SHARE: YouTube | X.com | Instagram

Leopoldo Lopez addresses the 62nd session of the U.N. Human Rights Council on June 29, 2026, during the Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner’s report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela.

Speech Transcript (English Translation):

Mr. President,

Right now, there are families searching for their loved ones under the rubble.

Forty-eight hours ago, two earthquakes struck Venezuela. It has been devastating. At this time, the number of victims remains unclear—estimates put the figure in the tens of thousands.

What we are witnessing in real time is a simultaneous double collapse: the collapse of the physical infrastructure and the collapse of a state incapable of addressing the magnitude of the tragedy.

That collapsed state is exactly what the report under consideration today portrays. Because, as the report presented today details, the extensive repressive apparatus remains intact. Since January 3—already under the current government—there have been at least 87 new political arrests. Three people have died in custody. Nearly 500 political prisoners remain behind bars.

The earthquake did not strike a country under normal conditions. It struck amid a complex and ongoing humanitarian crisis.

That is why we ask this Council for two specific things: complete openness to international humanitarian aid, and the opening of all channels so that civil society—which, as always, has been the first to respond—has the tools to build solidarity.

Venezuela will have to rebuild itself. And not just its infrastructure. It must also rebuild its institutions, trust, and the rule of law. To do so, it needs this Council to be present—today and in the months to come.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Speech Transcript (Original Spanish):

Señor Presidenta,

En este momento, hay familias buscando a sus seres queridos bajo los escombros.

Hace cuarenta y ocho horas, dos terremotos sacudieron Venezuela. Devastador. A esta hora no hay claridad sobre el número de víctimas — las estimaciones hablan de decenas de miles.

Lo que estamos viendo en tiempo real es un doble colapso simultáneo: el colapso de la infraestructura física, y el colapso de un Estado incapaz de atender la magnitud de la tragedia.

Ese Estado colapsado es exactamente el que retrata el informe considerado hoy. Porque, como relata el informe presentado hoy, la extensa maquinaria represiva permanece intacta. Desde el 3 de enero — ya bajo el gobierno actual — al menos 87 nuevas detenciones políticas. 3 personas fallecidas bajo custodia. Cerca de 500 presos políticos siguen tras las rejas.

El terremoto no cae sobre un país en condiciones normales. Cae sobre una crisis humanitaria compleja y continuada.

Por eso pedimos a este Consejo dos cosas concretas: apertura total al apoyo humanitario internacional, y apertura de todos los canales para que la sociedad civil — que ha dado la primera respuesta, como siempre — tenga las herramientas para construir solidaridad.

Venezuela tendrá que reconstruirse. Y no solo la infraestructura. También las instituciones, la confianza, el estado de derecho. Para eso necesita que este Consejo esté presente — hoy, y en los meses que vienen.

Gracias, señor Presidenta.

The post Venezuela’s Double Collapse: Earthquakes Strike A Nation Already In Crisis appeared first on UN Watch.

Click Here for the Full Report

Executive Summary:

In November 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the system of Special Procedures as “the crown jewel of the UN human rights system.” Nearly two decades later, that jewel has lost much of its luster—tarnished by politicization, disregard for impartiality, and a complete failure of accountability to minimal norms and professional standards.

The Human Rights Council today maintains 59 Special Procedures mandates—46 dealing with global themes, and 13 addressing specific countries—an increase of nearly 30% from when the Council was created in 2006. Although Special Procedures are unsalaried, they receive certain financial support when carrying out official duties, including UN funding for country visits, as well as training, staffing support, and other institutional resources.

Mandate-holders are granted a global platform from which to issue UN press releases, hold press conferences, and publish UN reports. While their findings are not legally binding, they can significantly shape public debate, influence UN discussions, and inform how governments, media, and civil society interpret a wide range of policy issues and alleged human rights violations. Their reports are widely treated as credible and authoritative by institutions such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, as well as by governments, media outlets, universities, and civil society actors worldwide.

Reports by the Special Procedures “have a weighty doctrinal authority,” according to the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ), and are “very often referenced by national and international bodies, in particular by courts.” As of 2021, the ECLJ had identified 140 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights referring to reports by the Special Procedures, as well as numerous references in the judgments of the Inter-American Court. Their influence is therefore significant.

Mandate-holders are treated by leading institutions as neutral experts and are regularly invited to address prestigious international forums and academic institutions. Significantly, the UN affiliation enables them to leverage that authority across social media and international media appearances, where their statements are presented as reflecting the voice or expertise of the United Nations. Though their UN press statements carry a footnote indicating that the experts are “independent,” their remarks are routinely cited as representing the United Nations organization as a whole.

Yet, like the body that appoints them—the 47-member Human Rights Council, a majority of whose members are non-democracies—the Special Procedures have become politicized. The mechanism increasingly functions not as an independent human rights safeguard, but as a vehicle for ideological advocacy, selective targeting, and the laundering of unverified and even spurious allegations through the authority of the United Nations.

Academic scholarship overwhelmingly praises the Special Procedures system. In a leading book on the UN’s Special Procedures, Ted Piccone of the Brookings Institution praises them as “catalysts for change” whose independent status enables them to play a “critical role in shaping the content of international human rights norms.” According to Piccone, the Special Procedures mechanism is “one of the most effective tools of the international human rights system,” which “deserves further strengthening and support from the international community.” He advocated increased cooperation and financial support from governments.

Similarly, NYU legal scholar Philip Alston, who himself served in multiple mandates including as the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty, characterized Special Procedures as “the Council’s most effective mechanism” for responding to human rights violations and holding states to account. He praised their “impartiality” and contribution to interpreting international human rights norms, asserting that some of the experts’ reports had a “major impact.”

