The post “Complicit in Genocide”: U.N. Whistleblower Denounces Nobel Winner Navi Pillay appeared first on UN Watch.

Growing up under the Islamic Republic of Iran taught Shahrzad Eden Osterer exactly how dangerous ideological indoctrination can be. Now a journalist in Europe, she draws chilling parallels between the state propaganda of her childhood and the highly polarized, ideological echo chambers found in Western universities today.

While addressing UN Watch’s official side event at the 63rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, “Empowering Future Leaders through Human Rights Education,” Osterer argues that true human rights education must teach young people to apply universal standards consistently, not selectively based on political convenience.

Prepared Remarks:

The post De-ideologizing Human Rights Education | Shahrzad Eden Osterer appeared first on UN Watch.

After surviving 280 days as an ISIS hostage in Syria, Kurdish journalist and human rights defender Aram Aqil issues a stark warning to the world at UN Watch’s official side event at the 63rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, “Empowering Future Leaders through Human Rights Education.”

Extremist propaganda thrives where education fails. Aqil breaks down how the erasure of historical atrocities — like the Holocaust and the Armenian, Yazidi, and Anfal genocides — leaves youth dangerously vulnerable to dehumanizing terrorist narratives.

Prepared Remarks:

Growing up under the rule of a dictatorship — I mean here both Assads, the father and the son and coming from a politically active Kurdish family and belonging to a nation persecuted by four governments in the Middle East, human rights education became, for me, far more than a concept; it became something much more personal and embedded in the struggle we have carried on for decades.

From a very young age, I assisted in publishing a political magazine called “Jîn,” a Kurdish word meaning “Life.” That magazine covered topics related to human rights and democracy. Two topics where either one alone could land you in prison for years in the best-case scenario, or cost you your life in the worst.

I’ve spent around twenty years of my life under a dictatorial regime and about a year in the grip of ISIS; since gaining my freedom, I am experiencing the privilege of living in Western Europe where democracy and human rights are privileges that cannot be taken for granted, given that millions of people are deprived of them.

In December 2024, the dictator ran away, but the dictatorship remained standing, albeit with a new flavor. A jihadi terror regime came to power, entirely unconcerned with issues of human rights and democracy; it hasn’t even once mentioned these two topics; on the contrary, they view these concepts as “an abomination or the work of the devil.”

Why do I mention all this? Because here in Europe we speak freely about human rights education, we often think about classrooms, institutions and international conventions. In other corners of the world, it is obviously not the case. In the MENA region, among 25 countries, all UN member states, only a small number have integrated human rights education into their educational systems—no more than we can count on one hand.

My own journey as a youth educator made me see a huge gap: education about atrocities and genocides that took place in history. Many young people grow up with very limited opportunities to learn about the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Yazidi genocide, the Anfal Genocide against Kurds, and other mass atrocities that deeply targeted the region and its communities.

If young people do not learn how genocides happen, how propaganda dehumanizes people, and how looking away makes it even worse, it becomes much harder for them to recognize these patterns when they appear before their eyes. I was a witness to the Yazidi genocide in 2014; I saw how Turkish and Qatari propaganda networks contributed to portraying an entire community as less human and therefore as a legitimate target of violence. Later on, the same happened on October 7; I saw disturbing parallels in the way propaganda and dehumanizing narratives were used to portray civilians as legitimate targets, rather than as human beings entitled to protection.

A big part of what I have experienced changed the way I now understand human rights and its education. Studying and talking about rights is something, and being prepared to defend it is something very different, and that is where I believe human rights education still has a gap. We need to ask young people not only: “What are human rights?” We need to ask: “What will you do when those rights are denied? What will you do for those who are deprived of their rights? Those whose rights are being violated?”

Awareness alone is not enough; young generations need to learn how to practice human rights; they need opportunities to meet people whose histories are different from their own. That means teaching them how to recognize discrimination and extremist propaganda. It means developing critical thinking and media literacy. It means giving young people opportunities to engage with civil society and communities beyond the classroom. And it means creating genuine platforms where people from minority and marginalised communities can speak for themselves.

Thank you.

The post Surviving ISIS and Confronting Extremist Propaganda | Aram Aqil appeared first on UN Watch.

How do you teach human rights in a country where the Taliban has systematically erased fundamental freedoms? On October 5th, Afghan women’s rights activist Husna Jalal addressed UN Watch’s official side event at the 63rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, “Empowering Future Leaders through Human Rights Education,” explaining why education must extend beyond physical classrooms to safely prepare young people to document violations.

She calls on the international community to fund scholarships, build secure digital pathways, and create a global network to support young Afghan defenders denied academic freedom.

