly for 36 debates with UN experts known as interactive dialogues, yet received zero. Other NGOs based in Geneva that requested far less debates received as many as 10 speaking slots.

Tistounet also allowed several Chinese regime front groups to use the slots denied to UN Watch.

UN Watch Demands Independent Investigation 

UN Watch is demanding that the Secretary General create an independent investigation, and that he immediately suspend Mr. Tistounet from his functions for the duration of the investigation.

“We’re calling for remedial action to ensure that UN Watch may once again exercise its right to speak at the UN Human Rights Council on an equal basis with all other NGOs,” said Neuer.

“There will be resistance from the bureaucracy as well as from dictatorships like China who despise UN Watch, and so we arre calling on all democracies including  the US, UK, Germany, France, Canada and others to publicly express their support by calling on Secretary General Guterres to launch an independent investigation,” Neuer added.

The post Chief of UN Human Rights Council Staff Targeted Watchdog, Leaked Emails Reveal appeared first on UN Watch.

Only 10 NGOs speak under each ID debate. Instead of UN Watch being allowed to speak, the UN human rights secretariat headed by Mr. Eric Tistounet gave the slots to several Chinese  state-sponsored “NGOs.” Following is a selection of their propaganda testimonies before the UNHRC.

“United Nations Association of China”
23/6/22
Item 3: Interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity

“In two weeks time, Hong Kong will be celebrating its 25th anniversary of its handover back to our motherland and is now enjoying a Hong Kong style, capitalist democracy. [then attacks the US]”

“The National Security Law and the new elections system have been seen by those against China as restricting the rights of Hong Kong people, but have in fact safeguarded the rights and interests of its people adn businesses in Hong Kong. Hong Kong has moved from chaos to stability and is now on a new journey towards regaining prosperity and sound governance.”

“Beijing NGO Association for International Exchanges”
23/6/22
Item 3: Interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity

“My name is Rev. and Dr. Edmund Ng, a pastor and a scholar from Hong Kong. From my experience, the freedom of speech in religious and academic areas has maintained under the implementation of One Country, Two System in the past 25 years. After the implementation of the National Security Law, the above-mentioned freedoms have been more fully guaranteed.”

“China Foundation for Poverty Alleviation”
24/6/22
Item 3: Interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human

“China has successfully eradicated extreme poverty at the end of 2020, 10 years ahead of the time, making an example for other developing countries. The practices of poverty reduction in China provide plenty of valuable experiences for developing countries.”

“YouChange China Social Entrepreneur Foundation”
24/6/22
Item 3: Interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human

“In 2021, China got out of extreme poverty. This is a groundbreaking event which shows China’s united faith and strength. Meanwhile, it encourages the global efforts to remove poverty.

The post UNHRC Denies Speaking Slots to UN Watch, Instead Gives to Chinese Regime Front Groups appeared first on UN Watch.

The Complaint

Based on evidence that includes whistleblower testimony and leaked emails, the Complaint documents how Mr. Eric Tistounet, the head of the UN Human Rights Council staff over the past two decades has systematically rigged the system to target UN Watch, an accredited non-governmental human rights group that has been recognized for giving a global platform to dissidents of authoritarian regimes.

Mr. Tistounet tampers with speakers’ lists to prevent UN Watch from speaking at the United Nations, and has engaged in wilful and illegal harassment against its executive director, Hillel Neuer, by instructing his employees to go to internet cafés to anonymously spread false information about him online, and he plotted with his staff on ways to have Mr. Neuer physically detained by UN security in order to block him from entering the Council chamber in Geneva.

Latest Developments: As of July 2023, the UN has refused to act. On the contrary, In the latest Human Rights Council session that concludes on July 14, Mr. Tistounet blocked UN Watch from testifying in debates concerning abuses in Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Venezuela and Russia. In response, more than 100 NGOs and prominent human rights dissidents and former political prisoners — from China, Russia, Cuba, Turkey, North Korea, Libya, Belarus, Venezuela and Zimbabwe — signed a joint appeal urging Secretary-General Guterres to take action, saying they were “gravely concerned by any restrictions on the ability of UN Watch to exercise its legitimate rights to take the floor at the UN Human Rights Council.”

Exhibits in Complaint

Exhibit 1 – Compilation of speakers lists for the 47th session

UN Watch had applied to speak for 31 debates during the 47th session of the Human Rights Council, but astoundingly only received one speaking slot. By contrast, International Service for Human Rights received five slots (out of only eight requested); Amnesty International received six slots (out of 14 requested); and the International Commission of Jurists received eight slots (out of 17 requested). In other words, for these other groups, the ratio of speaking slots received to those requested ranged from 43% to 62%. For UN Watch, it was 3%. The numbers speak for themselves.

Exhibit 2 – Letter from UN Watch to UNHRC President dated July 7, 2021 regarding denial of speaking slots in 47th session.

See explanation for Exhibit 1 above.

Exhibit 3 – UN Ethics Office Memo to Emma Reilly dated October 5, 2020

Raising questions about the independence of the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). This UN Ethics Office Memo determines that OIOS has a conflict of interest vis-à-vis Emma Reilly, who reported a Director in that office for refusing to investigate certain misconduct by UN staff, but instead merely asking staff accused of wrongdoing to state under oath that they are not guilty. As Emma Reilly will be an important supporting witness regarding Eric Tistounet’s instructions and conduct concerning UN Watch for the period 2012-2013, as well as the computer algorithm used to establish lists of speakers, UN Watch considers that this conflict of interest must also apply to the present complaint.

Therefore, UN Watch proposes that the Secretary General and UN Watch mutually agree on the selection of an independent expert or entity to conduct the investigation into this complaint.

Exhibit 4 – Letter reply from Eric Tistounet to UN Watch dated July 26, 2021 regarding 47th session speaker lists

In the letter Eric Tistounet insisted that the list of speakers was “automatically generated by the system, based on the requested priority, time of registration and the number of requests received.” At the same time, he did not contest UN Watch’s assertion that it had registered promptly, and he failed to provide any explanation whatsoever for the disparate treatment of UN Watch.

Exhibit 5 – Compilation of speakers lists for the 50th session.

At the 50th session, UN Watch received even worse treatment. UN Watch applied to speak for all 36 interactive dialogues, but received zero speaking slots. By contrast, in this same 50th Session, NGOs deemed “friendly” by Mr. Tistounet were allowed to speak. The International Commission of Jurists and the International Service for Human Rights each received eight slots, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch each received nine, and CIVICUS received 10. UN Watch received 0.

Exhibit 6 – Letter from UN Watch to High Commissioner for Human Rights dated June 28, 2022 regarding denial of speaking slots in 50th session.

See explanation for Exhibit 5 above.

Exhibit 7 – Emma Reilly Witness Statement

The statement details the impossibility of UN Watch receiving zero speaking slots, by reference to the parameters of the computer algorithm and other lists of speakers for the 50th session that were apparently not subject to illegal tampering by the UN Secretariat. (See Paras 32-37). It also describes the standing instruction to his staff that written statements from UN Watch, uniquely among NGOs, be transmitted directly to him upon receipt.

Exhibit 8 – 50th UNHRC Session speakers lists referred to by Emma Reilly in her witness statement.

Other lists of speakers for the 50th session that were apparently not subject to illegal tampering by the UN Secretariat.

Exhibit 9 – 2013 Email showing that Eric Tistounet attempted to delete UN Watch from a speakers’ list

Contemporaneous email sent by Emma Reilly to Eric Tistounet opposing his instruction to move UN Watch to the end of a list of speakers rather than applying the rules of NGO participation on an equal basis.

Exhibit 10 – UN letter dated November 9, 2021 firing Emma Reilly

Showing that Emma Reilly was dismissed explicitly for her efforts to change the policy put in place by Eric Tistounet whereby ahead of UNHRC sessions, OHCHR regularly handed over to the Chinese government the names of dissidents who were registered to speak in the Council, referred to in the dismissal letter as the “policy of the Secretary-General.” This strongly indicates that her efforts failed and the policy remains in place.

Exhibit 11 – UN Watch letter to UN Secretary General dated July 8, 2020 protesting censorship of UN Watch written statements.

Letter complaint concerning double standard applied by the secretariat to written statements submitted by UN Watch according to which the secretariat routinely and summarily rejects UN Watch written submissions on a range of matters concerning human rights and the United Nations. In 2019-2020, the secretariat forcibly disappeared at least 13 UN Watch submission for unexplained reasons.

Exhibit 12 – Leaked emails showing Eric Tistounet inciting staff to  target UN Watch’s Executive Director Hillel Neuer

Shocking internal email exchange among Eric Tistounet, his colleagues and subordinates at OHCHR, and senior UN officials in New York, dated 6-9 November 2007, demonstrating that the escalating pattern of harassment and incitement to harassment of UN Watch is both deliberate and approved at the highest levels of the Organization.

The email contained the text of a newspaper article describing a case of mistaken identity in which the director of UN Watch was mistaken by staff in a restaurant for a murderer on the loose and very briefly wrongfully detained, on Friday, November 2, 2007. The tone of their email exchanges regarding the report of a wrongful arrest of a human rights activist, who was described to police as “olive-skinned,” was positively gleeful. Eric Tistounet, apparently immediately upon arrival in the office at 9:42 am on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, responded “You made my day.”

Exhibit 13 – OHCHR press release dated February 2, 2017

Official OHCHR press release defaming UN Watch. Neither Eric Tistounet nor any other UN staff member at any point reached out to UN Watch to let us know of the intention to name our organization and accuse us of an “outright lie” in an official communication of OHCHR, which was published online and directly transmitted by email to all independent human rights experts, national human rights institutions, UN staff worldwide, and persons who have at any point signed up for any OHCHR email list. This represents a total of more than 2 million people.

Exhibit 14 – Email from Andrew Gilmour to Eric Tistounet and OHCHR staff dated February 2, 2017

Email from then Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Mr. Andrew Gilmour to Eric Tistounet advising him to modify his use of language in the press release in regard to UN Watch. Mr. Tistounet apparently disregarded the advice. It is also telling that Mr. Gilmour nonetheless recommended a “gloves off” approach to an established NGO that played no role in the scandal itself, but merely commented upon information in the public domain. No other NGO with no prior knowledge of the scandal was so singled out.

The post The Complaint Against Eric Tistounet appeared first on UN Watch.

GENEVA, September 5, 2019 — The UN in Geneva confirmed it is censoring a human rights complaint on China’s mass incarceration of Uighurs that was filed by a cross-regional coalition of more than 100 UN-accredited non-governmental organizations from numerous countries including Brazil, Canada, France, India, Indonesia, Germany, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom and the United States.

United Nations Watch, a Swiss non-governmental organization, filed the joint complaint on June 4th to be circulated as an official UN document, following the standard protocol outlined by the UN human rights council’s guidelines on NGO written submissions.

The letter by 135 NGOs urges UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and High Commissioner for Human Rights Michele Bachelet to condemn China’s escalating abuse of UN rules to censor, interrupt and block references at the world body to its detention of an estimated 1 million Muslim Uighurs.

The joint complaint references an incident in March, widely shared on social media, in which UN Watch director Hillel Neuer took the floor at the UN Human Rights Council to condemn China’s abuses of Uighur Muslims. Neuer was interrupted three times by the Communist regime’s delegates in an attempt to shut down his testimony.

As noted in the complaint, UNHRC President Coly Seck of Senegal urged Neuer to “stick to the agenda item” on racial discrimination, implying that China’s abuses against Muslim Uighurs did not qualify. Later in the debate, however, Seck told China to “prevent disturbing the proceedings of the room the next time.”

When UN Watch submitted the joint complaint by 125 NGOs about the incident, the UNHRC secretariat—in a break from past practice—refused to publish it, together with four other submissions.

“In our 15 years of submitting written statements to the UN for publication, this is the first time I’ve experienced such blatant, heavy-handed and unapologetic censorship,” said Neuer today.

“In 2005 and 2010, the UN asked us to make certain modest edits to written statements, such as replacing the word ‘regime’ with ‘government’, but we’ve never seen anything like this before.” 

“That the UN is now barring the entire publication of major NGO statements while refusing to tell us which word, sentence or even statement is allegedly in breach of a UN rule is simply Kafkaesque. By exercising arbitrary censorship, the UN is also in breach of our right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

Also Censored: Complaint Over UN Handing Names of Dissidents to China

One of the other censored UN Watch submissions urged the UNHRC secretariat to stop its potentially life-threatening practice of providing China with names of human rights dissidents who are accredited to attend UN sessions. Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Block, replying to queries filed by lawmakers, noted that the UN Ethics Office confirmed that a “list of names” of activists registered to attend sessions of the UN Human Rights Council was handed to Chinese authorities by OHCHR. Whistleblower Emma Reilly tried to stop this practice, and was stifled; her case before a UN tribunal has now been stopped after the UN chief removed the judge at the last minute.

