by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
UN GATE, June 13 – How corrupt and decrepit has the UN system become under Antonio Guterres, in this case due to Guterres? Today's example is again from the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights, to which Guterres appointed his unqualified crony Volker Turk more than two years ago.
From OHCHR staff: Dear Mr Lee, The staff in OHCHR is demanding the resignation of High Commissioner Volker Turk, Guterres crony, deputy high commissioner Nada Al Nashif, corrupt chief of administration Kim Taylor and all the senior management. Now to Turk:
you are creating a Central Asia office in your home country (which is in Europe, not Central Asia) when you already have one in Bishkek. We also don’t understand how OHCHR will be closer to civil society in Vienna when the principal centres of the human rights community are in Geneva and New York. Further, UNICEF is now downsizing its regional offices in order to be “closer to the beneficiaries”. There is a strong likelihood that a future OHCHR leader will do the same.
Lack of transparency and accountability The criteria for identification of posts to relocate have not been explained to the affected staff members. Out of the many staff members performing similar or identical functions, only some were selected for relocation, without any explanation of the rationale behind the selection. In some cases, the selection of geographic destinations 12 June 2025 does not appear to be relevant to the functions performed by the staff. It is still unclear whether the moves are taken for purely financial reasons, whose rationale is questionable, are operationally justified or are purely for symbolic and legacy reasons. There were no prior consultations with the affected staff, and in some instances, the relocations appear inconsistent with their professional responsibilities. It remains unclear who identified the posts, with managers deflecting responsibility and pointing to one another. It is also unclear why you are mainly relocating junior to mid-level staff rather than your senior managers. Surely, leadership should be by example.
Disregard of personal compelling circumstances and lack of procedural clarity Under the OE 2.0 process, staff were repeatedly assured that posts, not staff, would be relocated. It was never clarified how the two would be distinguished in practice. Although the OE 2.0 process has been in its active stage since at least February 2025, no compendium has been developed to allow staff to opt in or out of relocation. Most vacancies remain frozen, and suggestions to apply for open positions do not seem viable. The personal circumstances of staff members have been disregarded, leaving them frustrated and under stress, without adequate support or consideration from their managers. Yet the UN’s own mobility policy does consider this matter. No mechanism has been established to assess individual cases, leaving staff uncertain about whom to contact for support or how to challenge the decisions made by management. Staff should not be forced to explain sensitive matters to their supervisors. Staff have been told that they must move within months. Yet UN 80 has made clear that no moves should take place before summer 2026. There is no rationale for rushing these moves if the underlying issue is a systemic one. Many staff members reached out to HR for support but received no response. The lists have already been finalized, while HR remains without clear guidance and continues to await instructions on the compendium and the definition of ‘special constraints’ from New York. This is the UN of Guterres.
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com