Likewise, according to American University’s Ingrid Nifosi-Sutton, the Special Procedures represent “a tremendous development in UN activity in the field of human rights” and “the climax of the legal and political empowerment” of the UN Commission on Human Rights, which was created in 1946, and then refashioned in 2006 as the Human Rights Council. She argued that the central challenge was to make UN human rights monitoring a “proper technical and effective endeavor,” a goal she concluded Special Rapporteurs ultimately achieved, particularly through country visits, reporting, and urgent appeals. According to Nifosi-Sutton, this success placed Special Procedures “at the front line of the international struggle to extend the rule of law.”

This report finds, however, that the reality of the Special Procedures system increasingly diverges from the admiring scholarly assessments. Rather than operating as independent and impartial experts, many mandate-holders now use country visits and thematic reports to advance politicized narratives, disproportionately target democratic states, and shield authoritarian regimes from scrutiny. As detailed below, structural deficiencies—including politicized appointments, proliferation of mandates, weakened evidentiary standards, lack of transparency, and the absence of accountability—have eroded the credibility and integrity of the system in practice.

Click Here for the Full Report

The post Report: U.N. “experts” accepted funding from China, Russia, Qatar, pushed their interests appeared first on UN Watch.

The report profiles 13 of the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteurs, representing more than a fifth of the 59 thematic or country-specific mandates to report on human rights, and finds a pattern of ideological bias, financial conflicts of interest, and conduct that would end careers in any other institution. Yet none has been removed; all retain their UN platforms.

“The UN’s human rights system was founded to protect victims of abuse,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “Instead, it is being manipulated to attack democracies and shield some of the world’s worst human rights violators.”

Among the report’s most striking findings:

• Alena Douhan, the UN special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures, received $1.3 million in funding from China, Russia, and Qatar. Her official visits—including to Tehran, Beijing, Damascus, Doha, Caracas, and Harare—were conducted exclusively to support authoritarian regimes, not their victims.

• Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism, received $150,000 from China. Though he routinely castigates Western states, he has refused to issue any statements on China’s persecution of the Muslim Uyghurs, which Beijing justifies as “counterterrorism.”

• Tlaleng Mofokeng, the UN special rapporteur on the right to health, said “Hamas are not terrorists,” and endorsed “the legitimacy of armed struggle.” She was found guilty of unprofessional conduct and fined by South Africa’s health authority for bringing the medical profession into disrepute, after she attacked UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer as “evil scum.”

• Michael Fakhri, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, accuses Canada of committing genocide. Though Venezuela routinely bars UN monitors, Fakhri was specifically invited for a visit, which he used to lavish praise on the Maduro regime.

• George Katrougalos, a former Greek foreign minister serving as the UN independent expert “on a democratic and equitable international order,” received $100,000 from China in 2025 — in the same year that he promoted Xi Jinping’s book, praising the Chinese dictator’s “vision of openness, development and dialogue” and “shared future for humanity.” In November 2025, Katrougalos traveled to Tehran and met with the Iranian regime’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi. The two lamented Israeli and American “crimes.”

• Irene Khan, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression, turned a blind eye to gross and systematic violations of free speech by the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Myanmar, as well as internet shutdowns by Iran and Turkey, yet she devoted an entire UN General Assembly report to condemning Western states for allegedly repressing pro-Palestinian protests.

• Reem Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women, has refused to acknowledge the October 7th massacre, denied Hamas sexual crimes against Israeli women, and amplified Hamas-aligned propaganda.

• Balakrishnan Rajagopal, the UN special rapporteur on housing, questions whether the U.S. is morally distinct from China, and says international law is an “imperial” system that “legitimates the exercise of raw power by the USA.” He routinely excoriates the U.S. while excusing or ignoring abuses by China, Russia, and Iran.

“Alena Douhan, the UN special rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures, who defines Western sanctions on dictatorships as illegal, received $1.3 million from China, Russia, and Qatar,” Neuer said. “No one is even checking how this money is being used. If a judge took $1.3 million from one of the parties, they would be immediately disqualified and removed from the bench. If a journalist openly endorsed a terror group on social media, they would be fired on the spot. Yet the UN’s rapporteurs operate without ethical constraints or consequences — and there’s not even a procedure to remove them. The result is a powerful bloc of compromised officials who enjoy not only diplomatic immunity, but complete impunity.”

The report finds that the UN mandate-holders frequently rely on unverified NGO submissions and anonymous sources, weakening evidentiary standards. Despite these concerns, their reports continue to be cited as authoritative sources by international courts, governments, and media outlets.

“We examined 13 of the UN’s 59 Special Rapporteur mandates—more than a fifth of the entire system—and found patterns of ideological bias, financial conflicts, and conduct that would trigger investigations in any serious institution. Yet at the UN, there is no real mechanism even to review misconduct. That’s why we’re calling for major reforms, to institute independent oversight, transparency, and consequences for wrongdoing.”

UN Watch is calling for 12 concrete reforms, including:

• Creation of a coalition of democratic states to regularly assess, publicly rate, and hold Special Rapporteurs accountable
• A complete ban on Special Rapporteurs receiving earmarked funding from governments or other external entities
• An independent external mechanism to review, audit, and discipline mandate-holders
• External vetting of candidates by democracies, independent of the UN’s politicized selection process
• Strengthened mandatory evidentiary standards to end reliance on unverified and anonymous sources

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 for reforms that strengthen the UN’s credibility and effectiveness. Through research, advocacy, and engagement at the UN, UN Watch works to ensure that universal human rights are upheld for all.

The post UN Watch Exposes Systemic Corruption at UN Human Rights Council in New Report appeared first on UN Watch.

The fact is that Canada, as a member of the 54-nation UN Economic and Social Council, participated in the consensus nomination of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the UN Committee for Programme and Coordination on April 8, 2026.

This committee deals with budget priorities and program coordination on critical issues, and will meet soon, May 14-21, to address women’s rights, human rights, and terrorism prevention. (See here.)

At a minimum, Canada should have taken the floor to object that it is wrong to nominate a regime that only months ago massacred thousands of protesters, and that brutally oppresses women, tortures political prisoners, and systematically violates basic human rights.

