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 | LinkedIn | Instagram

Invited by UN Watch, international lawyer Natasha Hausdorff took the floor at the United Nations to blast world leaders after they used the General Assembly as a platform to falsely attack Israel.

French President Emmanuel Macron: “Look at what’s happening in the West Bank where day in, day out we are seeing violations. And in the name of what? Hamas was never very active in the West Bank.”

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham: “Just eight weeks into becoming Prime Minister, working with my Foreign Secretary, Ed Miliband, I comprehensively reset our position… we have acted by banning trade in goods with illegal settlements…”

Spanish President Pedro Sánchez: “My country has opposed all wars of aggression… imposing an arms embargo on the Netanyahu government in Israel. We unequivocally condemn the genocide that Netanyahu is still perpetrating in Gaza.”

Australia Foreign Minister Penny Wong: “In the West Bank the situation is worsening. In the first six months of this year alone, settler violence has driven more than 15,000 children from their homes.”

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: “Gaza has become the most inhumane and shameful concentration camp of our time… I shall continue from this podium here to defend the rights of the oppressed, the rights of the aggrieved and the voiceless.”

Natasha Hausdorff for UN Watch: Mr President. World leaders have spoken.

President Macron says Hamas was “never very active in the West Bank.” Tell that to the family of Netanel Shukrun, murdered in Neve Tzuf just over a week ago. Tell that to Ambassador Yechiel Leiter, whose son Neria was just mowed down near Beit Horon. Hamas has murdered Jews in Judea and Samaria for decades.

The British Prime Minister declares an unlawful ban on products from these Jewish communities. Meanwhile, Britain gave a known Hamas terorrist a passport, which he used to plot attacks across Europe. Banning award-winning wine from Judea, but not the terrorists plotting to kill Jews.

Spain accused Israel of “genocide.” That is a lie and an inversion – It was Hamas that carried out a genocidal massacre. But then it is President Sánchez that has honored the only UN official in history condemned for Holocaust inversion.

Australia’s Penny Wong lied when she claimed that more than 15,000 children were driven from their homes in the West Bank. A lie that seeks to justify the ethnic cleansing of Jews which UN bodies call for.

And if President Erdoğan, truly cared about the oppressed, he would not jail his political rivals, silence journalists, and deny the Armenian genocide.

Let the record show this institution is being abused to promote falsehoods and subvert real international law.

The post Natasha Hausdorff Puts World Leaders’ U.N. Claims on Trial appeared first on UN Watch.

Holocaust Distortion from U.N. “Expert”: Francesca Albanese claims Jews in Nazi death camps “were called Muslims.” Antisemitism targets “Semitic peoples” and “not just discrimination against Jews.”

Even in Nazi death camps: She cannot name Jew-hatred without replacing the Jews. pic.twitter.com/ipSMTOK0Vu

— UN Watch (@UNWatch) September 24, 2026

Seen over 1.2 million times, UN Watch was the first to expose Albanese’s outrageous claims that Jews in Nazi death camps “were called Muslims” and that antisemitism targets “Semitic peoples” and “not just discrimination against Jews.”

Immediately, Albanese faced widespread condemnation, including from Holocaust Remembrance Center Yad Vashem and Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken, who said Albanese “is pro-Russian and hates Jews.”

@FranceskAlbs ventures into obvious and dangerous historical revisionism with her attempt to recast the Nazi persecution and murder of Jews as merely part of a broader hatred of the “non-white”, non European or “non-Christian.”

Her portrayal of the history of modern antisemitism…

— Yad Vashem (@yadvashem) September 28, 2026

While initially defended by her base, pressure began to mount — including from liberal Italian Senator Raffaella Paita who called her “outburst” as an “attempt to downplay the role of Jews as victims of the Shoah.”

As a result, Albanese was forced to issue a rare apology which only further amplified the story and drew more criticism. In a viral response, Hillel Neuer captured the perception: “Apology not accepted. You are not acting in good faith. You must resign.”