Prepared Remarks:

Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen.

Human rights education is often described as teaching people about their rights. I would like to suggest that its real purpose is larger: to prepare people to live, defend and sustain those rights, and above all to do so when it is hardest.

The case of Afghanistan also raises a more difficult question: what does human rights education mean in a country where human rights themselves are being systematically restricted?

It is relatively easy to speak about human rights education where institutions are functioning, universities are open to everyone, and students and teachers are able to express themselves freely. The real test comes when those conditions do not exist.

In such environments, knowing your rights is not enough. A young person may understand perfectly well that women and men are entitled to equality, that education is a human right, or that people should be able to participate in the life of their society.

But what happens when speaking about those principles carries personal risk? What happens when the institutions that should provide education are themselves places of exclusion? And what happens when young people have knowledge and motivation, but no safe space in which to use them?

This is where I believe our approach to human rights education has to go further.

We need to prepare young people not only for environments in which human rights are respected, but also for environments in which those rights are contested, restricted or violated. That requires practical preparation: how to act responsibly and safely; how to preserve evidence and knowledge; how to build networks of solidarity; how to communicate across communities; how to continue learning when formal institutions become inaccessible; and how to remain connected to civil society even when civic space is shrinking.

Afghanistan has taught us another important lesson: when physical educational spaces disappear, we must find ways to ensure that the intellectual and civic space does not disappear with them.

For Afghan women and girls in particular, this means creating alternative pathways to education, mentorship and professional development, and connecting them with universities, educators, civil society organizations and peers beyond Afghanistan. It also means ensuring that qualifications, skillsand experience gained through alternative forms of learning can eventually lead to meaningful academic and professional opportunities.

We should also think differently about who we consider a future human rights leader. Leadership does not begin when someone receives a formal title or joins an established organization. It can begin with a student who questions discrimination, a teacher who protects the dignity of her students, a young journalist who insists on documenting what is happening, or a young person who creates a small space where others can continue to learn.

In countries experiencing serious human rights restrictions, these individuals may never have access to conventional leadership programmes. If we wait for them to reach established institutions before we support them, we may never reach the people who need that support most.

That is why human rights education must be resilient enough to continue beyond the classroom and, when necessary, beyond national borders. It should create relationships and communities that can survive even when institutions come under pressure.

For me, this is one of the most important lessons from Afghanistan: we should not only educate young people about human rights when conditions are favorable. We need to equip and accompany them precisely when defending those rights becomes difficult.

From this, I draw three lessons, and for each I want to suggest something practical. First, human rights education cannot be separated from the environment in which it takes place.

Students learn human rights not only from textbooks but from experience: when they can speak freely, when women participate equally, when minorities are respected, when disagreement is possible without fear. When discrimination and censorship become part of educational life, young people learn a very different lesson about whose rights matter.

Practically, every institution that teaches human rights should ask whether it practises them. Who is admitted? Who speaks? Who is protected when they dissent? Do students have a safe channel to raise complaints? Teaching the Universal Declaration is not enough if the campus contradicts it.

Second, human rights education must give young people the ability to act, not only to know. Knowing a right exists matters. Knowing how to defend it matters just as much. Young leaders need to document violations safely and responsibly, write a credible submission to a UN mechanism,advocate to decision-makers, organise a campaign, protect their digital security, and communicate across political and cultural divides.

They also need people. The greatest threat many young defenders face, especially under repression or in exile, is isolation. A single mentor who answers a message, opens a door or reviews a draft can decide whether a young person keeps going.

Practically, training should be built around real tasks, such as a mock submission to a treaty body, and every participant should leave with a named mentor and a peer network, not just a certificate.

Third, our commitment must continue when formal institutions are closed or captured. If Afghan women cannot enter universities, we cannot simply wait for the doors to reopen. We must ask how education can reach them now.

That means open learning pathways in Dari and Pashto that work on phones. It means universities agreeing to recognise what has been learned, so that interrupted education is not wasted.

It means scholarships in regional and international universities, support for Afghan educators inside and outside the country, and digital security and emergency support from the very first day, because learning in these conditions carries real risk.

Afghanistan raises an important question: what happens to the next generation of human rights leaders when the institutions that should educate, connect and support them are no longer accessible?

We cannot simply wait for conditions to improve. When classrooms and universities close, young people need alternative pathways to continue learning, remain connected and develop the skills to defend human rights safely and effectively.

So let me close with a concrete proposal. We should build an international network of universities, national human rights institutions and civil society organizations to provide sustained education, mentoring and practical leadership opportunities for young human rights defenders, especially those whose education has been restricted by repression, conflict or discrimination.