This is exactly what the United States did in that meeting. It was the only country that formally objected and disassociated itself from the consensus decision, citing Iran’s appalling record on women’s rights.

Canada and other Western democracies, however, remained silent and allowed the consensus to pass in ECOSOC, a body of which Canada is a member.

Notably, in a similar scenario at ECOSOC in April 2022, Canada, the UK, the EU, and several other democracies took the floor to object to the election of a Russian candidate, months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

At that time, Canada rightly took the floor, on behalf also of New Zealand, to object to and disassociate from the election of the Russian national, and to condemn “Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine.” Canada stressed that it did not want to provide “tacit endorsement” of the appointment of the Russian national.

This precedent from 2022 confirms that Canada clearly had the option on April 8, 2026 to likewise object to the nomination of Iran’s regime — but the Carney government made the decision not to do so.

Canada’s Reply is Misleading

Canada’s foreign ministry posted a series of tweets, saying: 

There have been incorrect reports on social media about Canada’s position on the nomination of Iran to the United Nations Economic and Social Council Committee for Programme and Coordination – an advisory body with no decision-making role. Iran was nominated as part of the Asia-Pacific Group. Canada is not a member of the group and did not endorse or vote for this nomination. There was no vote, as per established procedures. Canada does not support Iran for positions of influence within the United Nations. We will continue to actively work with partners to counter Iranian candidacies.

The truth:

• It is false and misleading to claim that the “nomination” of Iran was done by the Asia-Pacific regional group. Although it is the regional groups that first propose candidates, the UN procedure is very clear that the formal “nomination” is effected by the members of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It is a fact that the nomination of the Islamic Republic of Iran was done by Canada and the other members, in a consensus decision. Saying or suggesting otherwise is false and misleading.

• Saying that the Canada “did not endorse or vote for this nomination” is misleading if not outright false. In fact, as UN Watch first exposed in this viral tweet, Canada joined ECOSOC’s nomination of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Therefore, Canada by definition “endorsed” the nomination. All the more so when Canada failed to take the floor and dissociate itself from the decision — as the U.S. did at that meeting, and as Canada had done in April 2022 with the stated purpose of countering any interpretation that it provided “tacit endorsement” of the appointment.

• Implying that the regional group made the nomination, one which Canada did not endorse, is false. While the regional groups propose candidates, it is only Canada and the other ECOSOC members who have the power of “nomination.” (See UN ECOSOC Resolution 2008 (LX) and additional sources here.)

Iran was nominated as part of the Asia-Pacific Group. Canada is not a member of the group and did not endorse or vote for this nomination. There was no vote, as per established procedures.

— Foreign Policy CAN (@CanadaFP) April 19, 2026

4/ @MarkJCarney By way of reminder, here is how Canada rightly objected to an ECOSOC election on April 13, 2022, and what you should have done to object to Iran's nomination 12 days ago.@CanadaUN: “Madam President, I would like to make a brief statement on behalf of New… pic.twitter.com/jN7B72KCsS

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) April 20, 2026

.@MarkJCarney Mr. Prime Minister, this is misleading if not outright false. On April 8th, your 🇨🇦 government participated in the consensus decision to nominate the Islamic Republic of Iran—to a committee that meets soon to address women's rights & terrorism prevention. 👇 proof https://t.co/02VufE1F4l

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) April 19, 2026

The post Canada slapped with Community Note for denying it nominated Iran to UN body addressing women’s rights appeared first on UN Watch.

UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer was interviewed on the Fox News Rundown podcast with Eben Brown to discuss what to expect from the upcoming U.N. General Assembly, U.S. sanctions on U.N. officials, Israel’s strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar, and the ongoing controversy over UNRWA.

Eben Brown:
Later this month, heads of state will gather in New York City for the United Nations General Assembly. President Trump will address the body. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu might. This year’s General Assembly comes at a precarious time in world events. President Trump is back in office. Russia is still making war on Ukraine, and Israel is still fighting to retrieve hostages taken by Hamas terrorists. It also comes at a time when the U.S. is challenging the effectiveness of certain U.N.-sponsored organizations, especially ones supposedly dedicated to world health and, of course, the Palestinians. The Trump administration has intensely cut back U.S. funding of many of these groups, and has even begun targeting individuals within the UN’s umbrella, it says are working against American interests — namely Francesca Albanese, the U.N.’s lead on Palestinian issues, who is often accused of bias and even spreading outright falsehoods. She is now under U.S. sanctions.

Hillel Neuer:  
Clearly, the U.S. is taking a strong stand — I would say, tougher than ever before.

Eben Brown:
Hillel Neuer is the Executive Director of UN Watch. Our conversation took place mere moments after news broke Tuesday of Israel’s strike on Hamas leaders residing in the Qatari capital of Doha.

Hillel Neuer:  
The U.S., for the first time in history, has sanctioned a purported U.N. official. I say “purported” because Francesca Albanese has the title of the U.N. Rapporteur on Palestine, but in fact, her supposed renewal that was meant to take place in April was never lawfully carried out. UN Watch has shown in our reports how the basic procedure of the United Nations Human Rights Council was flagrantly violated. The United States made objections. The Netherlands publicly announced their objection. Hungary and Argentina sent in letters. We submitted a 56-page dossier. All of that was legally required to be addressed by the Council, and they never did so. So, the only way a renewal can take place is if there are no objections — and there were, and the Council ignored those objections. So in fact, her renewal never took place lawfully. She has no immunity. That’s why there was nothing stopping Secretary Rubio from sanctioning this Hamas supporter. She is de facto a spokesperson for Hamas, and that’s why yesterday in U.S. federal court in Colorado, Christian Friends of Israel filed a lawsuit against her for defamation and libel for the things that she said about them because they dare to support Israel. So bravo to Secretary Rubio for banning that Hamas supporter from entering America. And look, let’s be honest, what’s going to happen in New York in the week of September 22nd — it’s primarily a “catwalk for dictators,” and those are the words of world chess champion Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion, Russian dissident. So the U.N. General Assembly is a catwalk for dictators. And he’s right. We’re going to see on the catwalk — you know, Erdogan of Turkey is a dictator. We’re going to see Qatar — dictatorship, the president of Iran — dictatorship, the former terrorist from Syria. I mean, the list goes on and on. And they love the U.N. They love the U.N. They see it as a counterbalance to America. They see it as, you know, a way of tying up Gulliver and using the language and images of international law and credibility when in fact, they’re a club of dictatorships.