UN Refuses to Specify Reasons for Censorship

On July 30th, after UN Watch had asked why its statements were not published, the UN refused to specify which statements or words it found objectionable, instead making only a general remark that submissions must be “relevant to the work of the Human Rights Council” and must not contain “personal attacks against individuals.” The UN failed to specify where the complaint had allegedly violated any UN rule or regulation.

In reaction to this unprecedented censorship, UN Watch filed an appeal with the UN Secretary-General on August 8th, protesting the “alarming” UNHRC action, and noting its selectivity.

The appeal also noted that the HRC Secretariat’s failure to specify specific objections to the submission “infringes on NGO rights and appears to be a form of censorship.”

Yesterday, in a meeting with the President of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, his advisor confirmed that UN Watch’s appeal to UN chief Guterres was rejected. Eric Tistounet, Chief of the Human Rights Council Branch at the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), stated that the UN has the right to “intervene” to prevent written submissions which include “personal attacks,” and that in doing so the UN is “not censoring anybody.” Listen here at 5:38-6:54.

UN Accepts Antisemitic Statements, But Not Criticism of China or UN Officials

Notably, the UN human rights office routinely accepts for publication all manner of statements—including inflammatory and even racist and antisemitic statements—submitted by more than 4,000 UN-accredited NGOs, which it circulates as official documents of Human Rights Council sessions.

UN Watch Reaction

UN Watch is alarmed at China’s growing influence at the UN. Recently, 50 UN member states signed a letter praising China for its human rights record and backing its policies in Xinjiang, where 1 million Uighur Muslims are being detained in camps.

“It’s bad enough that dictatorships like Iran and Venezuela endorse China’s abuses,” said UN Watch director Hillel Neuer. “But when the UN’s own human rights office joins in by censoring speeches and statements about China, and when they put Chinese dissidents and their families at risk by handing over their names to the repressive regime, then we are in a very dangerous place.”

“China’s growing and pernicious influence at the UN is alarming, and it’s time for democracies to push back to defend Chinese dissidents and victims, including Uighur Muslims, and to stand up for the right of civil society to speak out on their behalf.”

The post UN censors 100 rights groups on Chinese abuses, blocks publication of joint appeal appeared first on UN Watch.

Ti-Anna Wang, a Chinese human rights activist brought to testify by UN Watch,
was harassed by Chinese agents in March 2014.

GENEVA, May 24, 2017 – The U.N. human rights office dangerously handed over to China the names of four human rights activists slated to attend a Human Rights Council session, and has a practice of doing so, alleges Geneva-based NGO UN Watch, in a letter of complaint sent today to U.N. human rights chief Zeid Hussein.
The complaint, which cites numerous breaches of the UN Charter and other rules, was filed by UN Watch director Hillel Neuer on the eve of his appearance tomorrow before a U.S. Senate hearing that will assess U.S. policy toward the UNHRC, and the related Office of the High Commissioner.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, copied on the letter, will deliver a closely-watched speech to the council in June, as the administration is considering whether to pull out of the 47-nation body.
UN Watch’s letter comes in response to a February 2, 2017 press release from the U.N. human rights office that defended its apparent policy of providing names of human rights activists to requesting governments, particularly China, who “regularly ask the UN Human Rights Office” whether “particular NGO delegates are attending the forthcoming session.”
Zeid’s office then “confirms” this information. Its release gave a litany of excuses justifying the hand-over of activist names to China’s authoritarian regime.
Neuer questioned the U.N’s use of the word “confirm,” which makes its conduct “appear innocuous” and minimizes the policy’s “potential grave consequences for the human rights defenders.”
U.N. Punished Whistleblower Emma Reilly for Opposing Disclosures to China
Emma Reilly, the NGO liaison for the human rights office when the disclosures began, fiercely opposed the practice, arguing it placed human rights activists at risk and was not sanctioned by existing rules or practices.
The U.N. retaliated against Reilly for speaking out, with “harassment, exclusion and abuse of authority,” according to the Government Accountability Project.
Citing to Reilly’s leaked Ethics Office Memo, UN Watch notes that in China’s case, “the bottom line is that your office did not confirm information already in China’s possession, but it provided China with new information knowing that China intended to use it to harass the human rights activists.”
China Harassed Activist Ti-Anna Wang, Brought by UN Watch
UN Watch is especially concerned about this issue because one of its speakers, Ti-Anna Wang, was threatened by China during the March 2014 Human Rights Council session.
Advance disclosure to governments of the names of dissidents attending a U.N. session endangers the human rights activists. “No political dissidents should be subjected to harassment or intimidation for traveling to Geneva to campaign for human rights at the UN,” wrote Neuer.
UN Watch’s letter cites several provisions of the U.N. Charter and Staff Regulations, the Human Rights Office’s staff rules and the Code of Conduct for International Civil Servants which would be violated by the practice.
The human rights group urged High Commissioner Zeid to uphold the mandate of his office “to promote and protect all human rights,” and to “immediately stop this practice which has the potential to severely harm human rights defenders.”
UN Watch expressed the hope that Ambassador Haley will raise the improper disclosures, and the case of whistleblower Emma Reilly, when she visits the council next month.