A network only matters if each of us does something specific. States can fund scholarships, recognize credible alternative and online learning, and create pathways for students and young defenders at risk.

Universities can open places and online programs, provide mentors, work with displaced and exiled academics, and protect academic freedom.

Human rights institutions and the UN system can create opportunities for young defenders to engage with human rights mechanisms safely and ensure that voices from the most restricted environments are heard.

Civil society can make training accessible in local languages, connect experienced defenders with emerging leaders, and integrate digital security and protection into their programs.

None of this requires a new treaty or institution. It requires us to connect what already exists and make it accessible to those who need it most.

Afghanistan is an urgent example, but the lesson goes beyond Afghanistan. If we want the next generation to defend universal human rights, we cannot wait until they are established leaders.

We must invest in them while they are learning, while they are finding their voices, and especially when using those voices comes at a cost.

Thank you.

The post Human Rights Education Under Oppression in Afghanistan | Husna Jalal appeared first on UN Watch.

UN Watch’s examination of joint statements on Russia’s abuses by UN human rights experts reveals a consistent absence: Francesca Albanese’s signature.

Since Albanese became Special Rapporteur on the Palestine on 1 May 2022, her colleagues have repeatedly demanded accountability for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and its repression at home. They have appealed for the release of political prisoners, condemned persecution and called for justice.

Across all of the UN statements on Russia, the review shows Albanese refused to sign a single one.

The finding takes on particular significance following her recent endorsement of ending weapons supplies to Ukraine—without explaining how Ukrainians would defend themselves against further Russian aggression.

Appeals for Russia’s Victims: No Albanese Signature

The examination identified a series of joint statements from which Albanese’s name is absent:

• Navalny’s death and political prisoners: On 16 February 2024, UN experts demanded an independent investigation into Alexei Navalny’s death in custody and the release of political prisoners, including Vladimir Kara-Murza, Ilya Yashin and Alexei Gorinov.
• Russian aggression and repression: On 24 February 2025, experts led by Mariana Katzarova, the Special Rapporteur on Russia, demanded justice for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and repression at home.
• Impunity as the invasion entered its fifth year: On 24 February 2026, UN experts again warned against impunity for Russia’s war against Ukraine.
• Persecution of LGBT people: In December 2023, experts condemned the Russian Supreme Court’s ban on the “international LGBT movement.”
• Prosecution of an elderly human rights defender: In February 2025, experts called for Russia to drop “terrorism” charges against 85-year-old Mark Kuperman.

Albanese’s absence spans appeals concerning both Russia’s war abroad, and its persecution of people at home.

Pattern of Selective Engagement

UN Watch has long maintained that special rapporteurs should respect the boundaries of their mandates. We do not advocate turning every country-specific expert into a commentator on every international crisis.

But that is hardly the current practice of the UN’s special procedures, or Albanese’s own approach. She speaks beyond her Palestine mandate when she chooses, including to criticize the Western on Iran or for supporting Ukraine.

The finding therefore raises a question about her selective engagement: why does she intervene on some issues outside her mandate, while consistently withholding her signature from joint appeals for Russia’s victims?

Her predecessor, Michael Lynk, signed the 28 February 2022 joint statement calling for an end to Russian aggression against Ukraine. He also signed the 8 March 2022 statement condemning alleged attacks on civilians.

Albanese took over the same mandate two months later. UN Watch’s examination found no comparable signature during her tenure.

Join Statements Against Israel

Albanese leads numerous joint statements targeting Israel and the Palestinian territories, and pressures many of her peers to sign even when their mandates cover altogether different regions and thematic issues.

Her name appears first, meaning that she is the lead author, on the 18 September 2024 statement urging compliance with the International Court of Justice advisory opinion, the 11 October 2024 statement marking one year of the Gaza war, and the 19 September 2025 statement demanding action over the occupation.

Albanese participates in a system in which experts speak collectively beyond their individual mandates. When that system produces appeals for Russia’s victims, however, her name is missing.

The signature record reveals a consistent pattern, which her recent remarks on Ukraine make especially troubling.

Nobel Prize Laureate Oleksandra Matviichuk Against Francesca Albanese: “Stop weapons in Kiev? There will be no peace, but rape and torture”

L’intervista completa di Francesca Albanese a OPEN – quella in cui dice di essere contro l’invio di armi all’Ucraina – è persino peggio della clip già uscita.