Eben Brown:
At the top of this club is a person who has the title of Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres. Most Americans don’t pay too much attention, I think, to the inner-workings of the UN, or even some of the outer-workings of the UN, certainly not its bureaucracy or its governance. But this is a person who was, I think decidedly, has taken sides in the Israel-Hamas conflict. I still don’t think, to this day, he ever actually condemned the October 7th attacks. I could be wrong about that.

Hillel Neuer:
No, I think he did, but then he quickly added — you know, this was like two weeks after the massacre, mass rape, massacre of families — Guterres did condemn the attacks, but then he said, however, he said, you know, “Nothing happens in a vacuum.” “These attacks did not happen in a vacuum.” He said: “These attacks did not happen in a vacuum.” And then he went on to enumerate numerous alleged grievances by the Palestinians over decades against Israel. In effect, he justified the attacks one grievance after another, saying, “Well, things didn’t happen in a vacuum,” you know, as if terrorism could ever be justified, and we’re supposed to believe — rightfully — that terrorism can never be justified. No matter what you think, what injustice you perceive, you can’t slaughter innocents. But Guterres was quick to say, “I condemn the attacks, but they didn’t happen in a vacuum,” when he could have said — and of course, he’s partly right in the fact that nothing happens in a vacuum. Nothing we do in our lives happens in a vacuum. But had he been more to the point, he would have said, “Nothing happens in a vacuum. Where do these terrorists come from? What schools do they go to?” Well, they went to UN schools. 90% of Gazans, according to the UNRWA, the infamous UN agency for Palestinians — their legal advisor, Johann Soufi, said on French TV last year that 90% of Gazans are graduates of UNRWA. Well, that means roughly 90% of the terrorists who massacred families and committed horrific acts were UNRWA alumni. That’s Mr. Guterres. He’s been in office for many years, so he should take responsibility. It’s not by accident that they invaded Israel because they were taught from a young age, “Your home is not in Gaza, your home is in Tel Aviv, and it belongs to you, and you should dismantle it violently.” And that’s what they did.

Eben Brown:
This has been, I think again, another year in which things have changed dramatically for the U.N., and a lot of that comes from the fact that the U.S. — especially with the Trump administration coming back to power, or the new Trump administration in power — had kind of squished those purse strings yet again, like they did the first time. That begins to affect what the U.N. can and can’t do, because they need money. And I think everyone knows the biggest funder of the U.N. has been the U.S., specifically the U.S. taxpayer. So they want to still continue these missions, but they have to face the fact that they are potentially running out of money, or certainly don’t have the cash flow they used to have, and the fact that at least one person has been put under sanctions, in this case, Albanese, they must realize that the Trump administration could do this further.

Hillel Neuer:
Yes, that’s right. Look, the U.S. cuts in donations to the U.N. are very substantial already. I’m based in Geneva, Switzerland, where there are maybe 25,000 U.N. and related staff from all kinds of U.N.-affiliated agencies, like the International Labor Organization, World Health Organization, and the Office of the U.N. Human Rights Commissioner. You know, many of these agencies are facing substantial cuts, and hundreds of jobs have been cut. And so it’s real. It’s real. And you know, decades ago, about some 25 years ago, John Bolton had said, “If U.N. headquarters were leveled today, it wouldn’t make a world of difference.” And so the question is, you know, when hundreds of these jobs are cut, what difference is it making to things that really count? And look, the U.N. has the potential to do good. There are hungry people in the world. We do need agencies to feed them when there are emergencies. But tragically, much of the U.N. has been hijacked by radical politics. And again, Gaza is a classic case — not the only one — but it’s a classic case, because there, you know, you could have real aid agencies actually helping people and giving food and settling refugees. Instead, Guterres gave the order: “Only UNRWA can deal with it,” and UNRWA is not a neutral agency whose mission is to give out food. Their mission is to tell Palestinians that “You suffered an injustice and you have the right to return and dismantle Israel.” If it were not the case, then there would be a dozen other U.N. agencies that could be giving out the food: UNHCR, UNDP, World Health Organization. Those are the agencies that do so all around the world. So the reality is that much of the U.N. is hijacked by radical politics. Again, I appeared just this morning before the United Nations Human Rights Council — “Human Rights Council,” let’s put that in scare quotes — because the members include Cuba, a police state that arrests teenagers for demanding democracy; Qatar, that has, you know, a million enslaved laborers; China, a regular member of the Human Rights Council, which has a million Muslims in camps, locks up anyone who dares to protest within moments; and, you know, Vietnam, which is a dictatorship that supports torture, is a member. China, Cuba, Qatar, Vietnam — these are the regular members of the Human Rights Council. More than half are full-on dictatorships. That’s the reality. And I think it’s high time that the U.S. and other democracies ought to speak out and say, “No more.”

Eben Brown:
Our guest is Hillel Neuer of UN Watch. We’re discussing the upcoming United Nations General Assembly later this month on the Fox News Rundown Evening Edition. Please like, subscribe, share with your friends. We’ll have more straight ahead. You mentioned, you’ve been talking here a lot about UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine. Earlier today, just really shortly before we began our conversation, explosions were heard in Doha, Qatar, and the Israelis are now taking responsibility for that, saying they targeted those top chief Hamas Politburo members that have been living really in opulence in Doha, commanding the Hamas forces in Gaza from a very, very safe distance, where you know they themselves are not getting any blood on them. They might have been taken out by this strike. We’ll know more later. But you posted a photograph to your Twitter account, to your X account, that’s very pertinent here. Can you tell me about that photo?

