Ladies and gentlemen, I have a very special guest today, and she is somebody who is making some very stunning claims claims that have never been heard before in the history of the United Nations. It's a very, very long history, and many people would believe amongst the multilateral organisations across the world. UN is probably the most credible organisation which has contributed immensely, at least to the world governance. If nothing else, Miss Riley, you are making some very, very stunning claims. Welcome to D TV. On what basis are you making all these stunning claims? Thank you for having me. And on the basis of written evidence, to be frank, I was employed within the UN for 10 years. And in from 2013, I started to blow the whistle on the influence of the Chinese Communist Party on the UN Secretariat. Um, I was employed in the UN human rights office, where you would expect that human rights would be the primary goal. But in reality, that office was secretly transmitting the names of people who were about to speak out against China. To the Chinese government. Well, yes. I mean, I'm quite stunned. I read that I read that entire copy in today's Times of India. My dear friend Naomi Canton has filed that copy, and I'm glad that I'm following that up with an interview. But I'm stunned that you are trying to say that the people who were protesting the Chinese policies, the Chinese activists who are protesting the Chinese policies the United Nations was leaking information on them to the Chinese government. Exactly. And this started in 2006. And according to the UN S court position in my own court cases, it continues to this day. Um, privately, the UN admits this openly in court. Um, those court judgments are public. You can read the latest court judgement in which the judge says that yes, at all times I have told the truth. But the the the UN has an absolute Les majeste law that says you can never criticise any policy of the UN. So even though this policy is equivalent, it constitutes criminal complicity in torture. It constitutes criminal complicity in arbitrary detention. Even despite that, despite that I was telling the truth. The UN says I still had no right to speak up because this is a policy of the secretary general himself. That's all right. But I mean, this is unheard of stuff you're trying to say that the UN is compromised to an extent that it continues to leak information of the very people that it is supposed to protect. I mean, these are individuals, of course, who are who are making who are standing up against a government policy. And there are various pressure groups, various interest groups, various lobbyists, lobbying groups, et cetera, who can, at various points in time, protest against the government policy. They are not necessarily maybe a dissident group. They might not necessarily be a separatist group, but to leak information on them and then to leave them at the mercy of a totalitarian regime like China is, uh is is is quite astounding. Yes, and some of them gave evidence in my court case as to what happened to their families. After their names were handed over, people were arrested. They were detained. They were placed in concentration camps in Xinjiang. Some people's family members died in detention because they spoke out, and the UN should be denouncing that they should not be facilitating it. Well, Yes, absolutely. I'll come to you, come back to your court case slightly later. But then on top of this, which is, you know, sort of compromising the human rights activist that the UN is supposed to protect. That is your allegation, of course. But you also say MRI that two of the United Nations General Assembly's presidents were bribed. Now that's almost mind numbing by the Chinese. And there are US US courts convicted the the Chinese proxies who were committing the bribery in US courts. This is a matter of public record. It's just that in terms of joining the dots, member states have been very behind the curve, so they're aware that these people were bribed. But UN staff members, for example, were found to have been complicit in this bribery, and no action was taken against them. Well, one thing is that as Naomi also mentions in an article that Chinese build a sort of diplomatic pressure, which makes it almost impossible for any office, any UN office or, for that matter, any other kind of governmental office or non governmental office to directly take on because you are saying that they will demand a meeting after meeting, they will, you know, block the passage of any kind of communication, et cetera, et cetera, using I mean various pressure tactics, so to say, but to bribe the top officials is completely something completely different. And it's not just the top diplomats in the General Assembly that are essentially being bribed. They also have a $10 million a year slush fund for the secretary general himself. And if you look at the secretary general statements, he has never once criticised China. Um, they obviously feel that they're getting something for that $10 million a year on his pet projects that he cannot get funded in any other way. But then a former US ambassador, Kelly Curry and Antonio Guterres, is bought and paid for by China. But then, Miss Riley, many, many would say that you know, you you were sacked and that is why you have an axe to grind. I don't, um I have never asked anyone to take any action about my firing. I. I have the communications among the most senior UN officials in which Antonio Guterres ethics are wrote directly to him, saying that he, if he were to sack me he would be breaking his own rules. He went ahead and did it. Anyway, Um, I have absolutely nothing to hide. I've published all the documents relating to my firing online. I was fired uniquely for speaking out about this policy. I was at no point accused of lying. Also, tell me that at your trial at your at your at your court case, I would not call it your trial. That probably would be misnomer at your court case at your court case. Yes. You are accusing certain officials, certain members of the judicial community to be acting at the behest of the UN Is that what if I understand it correctly? Yes. Um, actually, I'm just repeating what their former colleague said. My court cases were actually heard in 2019, and the judge was 10 days away from issuing his verdict, and the UN got advance notice of what that verdict was going to be. He was going to find it entirely in my favour. So they brought forward a vote in the General Assembly for his successors. And when he arrived at work the next day, he was told he no longer had a job they didn't even inform the judge in advance of the end of his term to make sure that his judgement didn't see the light of day. Even with the replacement judge, who has never in her four years on the bench, found in favour of a staff member, she still found that every single claim I am making about the UN handing names of dissidents to the Chinese government is true and that this is a policy that places the lives and safety of those individuals and their family members in danger. That is a matter of public record in her judgement. So But you haven't got a court order in your favour, right? Uh, no. She said that despite that, there's a UN rule that says that no UN staff member may ever criticise a policy of the secretary general. It does not matter if that policy amounts to complicity in genocide. So she says that the policy itself is dangerous but that no UN staff member should ever speak up. We should all stay silent and watch the UN be sold out to the Chinese Communist Party and and and do you think the Chinese have carried on with this despite it becoming a public information. I mean, you you've obviously blown the whistle some time back, and you know, you've submitted evidence that court judicial process is also on has at least on do you think they still carry on with impunity with business? That is the UN S court position in my ongoing court cases. The UN says this is a continuing policy. So how do you want to take this fight forward? I mean, what are you What are your next move is going to be? Well, yesterday, I gave evidence before the United Kingdom Parliament, Um and they're taking that evidence extremely seriously. Um, I've handed them all the documents to prove what I am saying. Um, so they know I'm telling the truth. I've also made a disclosure to the US Congress, supported by an organisation called Whistle it. Um, so that's a protected whistle board disclosure to the US congress again giving them all of the evidence. And I'm asking them to conduct an external independent investigation. So you wish to carry on? You wish to carry on with your fight? You're not certainly giving up. No, not at all, because people If people are still being placed in danger, then I see it as my responsibility. Um, I swore an oath to protect human rights, not to protect the United Nations. Thank you very much, Mr Ali, for joining ND TV. Thank you very much. Your claims are quite stunning and I hope, and I hope particularly if they are true, then they should be taken to their logical end not only by the member nations of the multilateral organisation, but by the UN itself. Because, as I said out here, public trust is at stake. Exactly. Thank you for having me.