Mentana le fa notare che senza armi l’Ucraina capitola, la Russia vince e si crea un precedente pericoloso. Lei risponde… pic.twitter.com/1k4cvemip8

— Stazione Quinta (@H4NDelMonaco) October 1, 2026

At the Festival di Open in Parma in September 2026, Albanese endorsed stopping weapons supplies to Ukraine and returning the discussion to the political arena. In an opening disclaimer, she acknowledged Russia’s invasion and described the war as illegitimate. Then she made her main point, calling to stop arms to Ukraine, and suggesting that a “political calculation” within NATO, led by the United States, could favour keeping Europe weak and the conflict open. She said we need to “bring the discussion back into the political space,” that is, to negotiate with Vladimir Putin.  She added that she was “not an expert” and had no solution for ending the war.

Calling for negotiations does not explain what happens when the invaded country loses the weapons it needs to resist. How would Ukraine protect its civilians? What would prevent further Russian advances? What leverage would Ukrainians retain at the negotiating table? Albanese endorsed ending arms supplies without explaining how those consequences would be addressed.

“I was shocked by Francesca Albanese ‘s statements , I’m truly speechless,” said Oleksandra Matviichuk, director of the Center for Civil Liberties, the Ukrainian organization awarded the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize.

“Albanese said she had no idea how to stop Putin, but at the same time she’s asking for a halt to the shipment of weapons to Ukraine. How can a woman on the front lines defending human rights speak like that? She has no respect for us, for what millions of people would risk in a chain reaction.”

“The result will not be peace but occupation, and the Russian occupation means torture, sexual violence, forced disappearances , denial of your identity, forced adoption of your children, infiltration camps, and mass graves,” said Matviichuk.

Why Has Albanese Refused to Back UN Accountability for Russia?

UN Watch’s findings warrant an explanation: Why has Albanese not joined her colleagues’ appeals for Russia’s political prisoners and demands for accountability?

Why does her willingness to speak beyond her mandate extend to ending military support for Ukraine, but not to signing statements defending Russia’s victims?

She has found her voice to call for an end to weapons for Ukraine. She has yet to lend her signature to a single joint appeal for justice for Russia’s victims.

The post Report: Albanese Never Signed a Joint UN Expert Statement on Russia’s Human Rights Abuses appeared first on UN Watch.

SHARE: Youtube | X.com | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn

Natalia Arno, a Russian dissident invited to speak by UN Watch, told the UN Human Rights Council how Russia’s repression follows dissidents beyond its borders.

After fleeing Russia in 2012 following threats of 20 years in prison for her democracy work, Arno faced surveillance, intimidation and cyberattacks in exile. Three years ago, she was poisoned in Europe.

“Dictatorships do not need to silence everyone. They only need to make everyone wonder: Am I next?”

Arno called on democracies to confront transnational repression and ensure that exile means safety.

Transcript:

Vice-President of the Human Rights Council: We shall now begin the Interactive Dialogue on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation.

Natalia Arno: Mr. President, I fled my home country, Russia, in 2012 after security services threatened me with 20 years in prison for state treason for my democracy work.

I crossed the border, but the repression crossed it too.

In exile, I was followed, intimidated, and cyber-attacked.

Three years ago, I was poisoned in Europe. But I’m only one of thousands.

Russia imprisons dissidents at home and hunts us abroad. 

Exiled Russians face surveillance, threats against their families, extradition requests, digital and physical attacks. 

Dictatorships do not need to silence everyone. They only need to make everyone wonder: am I next?

This is the real power of transnational repression. 

So I ask this Council: what is the meaning of refugee if persecution can follow you even in democratic countries?

No one should escape repression at home only to face it again in exile. A border should be a line repression cannot cross. 

Democracies must be clear. Those who conduct and order transnational repression will face consequences. 

Exile must mean safety. And ultimately, our security depends on both a sovereign and secure Ukraine and free and democratic Russia. 

Victory to Ukraine. Freedom to Russia. 

The post Russian Dissident Warns The UN: Putin’s Repression Follows Exiles Abroad appeared first on UN Watch.

SHARE: Youtube | X.com | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn

In a dramatic showdown at the UN Human Rights Council, Iranian activist Daniyal Eyvazi directly confronted the Islamic Republic’s delegation. Eyvazi, who was shot by regime agents while attempting to assist a wounded protester, delivered a powerful testimony honoring the victims of regime violence and calling for a free, secular, and democratic Iran.

Visibly shaken by his words, the Iranian delegation attempted to interrupt his speech by raising a point of order to censor him, claiming his language was “provocative.” However, the UN Chair overruled Iran’s objection and allowed Eyvazi to finish his message: “Stand with the people of Iran against our Islamic Republic oppressors or face the judgment of history.”

