Volker Türk: Are we sleepwalking into a dystopian future?

0:00This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. If journalism is the first draft of history, what happens if that draft is flawed? In 1999, four Russian apartment buildings were bombed, hundreds killed. But even now, we still don't know for sure who did it. It's a mystery that sparked chilling theories. I'm Helena Merriman, and in a new BBC series, I'm talking to the reporters who first covered this story? What did they miss the first time? The History Bureau, Putin and the apartment bombs. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts. I am Nina Khrushcheva, the great granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev, the leader of the Soviet Union in 1962.

0:47And I'm Max Kennedy, the nephew of US President John F. Kennedy. We explore what was a terrifying moment in history. The story of the Cuban Missile crisis. How close the world came to nuclear war. And what they had to do to pull it back from the brink. The bomb, Kennedy and Khrushchev. All episodes available now, wherever you get your BBC podcasts.

1:13Welcome to Hard Talk from the BBC World Service with me, Stephen Sackett. My guest today has spent most of his working life inside the human rights and humanitarian assistance machinery of the United Nations. Volker Turk has worked in the field in the Balkans, the Middle East and Africa to ease the human impacts of conflict. Now he's based in Geneva as the UN Commissioner for Human Rights. As a worldwide advocate for human rights, humanitarianism and mechanisms of international justice, he could be forgiven for feeling somewhat beleaguered. War is having devastating impacts on basic rights in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

1:56Horrifying accounts of abuses and allegations of systemic violations of international humanitarian law make headlines around the world. But what does the international community, embodied in the United Nations, do in response? All too often it's constrained by geopolitical division, a lack of collective will and a lack of money. And with Donald Trump back at the helm of the world's richest, most powerful nation, it seems those who prioritise multilateralism, international law and universal rights are swimming against a powerful tide. What prospect is there of turning it back in their favour? Well, Volker Turk joins me now on the line from Geneva.

2:41Welcome to Hard Talk. Very happy to be here. It's good to have you with us, Mr Turk. Let me begin with something you said very recently which struck me. You said we cannot allow the fundamental global consensus around international norms and institutions to crumble before our eyes. That is precisely what is happening, isn't it? Well, look at the wars today. We have 59 countries in conflict. We see that the conduct of warfare is not respected because there are actually international rules about it. We see that even within societies inequalities grow and fundamentally what is behind it is human rights.

3:24So we need to make sure that the edifice that was built after the Second World War is preserved, strengthened and revitalized at this point in time. Yes, but what I'm getting to is your point that it may be crumbling before our eyes. I wonder if you are prepared to be candid with me and say that for various geopolitical reasons, which we may well get into, that is what is happening. The consensus is disappearing. So look at the wars of today. Look at Ukraine. Look at what's happening in Gaza. Look at what's happening in Sudan. We see incredible negative impact on civilians. We see how infrastructure gets destroyed.

4:05Look at the energy infrastructure in Ukraine. Look at how Gaza looks like today. Look at what's happening in Sudan with sexual violence being a tactic of warfare, which means that if these rules are not respected anymore, we know that future wars will look even more devastating than they look today. So we need an all-out effort as screaming that this type of things are not acceptable in today's world. And what we see instead is appeasement. Isn't the problem that you can say things like that to me in a television interview, but frankly, your influence over events is minimal. And that goes not just for you as a person, as a senior UN official, but for the entire UN machinery.

4:53You just are powerless to stop the crumbling of this international consensus over adherence to international law and international norms? Well, we actually do have some teeth. We have, for example, the Human Rights Council, which is an intergovernmental body. We have the International Criminal Justice System. We have universal jurisdiction. So we actually, by documenting, monitoring and reporting around human rights violations all around the world, we are actually able to tell the world what is happening. And at some stage, we also know that justice can come in. And we have seen this in so many situations around the world.

5:32Well, I think what you've just characterized to me as machinery with teeth looks to most people like nothing more than a fig leaf. I mean, you talk about the Human Rights Council, which is in session right now, 47 members, most of which, it has to be said, are not free and fair democracies. Very far from it are defined by many independent think tanks as being unfree countries themselves. And they sit and they make reports on human rights crises around the world. And frankly, those reports get shelved and make no difference whatsoever. Well, we have at least 10 fact-finding missions, including on the recent situation in Sudan.