Hillel Neuer:  
Sure. You know, several days ago, Iranian media and Hamas media published a photo of a beautiful, opulent room in Doha, Qatar, where there was a meeting between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. So this is the Foreign Minister of the Islamic regime in Iran, which is responsible for terrorism and assassinations across the free world. You know, in New York City, just a few months ago, I attended — I was in federal court to witness the trial of three criminal assassins who tried to kill my friend, Masih Alinejad. She’s an Iranian-born journalist, a hero who speaks out against the abuses against women in Iran and has millions of followers. She’s the most courageous person that I know, and she now lives in Brooklyn, and Iran hired a criminal gang, some Central Asian gang — that Iran is very clever: they don’t necessarily send Iranian assassins. They’ll hire criminal gangs in local countries. So they send criminals to assassinate her in Brooklyn, and a guy with a submachine gun was caught — an AK-47 — outside her home in Brooklyn, ready to assassinate her. And this was about a year or so after they tried to kidnap her, take her to Venezuela and then to Iran.

So the Iranian regime, Foreign Minister Araghchi, is sitting there in Qatar with his Iranian delegation, and opposite him is the Hamas delegation. These are the Hamas leaders that are still alive as of a few days ago, and one of them, one of the senior Hamas leaders, is a gentleman named Suhail Al-Hindi. And Suhail Al-Hindi is known to me because I’ve been monitoring his actions as a long-time, three-decades-long UNRWA school teacher. I’m going to say that again: a school teacher paid by the U.N. with our money, U.S. taxpayers were giving some $300 million a year to UNRWA to employ Suhail Al-Hindi as a school teacher, as a principal. Eventually, he was a school principal and was eventually head of the entire staff union in Gaza — 13,000 employees. And he is also a Hamas terror chief. A Hamas terror chief. So you say it and you don’t believe it, UNRWA school teacher, principal, head of the UNRWA staff union, again, an agency that we’ve been paying for up until about two years ago, was a Hamas terror chief, and is one of the people who was part of the Hamas delegation last week, and time will tell whether he was part of the Hamas group that according to reports, was assassinated in a bomb blast in Qatar today.

Eben Brown:
What does an organization like yours do during the UN General Assembly? Are you running around, pounding on doors, knocking on — and trying to get attention to certain people? I mean, I imagine this is a big deal for an agency such as yours.

Hillel Neuer:
Yes, it is a big deal. The truth is that, because we are not a member state, we have status at the UN, which we obtained, you know, decades ago, thanks to U.S. help at the time, in 2002. We have status as an observer at the U.N., or what’s called an NGO, a non-governmental organization. And as such, we can enter U.N. premises, and, you know, meet with delegations and so forth, but not during that week. So actually, that week, it’s sort of all bets are off, and they only let country delegations attend the U.N. meeting. So I don’t have access to the U.N. during that time. I do hope to be in New York for part of the week. I do hope to be there as a commentator, to help explain to the world what’s going on, and whether it’s dictatorships who gather to try to attack America and Israel or the democracies. Let’s not forget we have something unprecedented: major democracies, European countries, France, the U.K., also my native Canada, I’m ashamed to say, and Australia have announced that they intend to recognize a Palestinian state, and that they intend to do so as part of a summit that will take place on Monday, September 22nd. And that’ll be a day before President Trump addresses the opening of the UN on the 23rd. But the day before, Macron with Saudi Arabia, but really led by Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, has been pushing to declare a state, even as they acknowledge that there is no state.Okay, Ramallah has a Palestinian Authority, local government that basically governs several cities. They take out the garbage and do a few more things. These are governments that continue to support terrorism. The PA, as we know in America, has a “pay-to-slay” program — those who commit terrorism, just like yesterday, Palestinian terrorists gunned down a rabbi and other innocent civilians at a bus stop in Jerusalem. Those families will get money for the rest of their lives. You get rewarded if you kill Jews. That’s the Palestinian Authority. And then much of so-called Palestine is run by Hamas. Gaza, up until recently, was entirely run by Hamas. Now Israel controls part of the territory, so there is no democratic Palestine. You know, Abbas is in the 20th or 21st year of his four-year term. He hasn’t held elections in over 15 years.

Eben Brown:
Hillel Neuer, you are with UN Watch. Thank you so much for being with us on the Fox News Rundown Evening Edition.

Hillel Neuer:
Thank you for having me.

The post Fox News Podcast Interview: Hillel Neuer on What To Expect at the U.N. General Assembly appeared first on UN Watch.

UN Watchdog Talks to VEJA and Stirs Controversy: ‘The Failures Are Profuse’

Without mincing words, Hillel Neuer criticizes Lula’s remarks on the war in Gaza, expresses suspicion over the closeness between Trump and Putin, and raises alarms about neo-Nazism.

By Paula Freitas

The past few years have been tumultuous—and tense—for the United Nations. Two major wars, in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, have erupted, with devastating humanitarian consequences. Antisemitism is surging worldwide, while neo-Nazism concerns a range of countries, including Brazil. In Venezuela, accusations of electoral fraud against President Nicolás Maduro have led to mass political imprisonments. Freedom of expression has been pushed to its limits, as seen in the protests that spread across U.S. universities last year. And, shaking up the rules of the game, Donald Trump returned to the White House in January.​

In such a context of political instability, the responsibility of the United Nations grows. Yet, the organization has often failed to respond adequately to new challenges on the international stage, such as the war in Ukraine, now extending beyond three years. This has led to demands for the organization’s actions to be monitored as it navigates the turbulent paths of history.​

This is the role of the non-governmental organization UN Watch, based in Geneva, Switzerland: “to hold the United Nations accountable to its founding principles,” leading the “fight against antisemitism and campaigning in global bodies against all forms of racism and discrimination.”​

“UN Watch believes in the United Nations’ mission on behalf of the international community to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’ and provide a more just world. We believe that, despite its shortcomings, the UN remains an indispensable tool for uniting diverse nations and cultures,” states the human rights organization’s portal, founded in 1993.​

In both its successes and failures, the UN is a central pillar of international cooperation—more necessary than ever. Amid this dynamic global landscape, VEJA spoke with UN Watch’s executive director, Hillel Neuer, an international lawyer, diplomat, writer, and Jewish activist.​

In the interview, Neuer discusses a diverse set of topics, from President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s comments on the war in Gaza to the rapprochement between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, reshaping the political chessboard of the conflict in Ukraine. Above all, he believes the UN has failed as a moral compass. “It has been cowardly,” he states unequivocally.​

Neuer will give two unprecedented lectures in Brazil on April 1 and 2, in Rio de Janeiro, at the invitation of Hillel Rio, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary—a non-profit cultural and educational institution dedicated to the youth of the Jewish community—and in São Paulo, where he will participate in the inauguration of Hillel São Paulo.​

You say the UN has an anti-Israel bias. Why?

