In her final days as the UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay has neither slowed down nor shied away from controversy.
In mid-July, Pillay, 72, a South African, released a report setting out the right to privacy under international law and how this right had been violated by the “dangerous habit” of mass surveillance among intelligence agencies.
Days later, at the UN Human Rights Council, Pillay called on Israel and on Hamas, the Islamist faction that dominates the Gaza Strip, to account for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity through indiscriminate attacks on civilians. She criticized Israel’s blockade of Gaza and told world powers that they need to do “far more than they have done” to end the cycle of violence.
As members of her staff dig through the resulting avalanche of hate mail from both those who support Israel and those who side with the Palestinians, Pillay is preparing to meet members of the UN Security Council next week to discuss conflict prevention. Her tenure will end next Sunday after six years, the longest term that anyone has served in the job since it was created 20 years ago.
Born into apartheid and raised as the daughter of a Tamil bus driver, Pillay rose to become the first nonwhite woman to open a law practice in South Africa and the first to be appointed as a judge in the nation’s high court.
“I leave office with a sense of pride,” Pillay said in an interview last month in her lakeside Geneva office. In promoting human rights, she said, “I have pushed my mandate to the limit.”
As evidence of the growing influence and authority of her office, foreign policy analysts noted that Pillay had briefed the Security Council more often in her six years in the job than all six previous high commissioners combined.
However, Pillay said she felt a “touch of despair” that the world had gone backward on human rights, citing the drawn-out conflicts in Syria and other regions and the failure of the international community to end them.
“I, and my predecessors and successors as high commissioner for human rights, can only offer the facts, the law and common sense, however much we are criticized for it,” Pillay told the Human Rights Council last month.
Human rights activists give her high marks for speaking up early and vigorously on Syria as well as on a string of crises in the Middle East, Africa and, most recently, Ukraine.
STRONG RECORD
Reports from commissions of inquiry, which Pillay set up to document atrocities in Syria and North Korea, are seen by many diplomats as authoritative, groundbreaking documents that provide a solid basis for eventually bringing those responsible to justice.
“Her record overall is a very strong one,” Human Rights Watch advocacy director Peggy Hicks said in an interview from New York. “She has spoken out forcefully and effectively. She has been a powerful presence pushing for the world and the UN system to do more on those issues.”
Some of her predecessors showed more deference to governments, said Michael Ignatieff, a professor specializing in government and human rights at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and a former member of the Canadian Parliament. Pillay has shown no such inhibitions.
“Now, in 2014, we have an office that is often robustly critical,” Ignatieff said in a telephone interview. “It didn’t begin with her, but it’s been accelerated by her. This is an important development, and she should be praised for that.”
In the process, Pillay has attracted heavy criticism, most publicly and ferociously by governments whose actions, she insisted, warranted independent international investigation, particularly Israel, Sri Lanka and Syria.
Her statements invariably brought ambassadors to her office to vent their capitals’ anger or disappointment, she said.
Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar al-Jaafari called her a “lunatic,” and the country’s state-run media denounced her as a “Tamil tigress,” implying racial bias and sympathy for separatist Tamil Tiger rebels.
Israeli Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Eviatar Manor told Pillay last month that she, like the Human Rights Council, had “failed dismally” in protecting the human rights of Israelis.
The pressure never worked, because “I feel strength in the fact it is a mandate created by all members of the UN because they felt the need to have an independent voice,” Pillay said.
Still, there has been a price. In the job, she has visited 50 or 60 countries — she has lost count — but some prominent locations never made it onto her itinerary.
China invited her to visit, but could never find a suitable date.
“I should think it’s because they see me as someone who speaks out for victims,” Pillay said.
PRICE TO PAY
The US never invited her, despite her asking to visit several times in hopes of taking up “the many issues that trouble us,” specifically drone strikes and targeted killings, she said.
“That does not show the US in a good light,” Pillay said.
To preserve its authority in the world, she said, the US cannot exempt itself, or its allies, from the standards it invokes to chastise other countries.
Such bluntness appears to have cost Pillay in other ways. She acknowledges the American backing that she received for some of the causes she pursued in the Human Rights Council. However, in 2012, when her first, four-year term as commissioner ended, she did not receive a full second term. Diplomats cited by the news media at the time said that US displeasure with her criticism of Israel had been a factor in that decision.
Human rights commissioners are appointed by the UN secretary-general, subject to approval by the General Assembly, but major powers have a decisive say. Pillay was offered, and accepted, two more years in the job, faring better than any of her predecessors, none of whom received an extension. Yet the half-measure was “not accidental,” she said.
Pillay said she had been told that certain countries did not want a high commissioner who was too independent. Other governments viewed the work of her office with suspicion. Some feared that she was pushing for broader democratic rights, and others challenged her support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender causes. They all argued that she should avoid creating new rights.
“That came up again and again,” she said.
What troubled Pillay most was the failure of the UN and its member states to allocate the funding for her office to keep up with the workload created by ever-growing demands, she said.
From a handful of staff members in New York 20 years ago, the human rights division has grown into an operation that maintains a presence in 58 countries, she said, yet it receives less than 3 percent of the UN’s budget.
“No organization can work like that,” she said.
Her agency’s field offices, which monitor events, train officials and help draft laws or constitutions, are “where we translate the rhetoric of human rights into action,” Pillay said.
As an example, she said that Egypt, after an international outcry over recent rulings in its courts, had requested training for its judges. However, her office is so strapped for cash that she has been unable to answer 20 government requests for assistance, she said.
“That’s my biggest disappointment and fear for this office — that lack of resources will cripple the work,” Pillay said.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations