Comments by Andrew Gilmour, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, on being awarded the Sir Brian Urquhart Award for Distinguished Service to the UN, on United Nations Day, awarded by the UN Association of the UKLondon, 24 October 2019

A few days ago, my wife and I were up in rural Massachusetts staying with elderly and much-loved friends. Asked by one of them about our plans for the coming week, I said we were going to London.  
“Back to Blighty,” he replied. “What are you going to do there?”  
“Well actually I’m going to get a prize”.  
“Good.  What prize?”
“Well actually Brian” (for it was the great man himself), “it’s called the Sir Brian Urquhart Award”.
Look of utter bafflement.  Hearing aid adjusted.
“What the hell are they doing that for?”  
“Well, they’re being nice to me.”
“No no, not why did you get it.  But why the devil did they call it that?  What were they thinking?”
“Not sure where to start in answering that one, Brian.  But I think they obviously thought you were a good chap.  That sort of thing.”

I do feel that response illustrates one of the lesser-known, but still one of the many great attributes of the man.  His innate modesty, his genuine disbelief that people would be honoring his principles and achievements – even in his 100th year.  And yet those achievements are legion and many:

• Joining the army on day after war was declared.
• The young intelligence officer accurately portrayed in A Bridge Too Far, speaking truth to power and bravely telling his superior officers that it was a catastrophically bad idea for the paratroopers to proceed with the airdrop over Arnhem and elsewhere, because reinforced panzer divisions were waiting for them.
• The first Allied officer to enter and liberate the hell that was the Belsen death camp.

The list goes on:

• After the war, the second staff member to be recruited into the UN, at the recommendation of Arnold Toynbee.
• A spectacularly distinguished career at the UN over the next 40 years.

The Organization is 75 years old next year, but in all that time perhaps only Kofi Annan could rival Brian for being the most respected career UN official in its history.

And if it wasn't not enough to have played such a role in its history, he is also by far the most distinguished historian of the UN.  His trilogy of books, and plethora of articles constitute an oeuvre of brilliant and readable history that has no comparison.

If one had to explain in one sentence what it was that made his unsurpassed reputation, I would say that I’m not aware of any other figure  - living or dead - who has so successfully combined the noblest ideals, principles, and values with the most solid understanding of those harsh realities, practical constraints, and murky politicking that prevent ideals being put into practice.  Profoundly idealist to be sure, but the opposite of a starry-eyed one.

So I think it will be clear to all why it’s such an honor for me to accept a prize with that name on it.  Indeed, when Nathalie wrote to me to ask if I would accept it, I replied that, with the possible (underlined) exception of a Nobel prize, there was simply no prize in the world that I’d be happier to accept, named after unquestionably the greatest man I’ve ever been lucky enough to know.

How has the UN changed since Urquhart retired from it 33 years ago?  Which was more or less when I joined it 30 years ago, the same week as the fall of the Berlin Wall, which ushered in the end of the Cold War.  And there we have it.  Brian’s entire career spanned the Cold War, which gave rise to horrendous proxy hot wars, while the UN Security Council – that had been designed precisely to prevent or end wars - was paralyzed by the Cold War rivalries and unable to play a constructive role in ending those proxy wars.

For a brief moment, and it was the time I occupied the bottom rungs of the UN, things looked up, and the UN was able to contribute to the ending of those proxy hot wars, in South-East Asia, Southern Africa, Central America and elsewhere.

Tragically, a series of disasters and failures befell the Organization in the 1990s:

• The Bosnian civil war, ethnic cleansing and genocide of Srebrenica.
• The Rwandan genocide, at the very start of which the Security Council took the terrible decision to withdraw the great bulk of the UN peacekeepers from the country just as the killings got underway.
• And the collapse of Somalia, followed by famine, tribal militias, and a tragically botched US Special Forces operation, carried out without even informing the UN on the ground, leading to many American deaths, after which the US unforgivably and entirely inaccurately blamed the UN for the mishap.

Not long after that came Iraq, an issue that divided the UN long before and long after the disastrous US-UK invasion of 2003. And now it seems the wheel has turned almost full circle, and we are back to a situation of a heavily divided Security Council, thereby preventing agreement and action on a range of issues.