6:13I can tell you, whenever it comes to making sure that the reports come out, everyone is scrambling that indeed that truth is hidden. So what we do is we put a spotlight on these situations. And at the end of the day, the majority counts. And in the Human Rights Council, we still get most human rights situations being discussed in the way that they should. So actually, no, I have to say, we're still the hope for victims around the world to tell the truth. The most powerful economic, diplomatic, military nation in the world, the United States, has just abandoned the Human Rights Council. Yes, they decided to withdraw.

6:53Actually, they didn't even put themselves forward to be re-elected already last year. Now they decided to withdraw entirely, which I regret because the US played a very important role in the Human Rights Council, and I hope they will reconsider that decision. Sure, but I mean, it tells us something, doesn't it? I mean, hugely important nations like the United States have walked away, and indeed, perhaps at the other end of the scale, a small nation like Nicaragua, having seen a highly critical report come out from the Human Rights Council about its own repressive practices back home in Nicaragua.

7:23The government there has pulled out of the council too. In essence, from both small to large, nations are not taking this international multilateral human rights machinery seriously. Well, I can give you examples where it is taken seriously. I'll give you the example of Bangladesh last year. During July, August, you know, there were massive demonstrations of students. They had enough of the previous government under Sheikh Hasina. There was massive repression happening. The big hope for them was actually our voice, was my voice, was also what we were able to do. And we put the spotlight on the situation.

8:01And we actually gave the warning to the army that if they get involved, it means that they may not be able to be a troop-contributing country anymore. As a result, we saw changes. When Mohammed Yunus took over as the new chief advisor of the interim administration, he asked me immediately, can you send us a fact-finding mission to put the spotlight on the situation and to investigate what was happening, which is what we did. And it actually helped. I was in Bangladesh last year. The students were so grateful for us taking a stand and for us speaking out and for supporting them. Well, I think it's important to reflect on positive developments.

8:39So I thank you for that. But let us go back to what you began with, which was the multiplicity of wars and conflicts in the world today and the degree to which they are the most direct fundamental threat to human rights, both in Eastern Europe, in the Middle East and in Africa too. Would you say it is clear from your work on these conflicts that more than ever before, those involved in the conflicts are targeting civilians by design? I think they don't care about the impact that war has on civilians. I think that the price of war has become much cheaper. I think that's what's been happening. And we don't even have international leadership and political leadership anymore that says, well, if you wage war, if you violate the rules of war, there is a price to pay.

9:30And that price has to be much higher than what we have today. In the past, I remember when Iraq invaded Kuwait, for example, there was a compensation commission that was founded under the UN where each and everyone who had a loss of whatever could actually, a damage that incurred because of the invasion, could come and claim it. Today, we don't talk about this anymore. And we should. We should actually put the responsibility of those who wage war up front as a priority to address. And that requires political leadership. You've highlighted Sudan as perhaps the greatest humanitarian conflict where human rights abuses are most egregious in the world and most widespread, with more than 8 million people displaced, at least 2, 2.5 million facing the direct threat of starvation.

10:16Now, you and the UN have called for an arms embargo to both key protagonists in the internal conflict. That has been completely ignored. You've asked for an independent and impartial force with a mandate to safeguard civilians to be deployed. I mean, not you personally, but your associates at the UN. That has been completely ignored. At what point do you undermine your own credibility by making demands and interventions which are totally ignored? Look, at the same time, we are in touch with human rights defenders that still continue their work inside Sudan. We are in touch with the victims and the survivors in the neighboring countries.

10:56You cannot even imagine how grateful they are that they can tell their story, that they can tell us what happened to them, because otherwise they would not have a voice. And these voices would not be coming out. And that's incredibly important in the current environment, because you never know. At some stage, things can change, as we saw in Syria, as we saw in Lebanon. Things can change for the better. And we need to to be prepared for the day after, because the day after will come. In all these wars, whenever it comes to autocracies, and we need to be prepared for it. And there human rights comes in, because we are the ones who are with the grassroots organizations, with the human rights defenders.

11:33And we can also then pave the way for peace and conflict resolution, transitional justice, and so forth. And I think that's incredibly important. And we know this from the victims themselves and from the survivors. Yes, I mean, I use the word platitude in my introduction to describe sometimes the rhetoric that comes with human rights defenders and, you know, the notion of universal rights that must be respected. Frankly, you know, very few people would disagree with the concept, but there is a danger, isn't there, of you issuing platitudes. For example, you know, you talked recently in the context of Ukraine of the need for a tireless search for peace being what the world needs most.

