A Geneva-based watchdog group alleged that several U.N. human rights mandate-holders accepted outside funding from foreign governments, raising new questions about independence and transparency in the Special Procedures system.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A Geneva-based watchdog group is calling for major reforms to the United Nations human rights system after alleging that several current and former U.N. experts accepted earmarked funding from China, Russia, Qatar and other donors while serving in roles meant to be independent.
UN Watch detailed the allegations in a 104-page report released May 26, according to an Epoch Times report. The group said several U.N. special rapporteurs and independent experts received outside money while producing reports, public statements or country-visit assessments that UN Watch said aligned with donor interests.
From Watchdogs to Ideologues by yourNEWS Media
The allegations focus on the U.N. Special Procedures system, a network of independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council to examine human rights issues and country conditions. The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights says those mandate-holders serve in their personal capacities, are not U.N. employees and do not receive financial compensation from the United Nations.
UN Watch said Alena Douhan, the special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures, received $1.3 million through her office from China, Russia and Qatar. The watchdog listed nearly $980,000 from China, $265,000 from Russia and $50,000 from Qatar.
The report also alleged that Ben Saul, the special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, received $150,000 from China, and that George Katrougalos, an independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, received $100,000 from China in 2025. The Epoch Times said those figures were allegations by UN Watch and were not independently confirmed by the outlet.
UN Watch reviewed 13 mandate-holders, a subset of the broader Special Procedures system. The group argued that outside funding raises serious concerns because special rapporteurs’ reports and statements can influence governments, international courts, media coverage and human rights campaigns.
The issue of outside funding for U.N. experts predates the latest UN Watch report. A Universal Rights Group analysis found that 37 of 121 experts reported receiving 134 direct financial payments outside the U.N. system between 2015 and 2019, totaling almost $11 million.
That same analysis found that 40% of the Special Procedures budget came from extra-budgetary funding during that period. The system’s regular budget was nearly $68 million, while almost $20 million more was voluntarily paid into the mechanism, mainly by the Netherlands, Germany and the United States. States also gave an additional $14.6 million to 51 of 121 experts through OHCHR, according to the analysis cited in the submitted material.
The Code of Conduct for Special Procedures bars U.N. experts from accepting gifts or payments from government or nongovernmental sources for activities carried out under their mandates. Universal Rights Group has said, however, that disclosure of external funding is not compulsory or controlled by U.N. administrators in practice, and direct payments are not reflected in OHCHR financial reports.
Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, raised similar concerns April 27 during testimony before Canada’s Subcommittee on International Human Rights. Neuer told lawmakers that U.N. rapporteurs had received funding from the Chinese regime.
“That has to be cleaned up. There should be no earmarked funding from anyone, and certainly not from a dictatorship,” Neuer said.
UN Watch is calling for reforms including an external audit mechanism, outside vetting of candidates, stronger evidentiary standards and a ban on direct earmarked funding from governments or outside organizations.
The accountability structure for U.N. mandate-holders is limited. A 2025 U.S. Government Accountability Office report said mandate-holders may seek guidance from a six-member committee of other mandate-holders when questions arise about whether an activity could create a conflict of interest. The GAO also said mandate-holders began publicly reporting sources of external funding in 2015 to respond to concerns about possible conflicts.
The GAO found that the Special Procedures system had 46 thematic mandates and 14 country-specific mandates as of November 2024. Mandate-holders are selected for a maximum term of six years. The GAO review examined U.N. resolutions, Special Procedures guidance, funding data and conflict-of-interest processes.
UN Watch said the existing safeguards are not enough. The group urged the creation of an independent body with authority to review, audit, discipline or remove mandate-holders who violate standards. It also called for democratic governments to evaluate and publicly rate the performance of special rapporteurs.
Universal Rights Group has warned that direct outside payments can affect, or appear to affect, an expert’s independence by creating dependence or shaping an expert’s agenda. The group cited former U.N. expert Gabor Rona as saying that financial contributions from individual states to individual mandates can “create the appearance, if not the fact, of undue influence.”
That concern is central to the UN Watch allegations. The watchdog said some rapporteurs who allegedly received money from authoritarian governments later issued reports or statements favorable to those governments’ interests or focused criticism on Western democracies.
The funding allegations are separate from another dispute involving China, Russia and U.N. human rights work. The International Service for Human Rights said in 2025 that China, Russia and other governments had used U.N. budget bodies to reduce funding for OHCHR and human rights investigations. Human Rights Watch reported in 2023 that China, Russia and their allies had sought to defund U.N. human rights work.
UN Watch said the direct funding allegations point to a different problem: individual experts receiving earmarked support while operating under mandates that are supposed to be independent. The group said the issue requires stronger transparency rules, enforceable conflict-of-interest standards and a clear ban on outside payments that could compromise, or appear to compromise, the credibility of U.N. human rights mechanisms.
Original article
Comments