Apology not accepted. You repeatedly campaigned to erase the very meaning of hatred against Jews and engaged in Holocaust inversion. You have apologized before for antisemitic remarks, only to then renege. You are not acting in good faith. You must resign. In the name of God, go. https://t.co/OXI0Jv0q1r

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) September 28, 2026

British-Palestinian peace advocate John Aziz also criticized her lack of understanding. Coming from her own supporters, even Ihab Hassan — who is hostile towards Israel — condemned Albanese for attacking the Jewish state through “distorting the Holocaust” and “the history of antisemitism.”

Quickly thereafter, Albanese returned to her normal voice, making another post which effectively walked back her “sincere apology.” Even quicker, once this was called out by Hillel Neuer, Albanese deleted this new post and hasn’t commented again on the debacle in hopes the story blows over.

DELETED: After I called it out, Francesca Albanese has deleted her post from today (https://t.co/BYt96GM9or) that effectively walked back her “sincere apology” for her not knowing antisemitism targets Jews. Her post had also endorsed a supporter's praise of her “rare virtue.” 🧵 https://t.co/iZeUHPjPK2 pic.twitter.com/XBiIVl7Yto

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) September 29, 2026

Already condemned by over a dozen nations for antisemitism and Holocaust inversion, UN Watch will continuing applying pressure on Albanese until she is forced to resign.

The post Francesca Albanese Forced to Apologize After Being Exposed by UN Watch appeared first on UN Watch.

GENEVA, September 27, 2026 — UN Watch today condemned the UN Human Rights Office’s expansion of its Israel-only business blacklist, saying the report brands ordinary commercial activity as a human rights problem while giving boycott campaigners a list of companies to pressure.

The report released Friday adds 61 companies, bringing the list to 214 businesses in 11 countries. Five companies were removed. Newly listed firms include Israeli agricultural company ADAMA and real estate investment firm Alony Hetz.

“Read what the UN has actually put on this list,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “Banks, buses, water services, bakeries and food producers. These are the businesses that allow people to live ordinary lives. The UN is treating their services to Israelis as grounds for public denunciation.”

“The blacklist includes the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem within its geographic mandate. Absurdly, that means a family visiting the Western Wall, part of the holiest site in Judaism, could be impacted by sanctions on the transport that brings them into Jerusalem, the water supplied to nearby homes and businesses, and the banking services that keep those businesses operating.”

“This is not a list limited to companies alleged to have abused a Palestinian,” Neuer said. “A bus carrying passengers, a company supplying water or a bank providing loans can be listed because of where it operates.”

“Nothing in international law or practice justifies this blacklist. The UN has created no comparable company database for businesses operating in Moroccan-controlled Western Sahara or Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus. Only Israel is singled out.”

“What human rights principle says that Jews living in their ancient homeland — including the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem whose holy sites have been the object of Jewish prayer for millennia — should be denied normal transport, banking or utilities?”

“If supplying transport and utilities in a disputed territory warrants a UN blacklist, where are the lists for every other territorial dispute?” Neuer asked. “The UN demands a standard for Israel that it has never imposed elsewhere. And a double standard means discrimination.”

The consequences are no longer theoretical. As noted by Reuters, companies on the list could face boycott or divestment campaigns. Earlier this month, Britain, France and Canada announced plans to prohibit imports from Israeli settlements and take targeted action against those facilitating or profiting from them. Those governments have not said they will use this database. But the UN has now provided a public roster for anyone seeking to broaden economic pressure.

“The immediate value of this document to BDS is obvious,” Neuer said. “Its purpose is to fuel global boycotts and sanctions. It supplies names, categories of alleged harm and the UN’s seal of approval. The pressure need not stop at a shop or factory beyond the Green Line: the list includes major companies whose businesses reach across Israel and around the world.”

The mechanism originated in a 2016 Human Rights Council resolution sponsored by the Arab and Islamic groups and governments including Venezuela, Sudan, Cuba and Libya.

UN Watch said the council’s decision to target Israel alone violates the principles of universality and impartiality on which it was founded.

“Volker Türk should explain why his office devotes resources to naming companies that supply Israelis with bread, water and buses while producing no equivalent blacklist for any other country,” Neuer said. “Human rights cannot mean one rule for Israel and another for the rest of the world.”

“Meanwhile, the council gives a free pass to its own member states that commit gross and systematic violations of human rights, including China, Qatar, Cuba and Pakistan.”