The post NGO: U.N. gave China names of rights activists appeared first on UN Watch.

UN Watch protested in a detailed letter that documented’s Ziegler’s despicable record of siding with murderous regimes.

Executive Director Hillel Neuer took the floor in the Council to challenge Ziegler to his face: “I have a question for the panel member who in 1989 co-founded the Mummar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize, and who went to Tripoli, Libya, on Sept. 29, 2002, to himself win that prize.”

“Given that this Council eventually reversed its policy on the Qaddafi regime, and suspended Libya in 2011 for its gross and systematic abuses, do you regret your actions? The Swiss media reported that the prize was worth 100,000 Swiss Francs. Would you consider returning these funds to the Libyan people?” Full speech below

One of the members on the peace-building panel today was UNHRC official Jean Ziegler
seen above receiving the Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize, on Sept. 29, 2002, in a
ceremony in Tripoli, Libya. The award money was estimated to be 100,000 Swiss Francs.

Panel on Peace-building and Human Rights Mainstreaming
Statement by United Nations Watch
Delivered by Mr. Hillel Neuer, 27 February 2017, 34th HRC Session

Thank you, Mr. President.
Peace-building and human rights are indivisible. As the UN Charter makes clear, maintaining peace and security requires preventing the outbreak of violence in the first place.
We believe that UN human rights mechanisms— if they work properly—have a critical role to play. If they work properly, this council can spotlight human rights abuses, scrutinize country records, and ensure accountability. All of this would act as an early warning system.
One of the classic case studies today of a state that desperately needs peacebuilding is Libya. The country has around 1,500 different militia.
The human rights situation is catastrophic. Carjackings and shootings in broad daylight are common. An EU report states that human rights defenders, journalists, and judges are being assassinated. Women won’t approach the police out of fear they could be murdered or raped. The situation is so bad that UNHCR won’t send international staff.
I would like to ask the panel: Could UN mechanisms have played a role to confront the four decades of gross and systematic human rights abuse by the regime of Col. Qaddafi, who used to torture dissidents and rape university students after he would lecture on campus?
Can the UN can draw lessons from how Col. Qaddafi’s regime in 2003 became Chair of this body’s predecessor, and how in 2010 it became a member of this Council?
Are there lessons to be learned from how Col. Qaddafi’s Geneva representative became one of this council’s independent experts, and also the Chair of this Council’s Durban Review Conference on racism?
Finally, I have a question for the panel member who in 1989 co-founded the Mummar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize, and who went to Tripoli, on Sept. 29, 2002, to himself win that prize.
Given that this Council eventually reversed its policy on the Qaddafi regime, and suspended it in 2011 for its gross and systematic abuses, do you regret your actions? The Swiss media reported that the prize was worth 100,000 Swiss Francs. Would you consider returning these funds to the Libyan people?
Thank you.

The post With UN's Jean Ziegler at the dais, Hillel Neuer asks him to return Qaddafi Prize money appeared first on UN Watch.