It’s pervasive. It’s not just in one UN body. It’s in many, unfortunately. It’s something we see throughout the United Nations. I’ll give you just three examples. In New York, there’s the UN General Assembly, which brings together all 193 countries and, each year, adopts resolutions. There’s one on Iran, one on Syria, one on North Korea, and 17 on Israel.​

No other country in the world comes close. Most countries have none. For example, none on Cuba, which is a police state. None on China, where 1.5 billion people lack human rights. None on Egypt, where there are thousands of political prisoners. None on Pakistan, none on Mr. Maduro in Venezuela, and 17 on Israel.​

Then, you cross the ocean and arrive in Geneva, where the UN Human Rights Council is currently in session. There, they have a day dedicated to the world. That is, if your country wants to speak about what’s happening in China or anywhere else, it can do so under what’s called agenda item four. You can talk about any of the 193 countries. Then, there’s a single day to talk about Israel. An agenda item called item seven.​

It’s called “Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Arab Territories,” including Palestine. But it’s all about Israel. Countries where not even a word of protest is allowed are all dedicating a special day, a special agenda item, to accuse Israel, a democracy, of being the world’s worst human rights violator.​

UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, employs tens of thousands of workers and is the main source of humanitarian aid in Gaza. Why do you say UNRWA is “rotten from within”?

It started with good intentions. It was meant to help Palestinians displaced after the 1948 war. But very quickly, it became something that only perpetuates the war against Israel. Palestinians living in UNRWA areas, which are called camps but aren’t really camps because they’re not in tents—they’re in neighborhoods, in buildings in Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan—are called refugees, and this is for a very sharp and, I would say, pathological policy.​

It’s a pathological agenda that tells Palestinians their goal in life is to dismantle Israel. They don’t call it that; they say it’s a right of return. So, in Jordan, look at Jordan—there are 2 million Jordanians with Jordanian citizenship, Jordanian passports for 70 years. Jordanians like I’m Canadian. And yet, according to the UN, they’re refugees because their grandfather or grandmother, or great-grandfather, was displaced from British Mandate Palestine.​

UNRWA is not the firefighter. It’s the arsonist, the pyromaniac. They’re the ones lighting the fire, encouraging, teaching Palestinians to wage a war to dismantle Israel. They’re the opposite of the Two-State Solution. The agency teaches Palestinians in Gaza that Gaza is not their home. Their home is in Tel Aviv. Why should they rebuild Gaza? And it’s completely infested by Hamas, from employee unions to teachers. This is funded by the UN, paid for by Western countries, which indeed finance UNRWA.​

Regarding the expulsion of students who participated in protests in the U.S. Does this not violate the constitutional amendment governing freedom of speech?

No, I don’t think that’s the case, and I’ll explain why. The first thing is, why was Mahmoud Khalil arrested and detained? Because he violated the conditions of his visa. Everyone who has a visa knows very well that in the United States, you have conditions and risk deportation if you violate them. Defenders say, “but he has First Amendment rights.” First of all, he is not a citizen. So, it’s not as if he has the same rights as a non-citizen. We don’t know how he got his green card in just two years, which usually takes much longer. And suddenly, he started leading a kind of bullying, harassment, and terror against Jewish students.

For a year and a half, Jewish students on campus were confronted by protesters. They blocked students, deliberately trying to resemble Hamas. In English, we call it “cosplay,” a kind of role-playing. They fully supported the October massacre, claiming it was resistance. They set up encampments on campus, against university rules. And the idea that a foreigner would do this, violating the conditions of his visa, and the authorities would do nothing.

This is not just an American problem. It is at least a North American problem, if not also an issue in Australia. I am originally from Canada. And in Canada, similar things were happening at my university, McGill University. Similar incidents were occurring in the streets, and the government was somewhat afraid, signaling that this was acceptable. The result of this is antisemitism at levels never seen before in Canada or the United States.

At some point, the government has to say: “This ends now.” So, if someone in the United States protests and is a citizen who says something very strong, their rights should be protected because the First Amendment guarantees that. But if a foreigner arrives, lies on their visa application, denies students their basic rights to move freely, and openly supports the terrorist group that kidnapped Americans, I think the perfectly normal thing to do is to say: “You know what? You violated your conditions. You were a guest in our country, and now you are no longer welcome here.”

Last year, the National Human Rights Council presented concerns to the UN regarding the rise of neo-Nazi groups in Brazil in recent years. How do you see the increase in neo-Nazism and antisemitism worldwide?

Antisemitism, over the past year and a half, has become a tsunami for Jews around the world. I just met a rabbi from Norway, and he told me how many Jews, who once felt completely integrated, now feel they need to go somewhere else, that they are no longer welcome in Norway. Which is shocking. We are not talking about Iran, Syria, or some other dictatorship. Norway is considered the most progressive liberal democracy.