12:15Who could disagree with that? But Donald Trump talks about peace. Vladimir Putin talks about peace. It all depends what kind of peace one is specifically talking about. And if you don't go into that, then surely the rhetoric is meaningless. But, you know, we have been, my office has been present in Ukraine, for example, since 2014. We have documented each and every incident that we could, where we would have access to. We We documented what life means under the Russian occupation. We document what it means when you bombard energy infrastructure. So for us, the fact that we are there, the fact that we are reporting and monitoring, reporting and documenting is incredibly useful in any peace negotiations.

12:56And by the way, that's exactly what happened in the past. Whenever peace negotiations included the human rights voice, included the people that are directly affected, included the women's group and the youth groups, you will see much more sustainable peace. And that's what I think is the biggest issue that, as we speak now in Ukraine, you need to involve the people of Ukraine. You need to make sure that they're part of the peace process because they know what they're going through at the moment. As arguably the world's most prominent human rights defender, what do you make of Donald Trump's approach, which is, in essence, accusing Ukraine, it seems, of starting the war and applying all of his diplomatic pressure, as far as one can see, to Ukraine, for Ukraine to make concessions and applying no visible diplomatic pressure whatsoever on Vladimir Putin.

13:42What do you make of that approach? I mean, I was in Kiev. It was one of my first missions when I took over as High Commissioner. I had to go into a bunker because there were aerial bombardments. I was there with human rights defenders, with civil society groups. I spoke to people. For them, the fact that they went into a bunker became the new normal. I was shocked that this would become the new normal for them. And I have to say, when I look at what's happening now in this geopolitical environment, I really hope that we go back to the essence not only of what people feel themselves and what they have gone through, but also what this international order means today.

14:21And that international order means that territorial integrity is a sacrosanct principle. The fact that you should not invade another country is a sacrosanct principle. And I hope that there will be very strong reactions when it comes to the defense of these principles, both in the interstate relationship, but in particular when it comes to highlighting the plight of people who are affected by war. And that's exactly the voice that we need to bring into this current geopolitical environment. Perhaps your most pointed personal interventions over the past couple of years have been in the Israel-Gaza conflict.

14:54conflict in March 2024, that is what, six months into Israel's overwhelming military response to Hamas's attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, you said the extent of Israel's continued restrictions on the entry of aid into Gaza, together with the manner in which it continues to conduct hostilities, may amount to the use of starvation as a method of war, which is a war crime. You, in essence, were using your office, your position, to accuse Israel of a war crime. Was that a wise thing to do? I'm duty-bound to report on the things that my colleagues and that we see in front of our eyes. And it was a, you know, denial of humanitarian existence was a massive problem.

15:40We talked about collective punishment of the people in Gaza before the 7th of October. Unfortunately, with the denial of humanitarian assistance, with all the consequences that this has, including on hunger and famine, means that, yes, we have to ring the alarm bells. We need to say what is happening because otherwise people, even more people would have starved to death. And that is incredibly important because we need to ring the alarm bells when it comes to it. So how loud is the alarm bell you are ringing today then? Because as we sit here talking to each other, Benjamin Netanyahu and his government have again cut off all humanitarian assistance getting into Gaza on the basis that they want a redefinition of the ceasefire deal to ensure that all hostages come out before the agreed Israeli withdrawal of troops from Gaza.

16:33These are two separate things. All hostages should have been unconditionally released right from the start. That wasn't the deal that Hamas and Israel did, was it? That wasn't the deal. That was a two-phase deal. Right now, how loud are your alarm bells ringing? The same as in March, because as you know, we saw a lot of humanitarian aid coming in, and it was already extremely important that this happened in the first phase. And it went from, if you like, from minus five to zero. If it goes back down to minus two or minus three, it is catastrophic. And I rang the alarm bells during my update yesterday in my global update to the Human Rights Council.

17:21So we did speak about it. And all my friends from the humanitarian community did the same because we are very worried about what's happening. And I would like to say one thing. It's not just in relation to Israel that I have been ringing the alarm bells. It's in relation to a lot of other situations as well, such as Haiti, Myanmar, Sudan, and Ukraine, and many other, DRC. So I just want to clarify that as well. I just want to be clear about your view of whether the system is still viable, the system which has organizations such as the Human Rights Council and indeed your own office write reports, which then may or may not lead to interventions from the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice.

18:04Now, in both those courts, whether it be the individuals, Netanyahu and Yoav Galant, the Israeli Defendants Minister, or Israel as a nation, they are currently under investigation by both courts. The Israelis say that delegitimizes the courts. Indeed, they accuse the courts of acting with anti-Semitic motive, according to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Do you still believe that the ICC and the ICJ have international credibility? The International Criminal Court is one of the achievements of the international criminal justice system. And we really need to honour that. I mean, they have been building on the International Criminal Court for Afro-Migoslavia, where over 90 people were actually indicted and prosecuted.