Debate Highlights:

Islamic Republic of Iran: Today I wish to speak on behalf of the nation that over the past year, has endured profound consequences arising from a blatant and brutal aggression prepared by the United States and Israeli regime.

Multiple documented violations of international humanitarian law and human rights mark one of the darkest pages of human history.

Our people found themselves standing before some of the most criminal and reckless foreign states who showed utter disregard for international law and demonstrated no restraint in their brutality.

The dark pages of aggression were transformed into glorious chapters, written through the unwavering loyalty of our people to the motherland.

Vice-President of the Human Rights Council: We will now move to the list of NGOs.

Daniyal Eyvazi: In January of this year I was shot by agents of the Islamic Republic while trying to help a wounded protestor.

Iranians had loaded the streets peacefully seeking freedom. They were met with bullets.

From children to the elderly, everyone became a target.

Tens of thousands were murdered.

It was a crime against humanity.

I am fortunate to have survived and escaped so that I can honor the memory of those that did not.

The people of Iran are peace-loving.

We have no hostility toward the people of the United States, Israel, or any other nation.

The Islamic Republic’s policy of war and hate does not represent us. The Iranian people demand fundamental change.

Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi is the symbol of transition away from the Islamic Republic toward a free, secular, and democratic Iran.

Vice-President of the Human Rights Council: Point of order from the Iranian delegation.

Islamic Republic of Iran: We urge the vice president to ensure that no speaker use provocative languages that could violate the principles of this Council.

The Human Rights Council should not be allowed to be misused by anyone.

Tone, language, and contents of speeches by NGOs should be in accordance with U.N. standards.

Vice-President of the Human Rights Council: In a statement from representative of the NGO I did not hear any term that’s contrary to the practice of the Council.

So I would ask you to continue your statement from where you left off.

Daniyal Eyvazi: Our message to the world is clear: stand with the people of Iran against our Islamic Republic oppressors or face the judgement of history.

The post Iranian Massacre Survivor Slams Regime to Their Faces at UN appeared first on UN Watch.

SHARE: YouTube | Facebook | Instagram

Venezuelan human rights lawyer Omar Mora Tosta addressed the United Nations to call for the immediate and full release of Venezuela’s political prisoners and an end to the judicial persecution of dissidents.

Mora Tosta, a lawyer for Comando Con Venezuela who represents political detainees, denounced the use of terrorism courts against government opponents, the denial of due process and private legal counsel, and the discriminatory application of amnesty—including in the case of opposition lawyer Perkins Rocha.

His message to the international community: Venezuela’s transition to democracy requires the release of political prisoners, the restoration of fundamental rights, separation of powers, and justice for victims.

Transcript:

Vice-President of the Human Rights Council: Excellencies, we will continue with the report of the International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela, and we continue with the list of speakers.

Omar Mora Tosta: Thank you, President.

I am Omar Mora Tosta, a lawyer with “Comando con Venezuela” and a defender of its political prisoners arbitrarily detained in the context of the 2024 elections.

In Venezuela, despite the events of January 3rd, the structure of repression remains intact.

To ensure a transition to democracy, there must be the immediate and full release of more than 400 imprisoned and persecuted politicians, civilians and soldiers.

Their lives are in immediate danger due to mistreatment and conditions of imprisonment to which they have been subjected.

Unfortunately, many of them have died.

Ad hoc terrorism courts were illegally created by proclamation and not by law.

In them, they prosecute dissidents for political reasons, enforcing unconstitutional laws that should be repealed to restore human rights.

Even today in those ongoing processes, private legal defense is denied, as well as access to expediency, and hearings are held virtually that violate due process and the right to defense.

All of this is akin to treating them as criminal foreign enemies.

Amnesty was promoted without fulfilling proper standards and applied discriminatorily as in the case of lawyer Perkins Rocha and the campaign chiefs of the opposition.

The international community must seek the separation of powers in Venezuela, since with impunity and without justice to the victims, we will not move forward as a society.

Transcripción:

Vicepresidente del Consejo de Derechos Humanos: Excelencias, vamos a seguir con el informe de la Misión Internacional Independiente de Determinación de los Hechos sobre Venezuela, y seguimos con la lista de oradores.

Omar Mora Tosta: Gracias, señor presidente.

Soy Omar Mora Tosta, abogado del Comando con Venezuela y defensor de sus presos políticos detenidos arbitrariamente en el marco de las elecciones de 2024.

En Venezuela, a pesar del 3 de enero, la estructura represiva continúa intacta.

