UN Watch Says UN Experts Took Funding From China, Russia, Qatar

The Geneva-based watchdog says earmarked funding raises conflict-of-interest concerns in a U.N. system built on expert independence.

The headquarters of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) building in Geneva on Jan. 8, 2018. Fabrice Coffrin/AFP via Getty Images

A Geneva-based watchdog group says several current and former United Nations human rights experts have accepted earmarked funding from China, Russia, Qatar, and other donors, raising questions over financial transparency in a U.N. system where mandate-holders are expected to serve independently.

UN Watch made the allegations in a 104-page report released on May 26, saying that several U.N. special rapporteurs and independent experts received outside funding while issuing reports, statements, or country-visit assessments that the group said aligned with donor interests. The specific dollar amounts cited in the report have not been independently verified by The Epoch Times.

The allegations center on the U.N. Special Procedures system, a network of independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council to report on human rights themes and country situations. The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) says these experts serve in their personal capacities, are not U.N. staff members, and do not receive financial remuneration from the United Nations.

Report Alleges Foreign Funding

UN Watch said Alena Douhan, who has served as a special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures, received $1.3 million through her office from China, Russia, and Qatar. The breakdown listed payments of nearly $980,000 from China, $265,000 from Russia, and $50,000 from Qatar.

The report also said Ben Saul, a 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. Those figures are allegations by UN Watch and have not been independently confirmed by The Epoch Times.

UN Watch said the funding raised concerns because rapporteurs are expected to act independently and because their reports and public statements can influence governments, international courts, media coverage, and human rights advocacy. The group said it reviewed 13 mandate-holders, a subset of the U.N. Special Procedures system.

OHCHR Responds

In an email to The Epoch Times, OHCHR said Special Procedures mandate-holders are independent experts who work pro bono, are not U.N. staff members, and do not receive salaries for their mandate work. The office said voluntary contributions support activities such as research, travel, consultations, and administrative support—not remuneration—and said donors have no role in mandate-holders’ appointments, priorities, findings, or conclusions.

The office said external funding has been disclosed annually to the Human Rights Council since 2015 and is governed by U.N. financial rules, policies, and oversight mechanisms.

Transparency Concerns Predate Report

The broader concern over outside funding of U.N. experts predates the UN Watch report.

A Universal Rights Group analysis said researchers reviewed financial declarations published between 2015 and 2019 by OHCHR, special procedures mandate-holders, and foundations funding the system. It found that 37 of 121 experts reported receiving 134 direct financial payments outside the U.N. system, totaling almost $11 million.

The same analysis said 40 percent of the Special Procedures budget came from extra-budgetary funding during that period. It said the system’s regular budget amounted to nearly $68 million, while almost $20 million more was paid voluntarily into the mechanism, mainly by the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. It also said states gave an additional $14.6 million to 51 of 121 experts through OHCHR.

The Code of Conduct for Special Procedures forbids U.N. experts from accepting any gift or remuneration from a government or non-governmental source for activities carried out in pursuit of their mandate. However, according to Universal Rights Group, in practice, disclosure of external funding is not compulsory or controlled by U.N. administrators, and direct payments are not reflected in OHCHR financial reports.

Canadian Testimony

Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, raised similar concerns on April 27, during testimony before Canada’s Subcommittee on International Human Rights.

He 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.

The May report from UN Watch also proposed reforms including an external audit mechanism, outside vetting of candidates, stronger evidentiary standards, and a prohibition on direct earmarked funding from governments or outside entities.

Accountability Gap

The U.N. system has internal guidance on conflicts of interest, but its accountability mechanisms are limited.

A 2025 U.S. Government Accountability Office report said mandate-holders may seek advice from a committee of six mandate-holders 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 address concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

The GAO said the U.N. Special Procedures system had 46 thematic and 14 country-specific mandates as of November 2024 and that mandate-holders are selected for a maximum of six years. The GAO report reviewed U.N. resolutions, special procedures guidance, funding information, and conflict-of-interest processes.

UN Watch said those safeguards are insufficient and called for an independent mechanism to review, audit, discipline, or remove mandate-holders who are found to have violated standards. The group also called for democratic states to assess and publicly rate the performance of special rapporteurs.

Funding and Influence

Universal Rights Group said direct outside payments can affect, or at least call into question, an expert’s independence because they may create dependence and influence the expert’s agenda. The group cited former U.N. expert Gabor Rona as saying that financial contributions of individual states to individual mandates can “create the appearance, if not the fact, of undue influence.”

That concern sits at the center of the UN Watch report. The group alleged that some special rapporteurs who received funding from authoritarian governments later issued statements or reports favorable to those governments’ interests or focused criticism on Western democracies.

Separate Budget Pressure

The funding allegations are separate from another issue raised by human rights groups: efforts by China and Russia to reduce U.N. human rights funding through budget negotiations.

The International Service for Human Rights said in 2025 that China, Russia, and other governments had worked through U.N. budget bodies to reduce funding for OHCHR and human rights investigations. Human Rights Watch reported in 2023 that China and Russia and their allies had sought to defund U.N. human rights work.

That budget fight is distinct from the UN Watch allegation that individual mandate-holders accepted earmarked outside funding.

The Epoch Times contacted the Chinese, Russian, and Qatari missions and the named experts for comment. Those parties did not immediately respond.