“The UN has turned a water pipe, a bus route, and a bank loan into grounds for blacklisting — provided the people they serve are Israelis. That is not a human rights standard. It is a political target.”

The post UN Watch Condemns Expanded UN Blacklist of Israeli Businesses as Boycott Pressure Grows appeared first on UN Watch.

UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer appeared on ILTV with Calev Ben-David to discuss the high-level opening of the UN General Assembly and the overt bias of UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

Transcript:

Calev Ben-David, ILTV: Joining us now for more is Hillel Neuer. He is the Executive Director of UN Watch. And of course, this is a busy time of the year for you, Hillel, with plenty of material there at the UN General Assembly.

Let’s start with your comments, which you put out in a tweet about Antonio Guterres. The Secretary-General predictably criticized Israel in his address. Maybe just talk about your reaction to his remarks.

Hillel Neuer: Look, it’s not the first time that he has chosen to make this kind of comparison, where he says that Israel is doing something that’s the worst he’s ever seen in his entire life or in his entire tenure. And the fact is, it’s false.

He says that what’s happening in Gaza is the worst situation he’s ever seen, the scale unprecedented from anything he’s witnessed. Well, in the time that he’s been Secretary-General, perhaps he didn’t notice, but hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in Sudan, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Yemen, in Ethiopia, and the list goes on.

So, just factually, by any measure, if you look at Hamas’s maximalist figures, the other situations that I mentioned are far greater. The other piece which is significant is that Hamas invaded Israel. Hamas launched a massacre on October 7, killing 1,200 people in one day—the equivalent of 12 9/11 attacks proportionally, if you compare Israel’s population to America.

Israel responded to destroy Hamas, with innocent people killed. Of course, every innocent death is tragic. But Hamas launched a war. They launched a massacre with genocidal intent. Guterres erases all of that and falsely says it’s the worst he’s witnessed. The only way it’s the worst is if he was willfully blind to everything else happening in the world. Very sad.

Calev Ben-David: Now, Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to be speaking on Thursday. He’s put out a statement already saying he’ll go there to tell the truth about Israel’s heroic soldiers. Presumably, he’ll also speak on Iran and perhaps on Gaza. He also said he’ll talk about New York Mayor Mamdani.

What do you think the Prime Minister—what do you think he should be saying, will say, and should be saying there to the GA?

Hillel Neuer: Well, I think that he is going to make the case for Israel, as he always does. I think he’s certainly going to identify Iran as the head of the snake, which it is in the region. It’s the cause of war and terrorism from Syria to Lebanon to Gaza to Iraq to Yemen, right now spilling over into Saudi Arabia.

So I think he’s going to certainly talk about the war in Iran. He’s going to talk about Israel’s war against Hamas. These are all important subjects. He has a very difficult challenge ahead of him. Israel’s standing in the world is at a low point, certainly Western democracies, whether it’s Britain, Canada, Australia and other countries.

We saw France taking an unfair hit at Israel. We saw Macron just the other day. I think Netanyahu will hit him back. Macron said in French, basically, that Hamas never ravaged the West Bank the way it did in Gaza, so Israel has no excuse to act in the West Bank. And then he was attacked for it because, of course, Hamas has killed many people in the West Bank, in Judea and Samaria.

His office said that he said Hamas never governed, but that’s not the typical use of the French word according to any dictionary. So I think Macron will get hit. Let’s keep in mind, Macron is whitewashing Abbas. He talks about sovereignty for the Palestinians. A year ago, he defended his decision to recognize the State of Palestine, saying that he’s being criticized for doing something on paper. It was a fiction. There is no State of Palestine.

If we talk about Abbas, even the mayor of Paris in France stripped Abbas of a major award because of his remarks denying the Holocaust, justifying Hitler. So you have the mayor of Paris recognizing that Abbas is a Holocaust denier. His PhD from the Soviet Union is on Holocaust denial. And you have the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, whitewashing this defender of Hitler. It’s rather shameful.

Calev Ben-David: What about some of your response to President Trump’s remarks? He was a bit—I want to say—restrained when it comes to President Trump. I mean, he certainly has strong statements about Iran. Notably, he did not criticize the UN itself, something he’s done in the past, including last year. I mean, what was your response? How did you feel about President Trump’s remarks?