Para garantizar una transición a la democracia deben ser liberados de inmediato y plenamente los más de 400 presos y perseguidos políticos, civiles y militares, cuyas vidas corren peligro en virtud de los maltratos y condiciones de reclusión a los que han sido sometidos.

Lamentablemente, muchos de ellos han fallecido.

Fueron creados ilegalmente tribunales ad hoc de terrorismo por resolución y no por una ley. En ellos se procesa a disidentes por motivos políticos, aplicando leyes inconstitucionales que deben ser derogadas para restituir los derechos humanos.

Aún al día de hoy, en esos procesos en curso se niega la defensa privada, el acceso al expediente, y se realizan audiencias telemáticas que violan el debido proceso y el derecho a la defensa. Todo ello equiparable al derecho penal del enemigo.

Fue promovida la amnistía sin cumplir los estándares y aplicada discriminatoriamente, como en los casos del abogado Perkins Rocha y los jefes de campaña de la oposición.

La comunidad internacional debe procurar la separación de poderes en Venezuela, ya que con impunidad y sin justicia para las víctimas no avanzaremos como sociedad.

The post Lawyer of Comando Con Venezuela Exposes Venezuela’s Illegal Courts & Political Persecution appeared first on UN Watch.

GENEVA, September 19, 2026 — Michelle Bachelet has withdrawn her bid to become the next United Nations secretary-general after suffering a crushing 11-1 defeat in the Security Council’s third straw poll.

The result marks a major victory for UN Watch, the Geneva-based human rights organization that led a months-long diplomatic and public campaign opposing the former Chilean president’s candidacy.

“Michelle Bachelet’s candidacy was defeated because governments could not ignore the record we placed before them,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

“When China imprisoned more than a million Uyghurs, when Vladimir Putin poisoned and jailed dissidents, when Iran persecuted women for showing their hair, and when Cuba and Venezuela crushed democratic opposition, Bachelet too often looked away. The United Nations must never reward silence in the face of tyranny.”

UN Watch’s campaign drew on its landmark 2022 report, Blind Eye to Dictatorships, which systematically reviewed the country-specific statements initiated during Bachelet’s 2018–2022 tenure as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The report documented what UN Watch described as a pattern of disproportionate scrutiny of democracies, combined with silence or minimal attention toward authoritarian regimes. It found that Bachelet failed to initiate statements on China’s mass detention of Uyghurs, Russian political prisoners, Iran’s forced-hijab laws, Turkish repression and major antisemitic attacks.

The study also found that Bachelet initiated more criticisms of the United States than of Nicolás Maduro’s dictatorship, despite 27 appeals made to her by UN Watch concerning abuses in Venezuela.

On May 19, UN Watch formally urged the Security Council to block Bachelet’s candidacy and sent her an open letter containing 11 questions about her record on China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and other repressive regimes.

UN Watch simultaneously submitted detailed appeals to the Security Council missions of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Latvia, Greece, Panama and Liberia.

“We did not ask the Security Council to take our word for it,” Neuer said. “We gave its members the evidence, the numbers and the unanswered questions. Bachelet held the UN’s most powerful human rights platform for four years. Governments had a duty to judge what she did with it, and whom she abandoned.”

The campaign gained international attention after Britain’s The Telegraph reported UN Watch’s warning that Bachelet would be a calamitous UN chief. Neuer also set out the case against her in The Jerusalem Post. The campaign was widely reported in Bachelet’s home region by Teletrece, El Mercurio, Ex-Ante, Diario Sur Noticias. UN Watch also amplified Bachelet’s remarks following a televised candidates’ debate in Geneva, leading to coverage in El País.

After successive straw polls exposed the weakness of her candidacy, Bachelet received only one favorable vote in the September 18 ballot and withdrew the following day.

“One vote for, and 11 against: the verdict could not be more clear,” Neuer said. “This was a crushing rejection of a candidacy that asked the world to forget four years of appeasing dictators.”

“Today is a victory for dissidents and political prisoners whose names were too often absent from Bachelet’s statements. It is also a warning to every future UN official: silence has consequences.”

What Next U.N. Secretary-General Must Do

UN Watch said it will continue scrutinizing the remaining contenders through its dedicated review of the candidates.

“The next secretary-general must have the courage and independence to confront powerful abusers and defend their victims without fear or favor,” Neuer said.

He listed five priorities for the next leader of the world body:

1. Restore moral clarity and credibility:  “The UN’s greatest asset is legitimacy, and it’s eroding. The next secretary-general needs to end the culture of false equivalence and selective outrage. When mass atrocities occur, the UN must name perpetrators clearly and consistently, whether they are powerful states or not.”