18:53The same on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, where about, if I remember correctly, 70 people were indicted and prosecuted. But to come back to a recurrent theme in this interview, Donald Trump has signed an executive order putting sanctions on the international criminal court, accusing it of, quote, illegitimate and baseless actions targeting the US and Israel. Again, it just seems to me that when you've got the most powerful country in the world doing things as it's doing them today, your hopes, your optimism that the multilateral international machinery can still function may well be misplaced.

19:30No, look, it's a drawback what happened with the sanctions. By the way, the Russian Federation did the same in relation to a number of the judges a couple of, I think it was two years ago. So we see, yes, big power game in relation to international institutions. And I am very worried that we see now a trend that international institutions themselves got to get attacked in this way just because they're doing their job. So that is a problem. And everyone should wake up to it. And I'm glad that at least 70 states, I understand, were very clear about their opposition to the executive order that sanctioned the prosecutor, which is unacceptable from the perspective of making sure that these institutions function.

20:16We've talked plenty about Donald Trump. There's just one more decision taken by the Trump administration that I want you to reflect upon. Because again, for you, human rights comes down to the most basic rights, rights to be free from poverty, to be able to have access to basic clean water, basic education. USAID was one of those international agencies that best delivered, with the most resources, access for the poorest and most disadvantaged to some of those basic rights. They're gone now. Donald Trump has effectively wound up USAID. What's that going to do to international human rights? I mean, you know, it means, for example, in Afghanistan, that 9 million people will not be able to have access to basic services.

21:05It means that in many developing countries, many humanitarian operations will suffer enormously. So, of course, it will have real-time effect on the most vulnerable people on earth. What happened in the past is that we had generosity and compassion of the American people, and it was a bipartisan issue that they would support the soft power of the United States when it comes to providing humanitarian aid to the most vulnerable people around the world, or development cooperation. And I really hope that that decision is going to be reconsidered, because USAID and foreign assistance played an incredibly important role in the world.

21:43Here are the telling words of a UN colleague of yours, Tom Fletcher, relatively recently appointed as Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs. He said just hours ago, he said, a tough reality for humanitarians is that we need to make a calculated retreat. He was talking in the context of what's happened to USAID and indeed the UK pulling back on some of its commitment to overseas aid. Do you, with your human rights work, feel that you're going to have to make a calculated retreat too? Look, the law is very clear and we shouldn't forget how it emerged. It emerged after two world wars, cataclysmic events, Great Depression, Holocaust, atrocity crimes, and it created a legal framework for states that states themselves have assumed to be respected when it comes to interactions among themselves, state and individuals and the environment and the climate.

22:45And yes, that law is extremely valuable and needs to be not only maintained but strengthened. And it's actually the future and it's the present and the future, I should say. and I don't think there is much to compromise about the law because that law is accepted by states themselves including by the United States of America. Well what it seems to be the case is that raw power now counts more than international law. I just wonder despite the positivity you've tried to project to me have you ever felt more depressed more bleak about the way the world works? I look we see the judiciary working in many countries around the world including in the US.

23:25We see it working in Europe when governments go beyond what they should be doing. And I have the conviction that even among populations, when they vote for people, they don't vote for cruelty. They vote for something that is still built on fundamental human connections and values and principles. What we need to do is to communicate better about it. We need to show that what people have in terms of grievances is about their rights. It's about education. It's about housing. It's about health. It's about how they interact with each other. And that's going to be the big challenge for us. Volker Turk, we have to end there.

24:07But thanks very much for joining me from Geneva. Thank you. If journalism is the first draft of history, what happens if that draft is flawed? In 1999, four Russian apartment buildings were bombed, hundreds killed. But even now, we still don't know for sure who did it. It's a mystery that sparked chilling theories. I'm Helena Merriman, and in a new BBC series, I'm talking to the reporters who first covered this story. What did they miss the first time? The History Bureau, Putin and the apartment bombs. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts. I am Nina Khrushcheva, the great-granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev, the leader of the Soviet Union in 1962.

24:54And I'm Max Kennedy, the nephew of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. We explore what was a terrifying moment in history. The story of the Cuban Missile Crisis. How close the world came to nuclear war. And what they had to do to pull it back from the brink. The bomb, Kennedy and Khrushchev. All episodes available now, wherever you get your BBC podcasts.