For many years, Jews in Europe heard, “You killed our God, your ancestors killed Jesus, so you are guilty. ” Jews were persecuted, burned, attacked, and exiled from every city in Europe during the Middle Ages. And this was all in the name of the accusation of deicide. But after the Holocaust, antisemitism became taboo. On October 7, that taboo was broken, and now there is a tsunami of hatred. The truth is that in many countries, the rise in hatred against Jews is not coming from the white right. Yes, it comes from there, but it also comes from the left. The groups that claim Israel is committing genocide. These are not neo-Nazis; they are on the opposite end of the spectrum. It is a narrative coming from the left, echoed by some UN officials and certain human rights groups, such as Amnesty International.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva compared the deaths of Palestinians to the Holocaust. Do you agree?

This kind of statement is a stereotype. It is a common antisemitic stereotype—to accuse the victims of the Holocaust of perpetrating genocide. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Jews in Poland did not attack Berlin, did not attack Hitler, the Nazis, or Germany. The 6 million Jews who were killed did not attack anyone. What happened in the Holocaust was genocide by the Nazis against the Jews, and what is happening in Israel is defense against an attempted genocide. We had a day of genocide on October 7.

Hamas openly states that it seeks to destroy Israel and openly tried to kill every person they could get their hands on. They murdered women and babies with their own hands. They tortured people, did things in front of their family members. No country in the world would allow a terrorist army on its border, just meters away. That is what Israel was living with. Israel thought it could allow this, and it was wrong.

So, Israel is obligated to defeat Hamas and has already killed about 20,000 fighters. Israel is waging a justified defensive war, just as the British did against the Nazis when they were attacked. Falsely accusing it of committing genocide is a truly vile thing to do. What Lula did was a disgusting defamation, a form of slander used to justify antisemitism. He should be ashamed of making such a false analogy.

But nearly 50,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks.

Israel tries more than any other country to avoid harming civilians. And don’t take my word for it—listen to what top Western military generals say. Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British forces in Afghanistan, has publicly stated that no army in the history of warfare has done more to avoid harming civilians than Israel. The problem is that Hamas are cowards. Only when they are performing on stage—when they bring out the Israeli hostages they release, have them sign a document, and present them before crowds—do they wear uniforms. But throughout the war, there were no uniforms. The Geneva Convention states that soldiers must wear them.

If you dress as a civilian, you are hiding and violating the Geneva Convention. That is exactly what Hamas has done. They built their terror tunnels—hundreds of kilometers of them—under schools, houses, and hospitals. Besides, the numbers all come from Hamas. The figures do not come from the Red Cross. There is no UN expert on the ground; all the data comes from Hamas. But even according to Hamas’s own statistics, when the death toll was between 40,000 and 45,000, around 20,000 were Hamas combatants. So, we are talking about a ratio of approximately 1.2 to 1.5 civilians killed for every terrorist combatant—a proportion well below the numbers seen, for example, in Afghanistan. Yes, civilians have been killed, but no army in history has done better in fighting an urban war, one designed by Hamas.

In December, a report indicated that Venezuela has 2,000 political prisoners—a situation worsened by accusations of electoral fraud after Nicolás Maduro’s victory. You have said that the UN is “rolling out the red carpet” for dictatorships. How do you view the situation in Venezuela?

My organization, UN Watch, recently hosted the true president of Venezuela, Edmundo González, at the 17th Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy in late February. He is the real winner of the elections held last July. Everyone knows it. The opposition had observers at every polling station. Unfortunately, we have a dictatorship that has caused more than 7 million people to flee the country—one of the world’s richest nations in natural resources.

They persecute judges who act independently and imprison human rights defenders. This week, we also spoke with María Corina Machado, the opposition leader. She gave a speech via video because she is not allowed to leave the country. These are the heroes, risking their lives for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law in Venezuela, and the world needs to support them.

Unfortunately, the United Nations often rolls out the red carpet for dictators. Maduro and Chávez were repeatedly members of the Human Rights Council. Now they are out, but they were members for most of the past years. So, it is very sad. The UN needs to stand with the victims, not the oppressors. And today, Maduro is part of the gang of oppressors. He was a friend of Assad, Putin, Khamenei, and the Castro regime in Cuba. That is what he is. And he is a narco-terrorist, and the United Nations should say so.

You argue that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is “a complete act of aggression and a violation of international law” and that “the free world must stand with Zelensky.” Is the rapprochement between Trump and Putin a bad sign?

I am deeply concerned. I don’t understand it. It looks terrible. My good friend Vladimir Kara-Murza is the leading Russian opposition politician alive today. Alexei Navalny was the most famous. He was left to die in prison. Vladimir Kara-Murza is now the most well-known opposition leader. He was poisoned twice, in 2015 and 2017. He fell into a coma. He nearly died. We brought him to the United Nations to speak. You could hear it in his breathing. You could hear that he couldn’t breathe normally. He was poisoned.

We hope that the United States will acknowledge this and hold Putin accountable for his repression of political prisoners and his war crimes in Ukraine. And President Trump says he is doing this to bring peace. Well, sometimes you have to make concessions to bring peace. We understand that. Sometimes it is necessary to negotiate with terrible regimes, and maybe we have to give President Trump some benefit of the doubt. But he should not call Zelensky a dictator—that is unacceptable; he should not say that Putin is his friend—that is unacceptable.

The rules of the game are changing. What should the UN’s role be in the war in Ukraine?

The first thing is that the United Nations must speak with moral clarity. It was founded on moral clarity. It was established by the countries that defeated Hitler. But unfortunately, today, we rarely see that. Vladimir Putin was sitting on the Human Rights Council when he invaded Ukraine. UN Watch led the campaign to expel him, and we succeeded. Normally, our campaigns fail because countries do not care, they are cynical, they want to make political deals. Mr. António Guterres (the UN Secretary-General) says nothing when dictatorships are elected, and he has been very quiet about Putin, very rarely condemning him. He shook Putin’s hand about six months ago.

So, I believe the United Nations is failing to show moral leadership. This requires external groups or some countries to step up. The UN should not be an agency that legitimizes dictators and supporters of terrorists. It was created to tell the truth, to defend fundamental freedoms, to uphold the founding Charter, and to condemn evil and murderous dictators like Vladimir Putin. Too often today, the UN displays cowardice—the opposite of courage and moral clarity.