2. Enforce standards for UN officials and reports: “Too many UN mandate-holders operate as activists rather than impartial experts. The next secretary-general should establish strict evidentiary standards, transparency on funding, and real consequences for violations of the Code of Conduct. If UN reports are cited by courts like the ICJ, they must meet courtroom-level rigor.”

3. Stop empowering abusers inside the system: “Authoritarian regimes should not be chairing human rights bodies or shaping global norms. The next secretary-general should lead a coalition of democracies to block and expose these appointments, and make institutional hypocrisy politically costly.”

4. Refocus the UN on actual victims, not politics: “Too often, the system amplifies regimes and sidelines dissidents. The next secretary-general should systematically prioritize giving the floor to political prisoners, human rights defenders, and victims of repression, especially from places like Iran, China, and Venezuela.”

5. Distinguish perpetrators from victims: “The next secretary-general should insist on calling out serial abusers, and stop pretending that dictatorships are equivalent to democracies. If the UN cannot tell the difference between victims and their oppressors, it loses the reason it exists,” said Neuer.

ABOUT UN WATCH

UN Watch is a Geneva-based non-governmental human rights organization dedicated to holding the United Nations accountable to the principles of its Charter. Founded in 1993, it monitors UN institutions, exposes bias and misconduct, and advocates for human rights and UN reform. UN Watch receives no funding from any government.

The post UN Watch Welcomes 11-1 Defeat of Bachelet in Race For UN Chief appeared first on UN Watch.

The result marks a decisive victory for UN Watch’s months-long diplomatic and public campaign to prevent the former Chilean president and former UN human rights chief from being elevated to the world body’s highest office. UN Watch assembled the evidence, challenged her record, wrote to Security Council governments, and carried the case to international media and online audiences.

“Michelle Bachelet’s candidacy has been defeated because governments could not ignore the record we placed before them,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “When China imprisoned more than a million Uyghurs, when Vladimir Putin poisoned and jailed dissidents, when Iran persecuted women for showing their hair, and when Cuba and Venezuela crushed democratic opposition, Bachelet too often looked away. The United Nations must never reward silence in the face of tyranny.”

“The next secretary-general should possess the courage, independence and integrity that Bachelet repeatedly failed to show as the UN’s top human rights official,” said Neuer.

Campaign Built on Evidence

UN Watch’s 2026 campaign was built on years of documentation. Its foundational study was the 2022 UN Watch report Blind Eye to Dictatorships, a systematic review of the stand-alone country statements initiated during Bachelet’s 2018–2022 tenure as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

UN Watch’s report found a consistent pattern by Bachelet: disproportionate scrutiny of democracies, combined with silence or minimal attention toward authoritarian regimes whose victims most needed an independent international voice. Among its findings:

• China: Bachelet issued no stand-alone statement on the mass detention of Uyghurs until the final hours of her mandate, after delaying the UN’s Xinjiang assessment for years.
• Russia: She failed to initiate statements on political prisoners such as Vladimir Kara-Murza and remained publicly silent on Alexei Navalny’s arrest and attempted poisoning until after his February 2021 sentencing.
• Iran: She initiated no statement on the regime’s forced-hijab laws and systemic discrimination against women, or on threats to dissident Masih Alinejad abroad.
• Cuba, Turkey, North Korea: Her public interventions were absent or extraordinarily rare despite systematic repression.
• Venezuela and United States: She initiated more stand-alone criticisms of the United States than of Nicolás Maduro’s dictatorship, despite 27 UN Watch appealsto her concerning Venezuela.
• Antisemitic violence: She issued no comparable stand-alone response to the deadly Pittsburgh and Poway synagogue attacks or the Colleyville hostage-taking.

Timeline: UN Watch’s Campaign to Defeat Michelle Bachelet

May 19: Diplomatic Offensive

On May 19, UN Watch issued its formal call for the Security Council to block the candidacy: UN Watch Urges Security Council to Block Bachelet’s Bid for Secretary-General. The organization sent an open letter to Bachelet presenting 11 questions she needed to answer before any government could responsibly support her.

The questions covered her failures on Russia, occupied Ukraine, China and the Uyghurs, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Turkey, Venezuela, North Korea and antisemitic violence. The letter applied the UN’s own standard that a secretary-general must embody the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity and serve as a spokesperson for the world’s vulnerable.

At the same time, UN Watch delivered country-specific appeals to Security Council representatives of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Latvia, Greece, Panama and Liberia. Each government was urged to demand clear answers and assess whether Bachelet’s record met the standards expected of the next UN chief.

