Interview

Volker Türk is the current United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. He has previously held senior positions at the United Nations in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General and the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, both at its Headquarters in Geneva and in field offices around the world.

One of the big issues of our time is the divisive and polarised rhetoric and narratives that we see more generally. It has become very clear that migrants and refugees have become one of the prime targets and scapegoats for polarisation and division, and I think we see it, unfortunately, all over the world, but particularly in discussions in the US and in many Western European countries, as well as in Central and Eastern Europe. It is part of what I call ‘politics of distraction’. Rather than addressing legitimate grievances that are mainly about living standards and other economic and social rights, which should be addressed by the political economic élites, concerns and grievances are projected onto migrants, who are made the object of hatred and division. And I think that’s what we see, and we have seen this over many years now. It’s the old trick of populist politics.

My life with UNHCR was one where I was constantly interacting with refugees and asylum seekers, hearing their stories, listening to their experience. Refugees are, of course, victims of human rights violations – that is why they flee in the first place. If you look at any refugee history, it is a history of massive human rights persecution, but then they also often end up in situations where their rights as refugees or as asylum seekers are violated again, such as detention, border pushbacks or unfair processes. That was one of the very strong motivating factors that led me to become High Commissioner for Human Rights. Throughout my 30 years at UNHCR, I dealt with the consequences of human rights violations, but I wanted to address human rights violations at their core, so that people are not compelled to flee, give up their lives and uproot themselves to evade conflict. There is a very strong connection between my former work and my current work.

One of the big issues of our time is the divisive and polarised rhetoric and narratives that we see more generally. It has become very clear that migrants and refugees have become one of the prime targets and scapegoats for polarisation and division, and I think we see it, unfortunately, all over the world, but particularly in discussions in the US and in many Western European countries, as well as in Central and Eastern Europe.

Refugee and migrant issues have never been easy, but I think we have never had a period like the present. Previously, the institution of asylum was never questioned in the way that it is done now. Today, there was an article in an international magazine asking if asylum is still survivable or viable. I was a little bit taken aback because – let us not forget – asylum and providing sanctuary to people who flee and are in need of protection is an ancient tradition. And that tradition is still a sacrosanct one today, but I am not so sure it is as sacrosanct as it was a couple of years ago. I think that is where the change lies in respect to migration. One thing that struck me when I was living in New York during Covid-19 was that, every day, I was so deeply grateful for the migrants, some of them probably in an irregular situation, who kept us alive because they made sure that we got food into this big city. They made sure that our garbage was collected. They made sure that the health clinics and the hospitals were cleaned. I think we forget this incredible contribution – this unseen contribution – that migrant workers made during the pandemic. There was no question whether they were regular or irregular. Essentially, they kept us alive, and I am sure it was similar in Europe. I thought to myself, my goodness, we should be so grateful to the people who keep us alive.

Part of the complexity of migration governance and refugee issues is precisely that we have a bit of confusion around irregular migration, regular migration and refugee issues. It is also true that, in Europe, the numbers of asylum seekers have gone down and that the largest refugee-producing countries are usually either in conflict or have serious human rights violations. Other countries don’t have those problems, so the issue is more about migratory pressures.

The overarching problem for politicians is how to deal with a complex issue, and migration is a complex issue. Often, communities that have never seen a migrant or refugee are the ones who are most fearful of them. Communities where locals interact with migrant workers and refugees usually have no issues, except perhaps initially, if arrivals happen too fast and the change is too sudden. For example, when a million Syrians arrived in Germany and other European countries, the issue was the rate and the speed of those arrivals. Then there are those situations in which someone may commit a serious crime. Even a single case can trigger very strong emotional reactions, and other foreigners are seen as guilty by association. Of course, we do not hear enough in the media about the good stories.

Refugee and migrant issues have never been easy, but I think we have never had a period like the present. Previously, the institution of asylum was never questioned in the way that it is done now.

Well, I think they are. I was heavily involved in their development, and particularly in the negotiations around the Global Compact on Refugees. That Compact addressed an issue that we had not been able to deal with in the past on the refugee front, which is essentially burden- and responsibility-sharing between states, with some very creative ideas. It also sought to bring development and humanitarian action closer together and to resolve the so-called ‘development-humanitarian nexus’ issue in refugee affairs. Otherwise, you have situations where humanitarians provide education for refugees but ignore the host communities. The Global Compact tried to deal with the issue of early integration of refugees into development programs that benefit the host communities at the same time. And with this, particularly with the international financial institutions, we have seen quite a lot of progress.