February 26, 2017

Dear Ambassador Haley,
We are alarmed that as U.N Secretary-General António Guterres tomorrow opens the 2017 session of the Human Rights Council, that body will be honoring its advisory committee member Jean Ziegler—a notorious anti-American ideologue who has accused the U.S. of committing “genocide” in Cuba, supported the terrorist group Hezbollah, and is the co-founder and 2002 recipient of the Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize—as one of its high-level speakers, together with High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and UNDP chief Helen Clark.
Moreover, two weeks later, Mr. Eric Tistounet, Head of the Human Rights Council branch of the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), will be speaking together with Mr. Ziegler at the Geneva screening of a film “Jean Ziegler: Optimism of the Will,” the publicity for which heaps praise upon Ziegler as a great “intellectual.”
We urge you to speak out and condemn the U.N.’s obscene celebration of this apologist for brutal dictators and terrorists—and to try to stop it. The United States gives some $40 million to OHCHR in regular budget and voluntary funds, and yet it seems this office seeks to insult the U.S. by honoring a leading anti-American figure.
Both of these events supported by the U.N. are designed to obscure Mr. Ziegler’s shameful record, which includes:

• In 2006, Mr. Ziegler said, “I refuse to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. It is a national resistance movement.”

• Ziegler has for decades acted as a propagandist for the world’s worst dictators, including Muammar Qaddafi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe, as I documented in a 2008 essay.

• In 1989, shortly after Libyan agents blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, Mr. Ziegler went to Libya to co-found the “Moammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize.” He announced it to the world. All of this is fully documented in our 2006 report, confirmed by the Neue Zurcher Zeitung.

• Under Mr. Ziegler’s supervision, the prize was awarded to anti-Western dictators Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and to antisemites such as Louis Farrakhan and Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Muhammad.

• In 2002, Mr. Ziegler himself received the Qaddafi Prize, together with convicted Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy, whom Ziegler had previously praised as a “leading thinker of our time.

• Astoundingly, when challenged in 2006, Mr. Ziegler completely denied any involvement with the Qaddafi Prize. He blatantly lied on repeated occasions over seven years—until, in 2013, video evidence emerged of Ziegler receiving the prize.

• Ziegler has never accounted for the estimated $100,000 award money—the receipt of which violates U.N. ethics rules, and for which he must be investigated by High Commissioner Zeid, who is copied on this letter.

• In 1986, Mr. Ziegler served as advisor to Ethiopian dictator Colonel Mengistu on a constitution instituting one-party rule.

• In 2002, Mr. Ziegler praised Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe, saying, “Mugabe has history and morality with him.”

• According to Le Monde, Mr. Ziegler paid friendly visits to Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Kim Il-Sung in North Korea.

• Ziegler was a vehement supporter of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, whose regime Mr. Ziegler hailed during an official U.N. visit, while he refused to meet Cuban dissidents.

• Ziegler embraced Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, absurdly saying recently that “he ended hunger”; Venezuelans are now starving. In return, Chavez nominated Ziegler to a U.N. post in 2004. Ziegler has a similar pact with the Maduro regime.

For these reasons and more, Mr. Ziegler has been condemned by leading authorities:

• U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power declared in 2013 that Mr. Ziegler was “unfit” to serve in the UNHRC.

• Seventy members of the U.S. Congress sent a letter to the U.N. in 2005 citing Mr. Ziegler for anti-Semitism, and urging his removal.

• Ziegler was specifically named as an offender by members of the U.S. Congress in Sec. 501(10) of the draft bill entitled United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act of 2011.

• Ziegler was condemned in 2005 by both U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and High Commissioner of Rights Louise Arbour for his remarks comparing Israelis to “concentration camp” guards. His references to Israel were, in Arbour’s words, “evocative of Nazi Germany,” and “inflammatory.”

• When Mr. Ziegler served as UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, World Food Program Executive Director James T. Morris sent urgent letters to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warning that Ziegler had engaged in “profoundly immoral” actions and “inflammatory” politics that endanger the lives of millions of starving people worldwide.

• The Swiss Parliament’s foreign affairs committee opposed Ziegler’s nomination in 2013, saying it was “inappropriate.”

Likewise, Mr. Ziegler has been condemned by numerous civil society groups:

• A group of 45 NGOs condemned Jean Ziegler in 2011 for his role a propagandist for Qaddafi, and called for an investigation.

• In 2006, a coalition of 20 human rights activists condemned Jean Ziegler’s nomination for re-election.

• Ziegler has been condemned repeatedly by leading organizations fighting antisemitism, including the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and B’nai B’rith International.