The post Hillel Neuer Interviewed by Major Brazilian Magazine Veja appeared first on UN Watch.

The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Swiss Parliament’s Council of States voted 7 to 6 for a motion to “immediately suspend funding to UNRWA.” The decision came after UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer was the only witness invited to address the committee concerning UNRWA’s complicity with terrorism, presenting a 52-page dossier.

On February 18, 2025, in the presence of Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis, the Committee made the following decision:

The Committee approved, by 6 votes to 6, with the deciding vote of the president, Motion No. 3194, to immediately suspend contributions to UNRWA. The majority of the Committee believes that Switzerland should not financially support an organization potentially linked to terrorism, on the one hand, and that other organizations could carry out UNRWA’s tasks, on the other. The minority, however, argues that the agency’s activities are currently essential in the region and that the immediate suspension of contributions to UNRWA would be dramatic for the civilian population.

At the hearing, Neuer presented the 52-page dossier filled with photographic evidence exposing the disturbing links between the UNRWA and Palestinian terror organizations. Neuer was the only critical voice to refute the statements made by the representatives of UNRWA and the ICRC at the hearing. UN Watch played a crucial role in the decision of the committee to support defunding UNRWA.

The motion now goes before the full plenary of the Council of States, for a vote scheduled on March 18, 2025.

Today in the 🇨🇭 Swiss Senate I presented our dossier exposing UNRWA terror ties. I'm hopeful they'll confirm the lower house motion to defund UNRWA. The US defunded in March; Netherlands and Sweden last month. Then we need to impose sanctions—and indict Lazzarini for war crimes. pic.twitter.com/3XsmalQpPh

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) January 20, 2025

The post Swiss Parliament Committee Votes 7-6 to “Immediately Suspend Funding to UNRWA” appeared first on UN Watch.

The parliamentary motion’s explanatory comments specifically cite the reports of UN Watch, the independent non-governmental organization based in Geneva, in decrying UNRWA staff glorification of terrorism.

When the parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing in April on UNRWA, Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, was the only critical voice to be invited as an expert witness.

In his presentation to the parliament, Neuer had presented a dossier on UNRWA’s terror ties, and exposed the “independent audit” released in April by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna—which was used by Germany and other states as a pretext to reinstate funding—as a complete farce.

Comment from Hillel Neuer

“By calling for an immediate suspension of UNRWA funding, and for the agency to be replaced, the parliament of Switzerland has sent a powerful and unequivocal message: that UNRWA is tainted to the core by its complicity with terrorism,” said Neuer.

“This is the first defunding of UNRWA following the rigged Colonna Report, and the Swiss parliament’s decision amounts to a devastating rejection of the entire report.”

“The rebuke of UNRWA is especially poignant coming from Switzerland, which is the guardian of the Geneva Conventions, and is rightly upholding international humanitarian law against an agency that is cynically abusing those principles.”

“The vote is also a slap in the face to UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini, a Swiss national who invested an enormous amount of time this past year lobbying in Switzerland to block this motion. Lazzarini failed, and the facts prevailed.”

“Despite numerous attempts by UN Watch to pass warnings to Mr. Lazzarini of the terror ties of his employees, he has repeatedly refused to meet with us.”

“As I have said before, if Mr. Lazzarini and UNRWA truly cared about the complicity of senior UNRWA staff with terrorism, he would agree to meet with me and see our latest dossier. I am again urging him to meet with me. I will meet with him in Geneva, Amman, Jerusalem. I will meet with him anywhere.”

“But the truth is that the real leaders of UNRWA are not the handful of internationals who do the agency’s fundraising in the West. It is rather individuals like Fathi al-Sharif, head of UNRWA’s staff union in Lebanon and a senior leader of Hamas. Or officials like Suhail al-Hindi, who long headed UNRWA’s staff union in Gaza and is an elected member of the Hamas Politburo alongside Yahya Sinwar.”

“The entire organization has been infiltrated and hijacked by Hamas terrorists to serve the terror group’s war aims.”

“Over 173,000 people have signed UN Watch’s petition demanding that Western democracies defund UNRWA and immediately seek a solution to replace its services. We commend Switzerland for acting on this appeal.”

UNRWA Sued For Promoting Terrorism

UNRWA and Lazzarini are currently the object of at least six legal proceedings alleging that the agency promotes terrorism, in Canada, France and the US. An internal UN investigation fired at least 9 UNRWA employees for their involvement in the October 7th massacre.

In 2018, Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis said that UNRWA “has become part of the problem. UNRWA supplies the ammunition to continue the conflict. By supporting UNRWA, we keep the conflict alive. It’s a perverse logic.”

In 2019, Switzerland temporarily suspended funding for UNRWA, joining Belgium, the Netherlands and New Zealand, in wake of an ethics report that implicated then commissioner-general Pierre Krahenbuhl (now the head of the ICRC) in a corruption and abuse scandal. Contrary to certain reports, he was never cleared.

Evidence Against UNRWA

• Dossier: UNRWA’s Terror Ties

• Rigged: UNRWA’s “Independent” Review

• Exposed: Francesca Albanese’s UNRWA Lobby

• Teachers of Terror: UNRWA Union Chief Is Hamas Leader

BREAKING: 🇨🇭 Swiss Parliament adopts motion to immediately suspend support for UNRWA, voting 99 to 88. Calls to instead send aid directly to Gazans, and to seek a solution to replace UNRWA. https://t.co/Ybf0TXyF95

I was the only critical voice invited to address them in April: pic.twitter.com/5ukV40U8PG

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) September 9, 2024

The post Swiss Parliament Adopts Motion to “Immediately Suspend” Support for UNRWA appeared first on UN Watch.

The post ICJ President Nawaf Salam exposes his bias against Israel on social media appeared first on UN Watch.

The post Hamas condemns UNRWA for asking Hamas teacher to resign appeared first on UN Watch.