The U.N. is ailing. It has been infected by the leftist virus. One of its necrotic organs is the system of Special Rapporteurs within the Human Rights Council — a system that tends not to defend those currently suffering under dictatorial regimes, but rather the thieves and tyrants currently in power.

The NGO U.N. Watch has just published an investigation titled “From Guardians to Ideologues,” reaching the following conclusion: “The United Nations' top human rights experts have abandoned their role as independent monitors and are promoting politicized agendas that erode the credibility of the international human rights system.”

Across its 104 pages, the report presents profiles of 13 Special Rapporteurs of the Human Rights Council — representing more than one-fifth of the 59 thematic or country-specific mandates tasked with reporting on human rights — and “reveals a pattern of ideological bias, financial conflicts of interest, and conduct that would end any professional career in any other institution,” a U.N. Watch source consulted for this article noted.

“The U.N. human rights system was founded to protect victims of abuse,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based NGO. “Instead, it is being manipulated to attack democracies and protect some of the world's worst human rights violators.”

The report's findings are shocking. Among them is the case of Alena Douhan, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures, whose official visits to Havana and other capitals were intended to lend support to authoritarian regimes.

Furthermore, she received $1.3 million in funding from China, Russia, and Qatar. Regarding this specific matter, Neuer remarked: “No one is even verifying how this money is being used. If a judge were to accept $1.3 million from one of the parties, they would be immediately disbarred and removed from the bench. If a journalist were to openly endorse a terrorist group on social media, they would be fired on the spot.” In his view, Special Rapporteurs operate without ethical constraints or consequences, rendering them compromised officials who enjoy diplomatic immunity.

For her part, Tlaleng Mofokeng, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to health, has asserted that “Hamas are not terrorists” and endorsed “the legitimacy of armed struggle.” And, as I wrote earlier this year, her primary objective appears to be pushing an abortion agenda under the guise of “health.”

U.N. Watch highlighted the name of Ben Saul, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, who received $150,000 from China. The report noted that, although Saul frequently levels harsh criticism against Western nations, he remains silent regarding China’s persecution of Muslim Uyghurs.

This same anti-Western bias permeates the work of other Special Rapporteurs as well.

Irene Khan, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, “turned a blind eye to the flagrant and systematic violations of freedom of expression perpetrated by the regimes of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Myanmar, as well as to the internet shutdowns ordered by Iran and Turkey,” U.N. Watch acknowledged. Yet, she dedicated an entire report to the U.N. General Assembly condemning Western nations for allegedly suppressing pro-Palestinian protests.

Ashwini K.P., focusing on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related forms of intolerance, disproportionately targets democracies while omitting any mention of the widely documented abuses regarding privacy violations perpetrated by Russia, China, and Cuba — a case that U.N. Watch illustrates with a report of mine on cyberespionage.

Michael Fakhri, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to food, accuses Canada of committing “genocide,” yet when invited by the now-imprisoned Nicolás Maduro, he took the opportunity to lavish praise upon the socialist tyranny.

George Katrougalos, a former Foreign Minister of Greece who serves as a U.N. independent expert “on a democratic and equitable international order,” received $100,000 from China in 2025 — the year he promoted Xi Jinping for his alleged “vision of openness, development, and dialogue.”

Reem Alsalem, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on violence against women, has refused to acknowledge the sexual crimes committed against Israeli women during the October 7 massacre perpetrated by Hamas.

The list goes on. It is both outrageous and disheartening. Could the Special Rapporteurs system be reformed? U.N. Watch believes it can and is demanding twelve concrete reforms.

Among these measures are: creating a coalition of democracies to periodically evaluate and rate Special Rapporteurs, and to hold them accountable; prohibiting them from accepting earmarked funding from governments or external entities; establishing an independent external mechanism to examine, audit, and sanction mandate holders; and strengthening mandatory evidentiary standards to end the reliance on anonymous sources.

In this regard, U.N. Watch warns that Special Rapporteurs frequently rely on unverified communications from NGOs. Yet, despite this, their reports continue to be cited “as authoritative sources by international tribunals, governments, and media outlets.”

The Special Rapporteur system is, in truth, an initiating engine for a globalist machinery permeated by a rejection of the West, the Christian faith, and individual liberties. But we will speak of that — and of the oikophobia coined by Sir Roger Scruton — later.