Hillel Neuer: Well, I think President Trump, interestingly, though in some cases he has a sledgehammer on certain issues. On the UN, it’s important to note he’s never said, “Destroy the UN.” Even when he signed executive orders pulling out of certain UN bodies, he said the UN has great potential. We need to make it great again.

His ambassador, who’s very busy in New York, Ambassador Mike Waltz, and Jeff Bartos, the ambassador for UN reform, have cut a lot of money from the UN budget, but they’ve talked about making the UN great again. So I think President Trump was consistent with his narrative.

He did, at the same time, call out UN human rights officials on certain of the remarks, either dealing with migration or transgender mutilation, as he put it. And let’s keep in mind that there are UN human rights officials who are, in the words of Guterres himself, “totally out of control.”

Whether it’s Francesca Albanese, who just said two days ago that the Western world should stop arming Ukraine, basically allowing Russia to destroy innocent people in Ukraine; whether it’s the Chairman of the UN Human Rights Officials, Mr. George Katrougalos, who recently gave a speech where he mentions China 32 times, yet not once criticized China or Xi Jinping, didn’t mention 1 million Uyghurs locked up, didn’t mention 6,000 Tibetan temples destroyed, didn’t mention Hong Kong democracy extinguished, and 78-year-old pro-democracy publisher Jimmy Lai languishing in prison.

So there’s a lot to talk about on the UN human rights officials. I’m glad President Trump put a finger on that.

Calev Ben-David: Is it worth it for Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak from the podium at the UN General Assembly, given all the Israel-bashing there?

Hillel Neuer: Yes. You can’t escape the world. This is the world as it is. It’s a tremendous forum. Prime Minister Netanyahu is a very accomplished speaker. So it’s a unique opportunity to address the world. He’s obviously, of course, addressing the Israeli people. He has an election coming up. You may be looking at his domestic audience more than anything.

But for Israel, it’s a tremendous opportunity to make its case before the world. And I hope Prime Minister Netanyahu will use felicitous language and eloquent language to make Israel’s case as the only democracy in the Middle East fighting to defend itself from terrorists.

The post Hillel Neuer on ILTV: Guterres’ Double Standard on Gaza Exposed appeared first on UN Watch.

Hillel Neuer appeared on Newsmax with Emma Rechenberg and Jon Glasgow to discuss New York City Mayor Mamdani’s empty threat to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and to lend insight into the future of the United Nations and its next leader.

Transcript:

Emma Rechenberg, Newsmax: Hillel, Mayor Mamdani must realize he cannot arrest Netanyahu as mayor of New York. Is this all a distraction?

Hillel Neuer: Mamdani’s politics are clear. He has radical politics. He’s someone who, when he mentions 9/11, he tries to equalize victims of America with what happened in New York, kind of a justification for some of the radical ideology. You know, he was elected to provide security and safety for the people of New York. Two hundred foreign dignitaries are about to descend upon Manhattan. He has a very serious responsibility.

Instead, for the past several months, he’s been grandstanding. He threatened initially to arrest Netanyahu. Then he said he wouldn’t, but he would understand if there are major protests. Look, New York has professionals in the police and other agencies. They’re going to do everything to lower the temperature. The problem is that the mayor is doing the opposite with his inflammatory rhetoric.

It’s the opposite of what New Yorkers need. He’s trying to pretend that he has a foreign policy. He’s the mayor. He wants to meet with radical left politicians like Lula da Silva of Brazil and Pedro Sanchez of Spain. It’s time for him to focus on what New Yorkers need, which is safety, security, and competence.

Emma Rechenberg, Newsmax: The United Nations, although it’s a major event with all these world leaders coming together in one spot, the president has expressed frustration with this General Assembly in the past. We’ve really questioned what they’re actually able to achieve. The Secretary-General will be leaving his position at the end of the year, after nearly a decade. Is there any expectation as to who would take on that role next? And really, what does the future of the UN look like?

