Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
A mural in the United Nations Security Council Chamber
A mural in the United Nations security council chamber symbolising the efforts of the UN to achieve peace, equality and freedom. Photograph: UN Photo
A mural in the United Nations security council chamber symbolising the efforts of the UN to achieve peace, equality and freedom. Photograph: UN Photo

'What does the UN stand for?': anger follows memo on anti-racism protests

This article is more than 3 years old

Secretary general has clarified staff are ‘not banned’ from demonstrations after previous guidance warned support for action on George Floyd killing risked reputational damage

The UN’s secretary general, António Guterres, sought to defuse a row over guidance to staff suggesting they should not participate in protests triggered by the police killing of George Floyd. He clarified that staff were “not banned” from joining anti-racism demonstrations, as long as it was in an “entirely private capacity”.

In a letter to staff that followed public pushback from the UN’s own special rapporteur on freedom of assembly, Guterres insisted that a memo from its ethics board did not mean that staff were required to “remain neutral or impartial in the face of racism”.

“The position of the United Nations on racism is crystal clear: this scourge violates the charter and debases our core values,” Guterres wrote to staff.

“Every day, in our work across the world, we strive to do our part to promote inclusion, justice, dignity and combat racism in all its manifestations.”

The letter follows guidance, issued late last week, which caused concern inside the UN secretariat after employees were told that as “international civil servants” they should not participate in public demonstrations.

“Participation in public demonstrations in the current circumstances may not be consistent with the independence and impartiality required of us as international civil servants,” said the memo, first reported in Foreign Policy, which was endorsed by Guterres and also cited health concerns during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

“In New York City or other locations in which curfews have been imposed, staff members must observe such curfews and similar public orders,” it instructed.

“Insofar as some of the protests have given rise to violence and property damage, the risk that a United Nations staff member could be swept up in an uncontrolled demonstration, including facing arrest or detention, could bring substantial disrepute to the organisation.”

Among those who went public criticising the memo was the special rapporteur on freedom of assembly, Clément Voule who posted a highly critical statement on his office’s website.

However, in a new communication sent personally to staff, Guterres insisted that the ethics panel circular should not be read as a ban.

“To the contrary, there is no ban on personal expressions of solidarity or acts of peaceful civic engagement, provided they are carried out in an entirely private capacity.”

He added that the recent guidance by the ethics panel “was meant to emphasise the need to balance such activities with one’s best judgment as international civil servants and our official duties”.

While Guterres himself has been outspoken about Floyd’s murder and the wider issue of racism, some UN personnel felt uncomfortable about the initial guidance.

Citing the example of the NFL’s recent U-turn on protest in support of Black Lives Matter, Voule said: “I encourage the UN to allow their staff to publicly join this important and historical movement to end institutional and other forms of racism and violence.

“To allow their staff to exercise their right to peaceful protest like thousands of others fighting for justice, dignity and equality. Beyond the events which have unfolded in the United States, this is a movement of global proportions taking on global issues.

“Like the NFL the UN should realise it time to change.”

“After two years, as UN special rapporteur,” wrote Voule, a Togolese lawyer, “I thought I had seen it all.

“Yesterday, I was informed that the United Nations Secretariat has in effect banned their staff from taking part in the peaceful protests for Black Lives Matter, following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

“The United Nations sent a circular to UN Staff notifying them that given their obligations under the staff regulations ‘participation in public demonstrations in the current circumstances may not be consistent with the independence and impartiality required of (them) as international civil servants’.

“According to the UN, staff should not take part in these peaceful protests because ‘international civil servants do not have the freedom of private persons to take sides or to express their convictions publicly on controversial matters, either individually or as members of a group’.

Voule had been echoed by his predecessor, Maina Kiai, who condemned the move as a grotesque and dangerous distortion, saying that the UN is conflating the right to protest and racial equality with political partisanship.

THREAD 1/ I’m hearing that @UN is telling staff that participation in protests “in the current circumstances may not be consistent with the independence and impartiality required of us as international civil servants.”

What exactly does the @UN stand for then? #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/w7B2mYTakF

— Maina Kiai (@Maina_Kiai) June 5, 2020

“I’m hearing that @UN is telling staff that participation in protests ‘in the current circumstances may not be consistent with the independence and impartiality required of us as international civil servants’. This is a grotesque & dangerous distortion. If you take the approach to its logical end, any human rights issue could be off limits because it annoys states or their politicians,” said Kiai on Twitter.

The UN staff union acknowledged that staff need to abide by the principle of the UN charter – which places limits on public protest – but said it needed to be more flexible.

“Around the world, people have poured out into the streets to express their solidarity, reaffirming the fundamental right to life and rejecting senseless violence. Many of us are moved by the desire to take action,” the union said in a statement.

“We trust your good judgment in finding the right balance, in avoiding negative comments and in keeping your statements and posts forward-looking and constructive.”

Reuters contributed to this report.

Most viewed

Most viewed