I do think the issue is implementation. We have an adopted outcome document which is there to be used and seen as a blueprint for action by the international community. I think it is the same situation with the migration Compact. Before the migration Compact was agreed on, migration in the UN was not necessarily a central topic between States at the multilateral level. It was handled within the IOM and to some extent UNHCR. To make migration a governance and negotiation issue, putting all the different interests of countries around the table and defining what this would mean was a first. The problem is such documents take a long time to negotiate, but then they are not really used in the way that they should be. Some aspects of the Compacts have advanced – for example, there is more discussion about regular pathways today than we had in the past. But they always require political will to implement, and I think that is what we are missing. I wish that those who come into political leadership positions today actually read these documents and felt inspired by them, because a lot of thought went into them and the negotiations with and between governments were extensive, so the Compacts should be used and not just forgotten.

I wish that those who come into political leadership positions today actually read these documents and felt inspired by them, because a lot of thought went into them and the negotiations with and between governments was extensive, so the compacts should be used and not just forgotten.

Sometimes I feel the period when the Compacts were developed was a great period of aspiration. And yet, with Covid-19 immediately following their adoption, and with the geopolitical turmoil and great uncertainty we are facing now, it almost feels as though governments are treating the Compacts as a luxury. I know neither Compact was binding, but I wish governments would treat them as if they were.

First of all, we are the most underfunded part of the UN. We have three people working on migration in the global team, which gives you an indication of how underfunded we are. The prediction for this year is that we are losing probably a quarter of our funding for various reasons. But we have the Stand Up for Migrants campaign. I think with these campaigns, especially in Southeast Asia, we have seen some interesting results. The other area is, of course, the monitoring of certain situations where we have some presence. We have engaged in border monitoring. For example, we are looking at AI tools which are being used at the border and the human rights impact of such tools. These tools are increasingly used, but if there is no oversight or proper risk assessment, they can be used for profiling purposes or can result in automated systems deciding on things that require human oversight and intervention.

We have engaged in border monitoring. For example, we are looking at AI tools which are being used at the border and the human rights impact of such tools. These tools are increasingly used, but if there is no oversight or proper risk assessment, they can be used for profiling purposes or can result in automated systems deciding on things that require human oversight and intervention.

My Office has also increasingly become involved in legislative issues when we see that deportations are carried out in a way that is violating due process and fair trial rights. We also intervene directly in some cases, both bilaterally and publicly. I was very clear in the context of the Dominican Republic. We have issued strong press releases on deportations from the US and a number of European countries, including the UK. The issues around migration and asylum are part of a much bigger human rights story, but we are active. Today I have just issued a press release on deportations to Afghanistan, not only from Iran and Pakistan but also from other countries.

Migration and asylum issues can reflect the tip of the iceberg of other human rights issues within a society. I mean, the way you deal with the ‘other’ is a good indication of how you are going to deal with your own citizens, to some degree. So, for me, it is a slippery slope – and that’s an important human rights message. If you exclude minorities within your country, if you identify foreigners – be it refugees, migrants or other foreigners – as a group to be excluded or marginalised, you may end up doing the same to parts of your own citizenry. Look at the whole debate around minority groups, such as LGBTQI+ communities and poor people.

Yes, the situation in Gaza is absolutely horrific. It is also very bad in the West Bank, even though we do not hear enough about what’s happening, including on the displacement front. We issued our latest press release and update on the West Bank this week. Coming back to Gaza, I have rarely seen a situation where multiple forms of displacement occur with such speed and at such a magnitude. I remember Kosovo, of course, where there was massive displacement, but it was not a situation where you had people fleeing from one village to another and then to another, then being ordered to leave again and then asked to essentially be confined to one part as we are seeing in Gaza. I know this from my own staff there – some of them have been displaced ten times, not knowing where to find safety. And yes, it is heartbreaking to see how this population is suffering under these circumstances, and the displacement angle is a horrific one. We are also seeing the risk of ethnic cleansing right in front of our eyes. I think the displacement side to this unbearable suffering is a huge component of what is happening.