Hillel Neuer: The United Nations is facing a very serious test. There’s a race now to succeed the Secretary-General, but I’d say that there’s a race to be relevant. Let’s keep in mind that we have crises around the world. In Sudan, there are some 14 million people displaced. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, wounded. The UN is doing nothing to solve that problem.

When we look at the wars in the Middle East, whether it’s the war launched by Hamas on October 7th or Iran bombing its neighbors from Israel to the Gulf, the United Nations is completely irrelevant. If there’s any movement, whether it’s you know Russia and Ukraine, it’s countries like the U.S. and a few others who get involved, but the UN is really not relevant.

So there’s major tests facing the UN Secretary-General. There’s no clear indication of who will lead. The few people who, on the initial straw polls, who’ve been leading are not substantial personalities who are well known. And keep in mind, to win the spot, you have to be approved not only by the U.S. but by Russia and China. So to imagine that you’ll have someone with a spine is a very hard expectation, given the regimes they have to appease.

Jon Glasgow, Newsmax: The Trump administration has said the UN has lost its teeth. It’s a gathering of world leaders, but really, nothing happens.

Hillel Neuer: It’s a catwalk for dictators.

The post Hillel Neuer on Newsmax: “When we look at the wars in the Middle East, the UN is completely irrelevant.” appeared first on UN Watch.

Guterres pressed to condemn rapporteur after she used her UN platform to argue against defending a country under invasion, on issue outside her remit

GENEVA, September 22, 2026 — UN Watch today called on United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres to publicly condemn Francesca Albanese after Russian propaganda began amplifying the UN special rapporteur’s campaign against military assistance to Ukraine, a matter entirely outside her mandate.

In a formal letter to Guterres, UN Watch said Albanese violated the Human Rights Council’s Code of Conduct by using the authority of her UN office to promote personal political views on NATO, European security, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Speaking on September 19 at the Festival di Open in Parma, Italy, Albanese acknowledged that Russia had invaded Ukraine, but immediately added that there were “a number of reasons that led to that war.” She alleged that a “political calculation” originating within U.S.-led NATO favors “a weak Europe” and is responsible for keeping the war’s “front” open.

Albanese called for an end to weapons deliveries to Ukraine, while offering no alternative by which the country could defend itself or end Russia’s invasion. “I don’t have the solution because I’m not an expert,” she acknowledged.

Her remarks were swiftly promoted by Russia Direct, a Russian propaganda account, which highlighted her UN title while broadcasting her demand: “We should stop sending weapons to Ukraine.”

UN Watch said the episode demonstrates the foreseeable damage caused when a UN mandate-holder lends the organization’s authority to narratives that serve the aggressor.

“Russian propaganda immediately seized on Albanese’s words and her UN title to validate Moscow’s narrative,” said UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer. “Having acknowledged Russia’s aggression, she insinuated that there were ‘reasons’ for it and then sought to deprive its victim of the means to defend itself.”

UN Watch cited Article 3(d) of the Code of Conduct, which requires mandate-holders to “focus exclusively on the implementation of their mandate”; Article 7, which requires “strict observance” of the mandate and prohibits recommendations exceeding it; and Article 12, which requires that personal political opinions not prejudice the mission and that experts exercise “restraint, moderation and discretion.”

UN RAPPORTEUR: “WE NEED TO STOP SENDING WEAPONS TO UKRAINE”
Russia invaded Ukraine, but “there are a number of reasons that led to that war…”
She accuses “NATO led by the United States” of “a political calculation to have a weak Europe. . .That’s why that front remains open.” pic.twitter.com/HH6J1T3Qek

— UN Watch (@UNWatch) September 22, 2026

Selective Silence on Iran

The watchdog also accused Albanese of applying mandate limits selectively. On January 12, when challenged to condemn the Iranian regime’s slaughter of protesters, she insisted that Iran fell outside her mandate. Yet she has repeatedly commented on Iran when doing so allowed her to condemn the United States or Israel. UN Watch documented those interventions in a review of her record.

“She invokes the boundaries of her mandate to avoid condemning a brutal dictatorship, then disregards those same boundaries to condemn the democracies helping Ukraine resist another,” Neuer said. “This is not principled respect for her mandate. It is the selective misuse of a UN office to advance her personal political agenda.”