I have often been asked what’s the best thing to have changed about the UN in the past 30 years.  For me, the answer lies in peace-keeping, that UN tool that Urquhart himself played such a major role in developing.  Sadly, and incredibly, the major UN forces that he helped set up - Kashmir, Cyprus, Golan Heights, South Lebanon - are still operational and needed.  

But new peace-keeping operations have evolved in the past 20 years, in significant ways.  In the Cold War, there could be no agreement that peace-keepers would do much more than keep the peace along disputed border lines and demilitarized zones, through patrolling and local confidence-building measures.  They did this - by and large - very effectively and with minimal recognition.

More recently has developed the idea that peace keeping operations should do a lot more than that.  Peace-building in all its forms: political work, development, capacity-building of the country’s justice, human rights, and civil services.  And, above all, to do much more to protect civilians.  To take an example, in December 2013, a decision was taken that I was proud to have been part of: To open the gates of UN military compounds in what was then, and remains today, the youngest country in the world, South Sudan, to tens of thousands of desperately fleeing people to save them from the slaughter that was engulfing so many of their countrymen who couldn’t make it to UN shelter.  It’s my belief that no decision taken since 1945 - at any level in the UN – ever resulted in the direct saving of more lives than that one.  Such measures had never been taken before, and I’m not entirely sure they will be taken again.  But the recent emphasis on protection of civilians – as embodied in the Human Rights Up Front initiative –represents for me among the most positive changes in UN history.

And what about the changes for the worse?  These are less tangible but even greater.  In 1979, in my O-level year, I joined Amnesty International.  I had no idea at the time, of course, but the world was then on the cusp of what amounted to a human rights revolution, one that lasted several decades and led to progress on a vast range of human rights in many (unfortunately not all) parts of the world.

Then this came to a grinding halt, and indeed gave way to a backlash against the progress that had been achieved. I can’t put a precise date on it, or give the exact cause, but it seemed to start about 10 years ago.  And was caused by a confluence of factors:

• The financial crisis, resentments about austerity and rising inequality.

• Fears of terrorism post 9/11 and the sometimes excessive reaction to terrorism, which provoked further violent extremism.

• Hostility towards refugees and migrants, several million of whom were fleeing countries that had been playing fields in the Great War Against Terror.

These factors, together with the rise of China, the assertiveness of Russia, the US (let’s not talk about it) and the development of deep tensions within Europe itself, all played a role. 

What we have today is a series of interlocking crises.  First, the rise in populist, authoritarian nationalism, involving the whipping up of hatreds that were more in the background before.  Hatred towards Muslims, Central Americans, Roma, LGBTI persons; or judges, journalists, MPs and Congresswomen who have different views to their governments.  Since populists-nationalists invariably require a target to blame - frequently those already among the most vulnerable groups of society - the result is a crisis of human rights and rule of law.

Secondly, (not that it is second to anything since it dramatically dwarfs every other problem) is the planetary environmental crisis.  The global heating from carbon emissions; the biodiversity and extinction crisis; and the pollution and plastics crisis. 

Thirdly, we see in the last few years a series of wars of extreme violence.  Yemen, Syria, Libya, South Sudan, DR Congo, the ethnic cleansing and mass rape of the Rohingya, increasing tensions in Kashmir which if we’re not careful could turn out to be truly calamitous.  And in Palestine the unremitting, unending, unconscionable, but ever-deepening occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza. 

To any half-way reasonable person, it would surely be the ultimate no brainer, ca va sans dire, plain as a pikestaff, blindingly bloody obvious, that confronted with such challenges (the human rights/rule of law crisis, the environmental crisis, the endless peace and security crises), the world surely needs stronger international institutions to deal with these global problems that no one country, or even group of countries, can possible hope to manage on their own.