When I was living in New York during Covid-19 … I was so deeply grateful for the migrants, some of them probably in an irregular situation, who kept us alive because they made sure that we got food into this big city. They made sure that our garbage was collected. They made sure that the health clinics and the hospitals were cleaned. I think we forget this incredible contribution – this unseen contribution.

This is also a big indictment of the state of the multilateral systems we have at the moment.

There is one organisation that was specifically created to deal with the situation of Palestinian refugees, UNRWA. The vilification that I see of UNRWA is shocking. My own Office also receives such criticism. When entities try to do their job, mandated by the United Nations, there is an attempt to denigrate, to delegitimise what we do. It is a very worrying trend.

Having said that, if I was not getting criticism, I am pretty sure I would not be doing my job effectively. My job is to call governments to account. So, criticism is one thing. To actually pass laws, as we saw when Israel effectively outlawed UNRWA, is an entirely different level.

I was involved in this issue through the Nansen agenda some years ago. In some cases, the 1951 Refugee Convention would recognise people who flee circumstances that are related to climate change, for example, if a sudden-onset disaster occurred and there was a lack or an absence of government response. Myanmar is a good example. You may have an earthquake, or you may have flooding, and if the government is excluding people from assistance and people then flee, the circumstances amount to persecution. So, you could use the 1951 Refugee Convention for certain groups of people who flee climate-related events.

Often, communities that have never seen a migrant or refugee are the ones who are most fearful of them. Communities where locals interact with migrant workers and refugees usually have no issues, except perhaps initially, if arrivals happen too fast and the change is too sudden.

I think in the broadest sense, though, the biggest issue is not so much one of external, cross-border displacement, it is more about internal displacement. Most displacement happening because of climate-related issues or environmental degradation is internal, and that is a challenge for governments – there is a need to actually do the strategic foresight and the preparations for what would it mean if, suddenly, people can no longer have their livelihoods met in certain parts of the country. In Central America, just to give you an example, climate projections suggest there will be what they are calling a “drought corridor”. If you look ahead ten years, they say that this drought corridor will become bigger and bigger, which means that this area becomes unliveable. The same for Somalia, if one looks at climate models there. So how does a short-term governance model deal with long-term issues? I think that is the big problem, because, of course, if you are caught up in electoral cycles, how do you deal with these long-term issues? This is one of the biggest challenges, and it also impacts and must include issues of migration.

If you exclude minorities within your country, if you identify foreigners – be it refugees, migrants or other foreigners – as a group to be excluded or marginalised, you may end up doing the same to parts of your own citizenry. Look at the whole debate around minority groups, such as LGBTQI+ communities and poor people.

We are in a situation where we have the highest number of conflicts ever since the end of the Second World War. The ICRC just said there are 120 conflicts in about 60 countries – because in some countries you have more than one conflict. So it is significant. And I can understand that it is very difficult for the public to focus on more than one or two conflicts, because it is also emotionally draining. But this does not take away the responsibility of political leadership in countries to address these situations, and I think that is what is missing today. We are moving into a multipolar world, but it seems quite chaotic and not yet settled in terms of the types of rules that this new situation needs. It is quite urgent that the rules are established or else we run the risk of having situations which are more chaotic and anarchic. We are in this strange in-between period.

I think we need to rekindle a global consciousness. People of my generation grew up with a global consciousness, but now I feel that, with all the challenges and with social media, many people have retreated into isolationism – a sort of ‘me first and my nation first’ mentality.

I think we need to rekindle a global consciousness. People of my generation grew up with a global consciousness, but now I feel that, with all the challenges and with social media, many people have retreated into isolationism – a sort of ‘me first and my nation first’ mentality.

You know, when you are in the midst of turmoil, it is very difficult to see where you are – it’s almost as though there was a kind of fog all around. But I do believe that, at the end of the day – and we see this also through research with the so called ‘persuadable middle’ or the ‘silent majority’ – people are not voting for cruelty. They are not voting for harsh measures, they are not voting for things that take us back in time, in terms of treating people badly. And that gives me hope that even on this complex issue of migration, which is going to be a big political issue in the future, we will find the resolve and the creativity to not only disentangle the complexities, but also to find solutions that work for everyone. If politics embraces human mobility as an issue to be tackled and to be to be worked through, we can find solutions that are workable for everyone.

If politics embraces human mobility as an issue to be tackled and to be worked through, we can find solutions that are workable for everyone.