Ambassador Haley, you have spoken firmly against the U.N.’s abuse of its own founding principles.
Mr. Ziegler’s 17-year career as a U.N. Human Rights Council “expert” has been dedicated to supporting tyrannies and terrorists, and embodies the debased values of a distinct political culture.
Accordingly, we urge you to intervene against the elevation of Mr. Ziegler by the Human Rights Council with the complicity of the Office of the High Commissioner.
Yours truly,
Hillel C. Neuer
Executive Director
 
cc:  U.N Secretary-General António Guterres
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein

The post Letter to Amb. Nikki Haley on U.N. honoring Jean Ziegler, supporter of tyrants & terrorists appeared first on UN Watch.

Ms. Navanethem Pillay
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

cc: Rupert Colville, OHCHR Spokesperson

April 28, 2010  

Dear High Commissioner Pillay,

We wrote you on March 24, 2010, requesting that the UN Human Rights Council website cease hosting an anti-Semitic text (A/HRC/13/NGO/23) that, in a modern adaptation of the medieval blood libel, falsely accuses Israeli doctors of a racist conspiracy to steal Palestinian organs.

We are grateful to have recently received a reply, sent from Chief of Human Rights Council Branch Eric Tistounet. This response, however, rejects UN Watch’s request while ignoring our argument. We urge you to overturn this decision, for the reasons explained below, and to immediately remove all such hateful material from the UN website. We also call on you to speak out against the moral inversion that, in its mere four years of existence, has already become the hallmark of the UN Human Rights Council.

First, we address your office’s reply. It justifies doing nothing about the text submitted by the “International Organization for Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” (EAFORD) — a group created in Libya and closely tied to Col. Kaddafi’s regime — on grounds that the UN purportedly plays no screening role, simply publishing all submissions as received.

That premise is demonstrably untrue.

Mr. Tistounet quotes from the footnote of the UN cover sheet affixed to NGO written statements, which indicates that the latter are “unedited.” This quote, however, is selective, incomplete and misleading.

The same cover sheet indicates at the top that such statements are circulated “in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31.” As your officers well know, Article 31 of that resolution requires them to engage in a process of “appropriate consultation” with the submitting organization, with the latter required to give “due consideration” to any “comments” that your officers may make “before transmitting the statement in final form.”

In other words, contrary to the premise that forms the basis of Mr. Tistounet’s decision, the rules say explicitly that your office does play a screening role.

Not only is this the official procedure, it is also standard practice. As already stated in our complaint, your office carefully screens all NGO submissions before deciding whether or not to publish them. Following are three examples.

UN Watch recently submitted a written statement — indeed to the very same March 2010 UNHRC session in which the organ-stealing blood libel was readily circulated — and your office refused to publish it as received. We were told to remove the word “regimes” where we had referred to the regimes ruling Burma, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Second, we were then informed that our reference to “Burma” was not allowed — only the military junta’s adopted name of “Myanmar.”

The third example concerns a 2005 submission, in which UN Watch submitted a written statement to the now-defunct Sub-Commission on Human Rights. It featured excerpts from an article I had published in The New Republic. Our statement questioned the propriety of such serial human rights violators as Cuba, Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia sitting on the UN Commission on Human Rights, and noted that “Havana, Harare, and the House of Saud” controlled the committee that ruled on victim petitions.

It further pointed out that Ms. Halima Warzazi, then head of the Sub-Commission — and today chair of the UNHRC Advisory Committee — was personally responsible for shielding Saddam Hussein from UN censure after Iraq’s 1988 genocidal gassing of Kurds in Halabja.

All of this was unacceptable to your office, which duly informed UN Watch that “when referring to certain States, Heads of States, or even certain members of the Sub-Commission, the language used was not entirely in accordance with accepted United Nations standards.” NGO submissions, we were told, had to be “imbued with the appropriate level of dignity and respect.” Until we made the required changes, your office informed us, processing of our statement was “suspended.”

Therefore, it is clear that not only does your office screen and, when so inclined, suspend NGO submissions, but its editorial policy appears, from a moral perspective, to be upside down: Pro-democracy statements that expose the serial human rights violators who sit in judgment on others at the UNHRC are rejected as being “not entirely in accordance with accepted United Nations standards” and not “imbued with the appropriate level of dignity and respect”; whereas hateful statements, which demonize Israelis as Nazi-like perpetrators of “ethnic cleansing” and “pogroms against Palestinians,” and accuse “Israeli physicians, medical centers, rabbis and the Israeli Army” of a conspiracy to steal organs of “dead, kidnapped and killed Palestinians,” are approved, and, by necessary implication, deemed to be entirely in accordance with “accepted United Nations standards.”