“We did not ask the Security Council to take our word for it,” Neuer said. “We gave its members the evidence, the numbers and the unanswered questions. Bachelet had held the UN’s most powerful human rights platform for four years. Governments had a duty to judge what she did with it, and whom she abandoned.”

Campaign Breaks into International Media

The campaign quickly crossed borders. Britain’s The Telegraph reported on UN Watch’s warning that Bachelet would be a calamitous choice to lead the UN. In The Jerusalem Post, Neuer published a detailed op-ed explaining why her record of selective outrage should disqualify her.

The controversy reached Bachelet’s home region through coverage in Teletrece, El Mercurio, Ex-Ante and Diario Sur Noticias. The reports ensured that the questions raised in Geneva and New York were also debated in Chile and across the Spanish-speaking world.

UN Watch’s social media campaign distilled the research for a global audience, repeatedly contrasting Bachelet’s rhetoric about human rights with the victims and crises she failed to champion. Posts circulated the report, letters, press coverage and direct questions to the candidate, keeping the issue before diplomats, journalists and civil society throughout the selection process.

The Vote That Ended the Bid

In the Security Council’s third informal straw poll on September 18, Bachelet received one “encourage,” 11 “discourage” and three “no opinion” votes. A candidate needs the Council’s recommendation—and must avoid a veto from any of its five permanent members—to be appointed by the General Assembly. With opposition overwhelming, she withdrew the following day.

“One vote for, 11 against: the verdict could not be clearer,” Neuer said. “This was a crushing rejection of a candidacy that asked the world to forget four years of appeasing dictators and obsessively targeting Israel. We are proud that UN Watch led the diplomatic campaign to ensure her record was known.”

“Today is a victory for the principle that senior UN officials must be accountable for what they do in office. It is a victory for dissidents and political prisoners whose names were too often absent from Bachelet’s statements. And it is a warning to every future UN official: silence has consequences.”

What UN Watch Achieved

UN Watch established the factual case through a comprehensive, quantitative review of Bachelet’s tenure, converted that research into an 11-point accountability test for the candidate, and put the evidence directly before Bachelet and key members of the Security Council. The campaign forced the issue into major British, Chilean and Spanish-language media, and amplified Bachelet’s post-debate remarks, which were subsequently featured by El País. Thanks to UN Watch, there was sustained pressure through statements, interviews, op-eds and social media until the decisive vote. In sum, UN Watch helped ensure that Bachelet’s record of silence toward dictatorships was examined before an appointment to the UN’s highest office.

Selected Campaign Record

• Foundational report: Blind Eye to Dictatorships: Report on the 2018–22 Tenure of UN Rights Chief Michelle Bachelet
• Press release: UN Watch Urges Security Council to Block Bachelet’s Bid for Secretary-General
• Open letter: UN Watch’s 11 questions to Michelle Bachelet
• Diplomatic letters: Appeals to the United States, United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Latvia, Greece, Panama and Liberia
• Op-ed: Why Michelle Bachelet should not become the next UN Secretary-General — The Jerusalem Post
• British media: Michelle Bachelet would be a calamitous United Nations chief — The Telegraph
• Chilean media: Teletrece, El Mercurio, Ex-Ante and Diario Sur Noticias coverage of the UN Watch campaign
• Media pickup: El País features Bachelet’s veto remarks and embeds UN Watch’s post
• Final straw poll: Reporting on the September 18 Security Council vote

The Work Continues

Defeating one unsuitable candidacy does not repair the United Nations. The next secretary-general will inherit an institution weakened by authoritarian influence, politicized human-rights mechanisms, institutional hostility toward Israel and repeated failures to defend dissidents.

With a dedicated focus page on all candidates, UN Watch will apply the same standard to every serious candidate: Will this person confront powerful abusers, defend victims consistently and uphold the UN Charter without fear or favor?

“The lesson of this campaign is simple,” Neuer said. “Facts matter, persistence matters, and dictators do not get the last word when civil society is prepared to fight. UN Watch will continue scrutinizing every candidate and working for a secretary-general worthy of the principles the United Nations so often proclaims.”

ABOUT UN WATCH

UN Watch is a Geneva-based non-governmental organization dedicated to holding the United Nations accountable to its founding principles of human rights, equality and justice. Founded in 1993, UN Watch monitors UN institutions, exposes bias and misconduct, and advocates reforms that strengthen the UN’s credibility and effectiveness. UN Watch receives no funding from any government and relies entirely on charitable donations.

The post Victory: Michelle Bachelet’s Bid to Lead U.N. Is Defeated appeared first on UN Watch.