Guterres recently acknowledged that “many rapporteurs are totally out of control.” UN Watch said Albanese exemplifies the problem, while both the Human Rights Council and the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures have repeatedly refused to hold her accountable.

“What is at stake is larger than one rogue mandate-holder,” Neuer said. “The credibility of the United Nations now depends on whether its leadership will defend the Charter and enforce its own rules, or allow the UN’s name to be used with impunity to excuse aggressors and abandon their victims.”

###

About UN Watch: UN Watch is a Geneva-based non-governmental organization accredited in special consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council. It monitors the performance of the United Nations according to the principles of its Charter and promotes human rights worldwide.

BREAKING: U.N. Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, Hamas’ de facto spokesman, calls for weapons embargo against Ukraine.

Shame on Amnesty for honoring her as 2026 keynote speaker. Shame on Reuters, Politico & NYT for glorifying her.

And shame on @antonioguterres for refusing to act. https://t.co/SgA22zgJY1

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) September 21, 2026

The post Stop Arming Ukraine, UN’s Albanese Tells Europe appeared first on UN Watch.

Speaking at the Festival di Open in Parma, Italy, on September 19, Albanese acknowledged that Russia invaded Ukraine, but immediately suggested there were “reasons” behind the war. She then admitted she had no solution and was “not an expert.”

Her intervention is not merely reckless and far outside her UN mandate. It exposes a striking hypocrisy in how Albanese decides when the boundaries of that mandate matter.

On January 12, 2026, when challenged to speak out against the Iranian regime’s slaughter of protesters, Francesca Albanese defended her silence by insisting that Iran fell outside her mandate.

Yet when discussing Iran offered an opportunity to condemn Israel or the United States, she repeatedly ignored that supposed limitation:

April 14, 2024: Albanese commented on “Iran’s military response” to Israel following the strike on Iran’s diplomatic compound in Damascus.

I truly hope Iran's military response to Israel's bombing of the Iranian embassy in Syria doesn't escalate into a full blown war. At the same time I urge everyone to remain committed to stop Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its brutal violence in the West Bank. This is the only path…

— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) April 14, 2024

June 13, 2025: She accused Israel of attacking Iran “unprovoked,” explicitly pronouncing on the conflict.

On the day Israel, unprovoked, has attacked Iran, killing 80 people, the president of a major European power, finally admits that in the Middle East, Israel, and only Israel, has the right to defend itself. https://t.co/Gl9rp9tpTr

— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) June 13, 2025

June 20, 2025: She declared that Israel’s actions in Iran constituted “psychological & political terror.”

It is "Humanitarian camouflage".
In my Anatomy of Genocide report, I anticipated that Israel would use that script in other contexts, if not duly stopped.
And Israel must be stopped: it represents a serious threat to peace and security under the UN Charter. https://t.co/kvU7os0TvH

— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) June 21, 2025

June 20, 2025: She joined other mandate-holders in “firmly condemn[ing] the Israeli attack on Iran” and demanding an immediate end to hostilities.

We, UN human rights experts, firmly condemn the Israeli attack on Iran and call for an immediate end to the hostilities.

Yet another flagrant violation of the UN Charter amidst the genocide in Gaza, which because of states' inertia, seems unstoppable. https://t.co/alD3lQ9zOe

— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) June 21, 2025

March 3, 2026: She again spoke about Iran, declaring that the United States and Israel had no right to bomb it.

Iran’s regime is illiberal and brutal, and the Iranian people deserve the freedom they have long fought for. This gives no right to the US or Israel -whose own policies in Palestine are also illiberal and brutal- to bomb Iran, nor to EU leaders to cloak escalation in hypocrisy. https://t.co/GM1SrxhCPa

— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) March 3, 2026

And now again this week, in order to condemn NATO and military aid to Ukraine, she suddenly recognizes no mandate limitations. She invokes the boundaries of her mandate only to avoid condemning a brutal dictatorship, then disregards those same boundaries to condemn the democracies helping Ukraine resist another. This is not principled respect for her mandate. It is the selective misuse of a UN office to advance her personal political agenda.

The post Albanese Refused to Condemn Iran, Now She Attacks NATO Over Ukraine 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.