Madame High Commissioner, how can this be the policy of the foremost intergovernmental agency charged with promoting human rights?

Worse, as I am sure you will agree, this is not the first anti-Semitic statement by EAFORD to be published, distributed and web-hosted under the imprimatur of the UN Human Rights Council, which has been on notice for some time about the hate emanating from this group. 

In September 2008, your office reviewed, approved and circulated an EAFORD written statement (A/HRC/9/NGO/1) calling Israel an “illegal state” — an even harsher term than “regime.” Far worse, however, this text, in the guise of a rhetorical question, went on to accuse “Jews everywhere” of having “forgotten the terrors of the Holocaust to such an extent as to allow Israel to pursue and inflict one on the Palestinian people.”

After it was published, UN Watch immediately requested and obtained a private audience with then UNHRC President Martin Uhomoibhi. We explained that accusing “Jews everywhere” of complicity in a Nazi-like genocide amounts to the depiction of an entire people as absolute evil, which is anti-Semitism by any definition.

Indeed, as the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism recently testified before a committee of the U.S. Congress, “Criticism of Israel crosses the line to anti-Semitism when, for example, that criticism applies double standards, comparing a current policy of Israel to that of the Nazis, or holds all Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel, or denies that Israel has a right to exist… At the UN, anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment often overlap.”

Sadly, however, this text accusing “Jews everywhere” of absolute evil remains published on your office website to this day (see second statement listed here), in contravention of the UN’s own anti-racism principles, as found in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Beyond these particular hateful statements, however, let us acknowledge the context in which this betrayal of founding UN values is allowed to occur, a broader culture of moral inversion that extends deeper, into the very essence of the UNHRC’s work:

• Since it was created in 2006, the council has issued 40 condemnations of countries — with 33 of them targeting democratic Israel. As a result, the world’s true abusers of human rights, including the most serious perpetrators, continue to go ignored.

• Out of the council’s nine emergency sessions that criticized countries, six have been against Israel. Recent and well-publicized killings of innocents — in Iran, China, Nigeria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Zimbabwe — have gone completely ignored.

• The council’s agenda, which governs every session, features a permanent item targeting Israel. No other country in the world is singled out in this fashion. The council’s anti-Israel resolutions, the one-sided Goldstone Report, the hateful statements by EAFORD — all of these appear under the rubric of this biased agenda item, which has come to symbolize the council’s systematic discrimination against Israel.

Madame High Commissioner, if the equality provisions of the UN Charter are to have any meaning, this bias — casting a shadow upon the reputation of the UN as a whole — must end.

In his historic 2004 speech, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan acknowledged that “the United Nations’ record on anti-Semitism has at times fallen short of our ideals,” and in this context specifically cited the 1975 resolution equating Zionism with Racism as “an especially unfortunate decision.”

Secretary-General Annan pledged that “the human rights machinery of the United Nations has been mobilized in the battle against anti-Semitism.”

Madame High Commissioner, as the head of this human rights machinery, can you please tell us: Where is this mobilization, and where is this battle?

Secretary-General Annan specifically called on your office — whose resources include 982 employees and a budget in this biennium increasing from $312.7 million to $407.4 million — to “actively explore ways of combating anti-Semitism more effectively in the future.” He called on all parts of the Secretariat to be vigilant.

Madame High Commissioner, where is this vigilance?

Secretary-General Annan concluded his call to action by proclaiming that “Jews everywhere must feel that the United Nations is their home, too.”

Yet Madame High Commissioner, how can this be possible so long as your website continues to host a statement that, to a worldwide audience, declares “Jews everywhere” to be evil?

In conclusion, therefore, we urge you to overturn the rejection of our request, and to immediately remove these anti-Semitic texts from your website.

More broadly, we urge you to use your global podium to speak out — regularly and forcefully — against all manifestations at the UNHRC of demonization, disproportionality and double standards, which violate the noble principles upon which the United Nations was founded.

UN Watch is situated directly across from the UNHRC headquarters, and I stand ready to meet with you at any time to explore ways of achieving corrective action on these urgent matters.

Sincerely,

Hillel C. Neuer
Executive Director

The post Appeal to UN High Commissioner of Human Rights Navi Pillay on myth of Palestinian organ stealing appeared first on UN Watch.