And yet, and yet.  We find ourselves living in an era, where on top of all I’ve mentioned, where there’s not only a pushback against human rights, international laws, democracy, truth spoken by politicians.  But also a pushback against the concept and practice of multilateralism.  Instead of improving ways to act in concert, some leading governments are now actively undermining global and regional instruments (by leaving them, besmirching their reputations, and cutting resources; right now the UN is in the worst financial straits of its history. Just last week – reflecting a certain bathos – drinking water for delegates at interminable UN meetings had to be cut off).  These are the global institutions that were designed to handle the crises we aren’t handling, and which are growing exponentially as we fail to come together to handle them.

One other unwelcome development I’d like to mention – if not on the scale of what I’ve been talking about – but it brings me back to Brian Urquhart.  At his 100th birthday last February, a lovely event hosted by Karen Pierce, the UK Permanent Representative in New York, a message was read out on behalf of the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres.  He described Urquhart as the man who “set the standard for the international civil service, principled, dedicated, impartial”, adding that his memoirs should be required reading for all who work for the UN.  I totally agree with that, but wish that it really was required reading, as I believe this would help stem a trend that many are commenting on: the decline of that concept of the principled, independent, impartial, international civil servant.  

And there is a bit of an irony here.  Because this year isn’t just Brian Urquhart’s 100th birthday.  It’s also the centennial of the international civil service, set up along heavily British lines, under the first head of the League of Nations, Sir Eric Drummond.  Since I feel that the very concept is under some stress, I welcome UNA-UK’s picking up this issue in an initiative they’ve asked me to play a part in next year – by which time I will no longer be working for the UN.

Where does the UK fit into this?  There can be no doubt that British influence at the UN is considerably less than it was when Urquhart joined in 1945, and even when he left in 1986.  Some of this is clearly structural.  After all, European influence as a whole is seeing a reduction of power inversely proportional to the rise of Asia and other parts of the world.  But one cannot deny that recent events have also contributed.  Not one smidgen of this decline can be attributed to British representation at the UN. On the contrary, Karen Pierce in New York and Julian Braithwaite in Geneva do an extraordinary job - valiant, skillful and effective - in stemming the decline.  

But in the three and a half years since David Cameron gave us his referendum, I have not met one person at the UN, representing any other country, who does not believe that UK influence will seriously diminish as a result of Brexit, which is seen as a colossal act of self-harm.  There is no dispute, rather total consensus, on this issue. The only difference of opinion I’ve detected is on the following point: those who don’t like the UK and actually want its influence to decline are very happy about Brexit.  Schadenfreude may be a German word, but it’s absolutely not a German sentiment in this case.  Britain’s actual friends are mortified by it all, watching the cowardice, dishonesty and incompetence of so many of our politicians, irreparably damaging the reputation of a once-respected nation, and weakening the entire West in the process.  And just at the time when the West needs to come together to defend the values that are in fact at the heart of the UN Charter. And that’s the only difference I see – delighted enemies of the UK, saddened friends.  I’m glad UNA-UK came up with a study earlier this year, giving evidence to this point. 

Moreover, there are also some doubts – which I find deeply troubling – that the UK will maintain its championship of human rights.  With the British people having been told – in my view quite wrongly – that it’s going to be a “piece of cake” to negotiate bilateral trade deals with hundreds of countries (some of whom have a distinctly spotty human rights record) the fear within the human rights movement is that the UK government may be tempted to jettison its human rights values in order not to create any further obstacles to what will already be extremely complex negotiations to secure those trade deals. 

This is another area where I think UNA-UK could help.  To try to ensure that in a post-Brexit era, should it come about, there will be no tolerance for major human rights lapses. And keeping pressure up on British government negotiators to ensure that trade deals aren’t signed in a vacuum devoid of environmental, labour and human rights in line with UN standards. 

Later that same day that I told Brian Urquhart about today’s event and who was organizing it, he said that UNA-UK was a “terrific example of a small group of people, just quietly getting on with it, pressing for a better and nobler outcome, and doing it more effectively than anyone else.”  I’ve remembered those words exactly.  And agree with him.

So on behalf of those UN colleagues who have served many years in the most perilous situations, and those who genuinely defend the principles for which Brian Urquhart so brilliantly fought – and I am thinking especially of my human rights colleagues – I am truly and deeply honored to be associated with him - and with you – via this award.

Thank you very much.