China and Russia accused of sabotaging UN human rights funding

For years, a handful of countries hostile to UN human rights scrutiny have found a way to stop probes before they even begin: cut off the money. An investigation by the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) released on Tuesday details how Beijing, Moscow and others have sought to defund the UN Human Rights Office by exploiting obscure budget negotiations in New York.

The strategy – combined with the Trump administration’s latest aid cuts to the UN’s Human Rights Office and the Human Rights Council – poses an “existential threat” to one of the UN’s three main pillars, the NGO based in Geneva and New York warns, as the organisation braces for sweeping austerity next year.

Budget talks highjacked

Across some 100 pages, the report describes a systematic campaign spearheaded by China and Russia to chip away at the UN’s human rights machinery – particularly targeting investigations into abuses in countries like Ukraine, Belarus, Venezuela and North Korea – by hijacking technical budget committees in New York.

“They have weaponised this budget process to try to defund the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as well as Human Rights Council-mandated country investigations,” said Angeli Datt, an independent consultant who authored the report, based on interviews with 37 diplomats, UN officials and experts.

According to Datt, Beijing and Moscow have been especially active in the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) – a 21-member body in charge of reviewing UN budgets and making recommendations to the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly, which signs off on the final figures each December. The Fifth Committee, composed of all UN member states, rarely goes against the ACABQ’s advice, turning it into a choke point for rights funding.

ISHR’s review found that the ACABQ “disproportionately” targets the UN Human Rights Office, recommending the rejection of roughly half of its new post requests over the last five years.

“There’s a clear strategy to stack the ACABQ with members who will advance hostile human rights recommendations, and then block consensus (at the Fifth Committee),” said Datt.

The committee club is meant to consist of independent members, but Datt said almost all are past 5th Committee delegates and some “seem to be acting on instruction from their capital”. As one example, the Indian representative in the ACABQ also serves on his national delegation in the Fifth Committee.

Among the most extreme proposals floated by Russia and China were halving the UN human rights budget or eliminating all unfilled posts for the past two years, but these have so far failed.

Datt described Russia as an “outspoken spoiler”, while China “operates more quietly but effectively behind closed doors”. Beijing, she said, leverages its influence within the G77 group, which represents over 100 developing nations.

Some G77 diplomats interviewed for the report said they felt “uncomfortable” that China had “hijacked” the group to advance its “anti-human rights proposals”, said Datt.

“China always has been an ACABQ member,” said one global south delegate, quoted in the report. “If (the 5C delegate) can’t kill (the proposal) in 5C, then (the ACABQ member can try to) kill it before it gets there.”

Read more: A UN body is keeping NGOs locked out – states are pushing for reform

Western and some Latin American states often try to reverse the cuts, but they are typically outnumbered. One global south delegate told ISHR that “transactional diplomacy” – trading diplomatic support for political or economic agreements – was common and “why Africa will never go against China on human rights”.

Others have also selectively targeted human rights work they dislike, though with less success. Israel ranks first in attempts at the Fifth Committee to block funding for the UN’s investigations into the Palestinian Occupied Territories. The African group also tried in 2016 to defund the UN expert on sexual orientation and gender identity – an issue it has also challenged in other UN agencies. The first Trump administration also suggested reducing the portion of the UN Human Rights Office’s budget destined for the Human Rights Council.

“What some have dismissed or ignored as a technical committee has become a battleground for geopolitical fights at the UN,” the report states.

Cash-strapped human rights work

The attacks come as the UN human rights pillar faces unprecedented financial pressure. Chronically underfunded compared to its development and peacekeeping counterparts, it receives around seven per cent of the UN’s regular budget and less than one per cent of the total when taking into account voluntary donations.

Late payments by major contributors plunged the UN into a deepening liquidity crunch. By this month, the US owed $1.5 billion in arrears, and China owed $192 million. Next year, their mandatory fees will together account for 42 per cent of the UN’s regular budget. Secretary general António Guterres said recently the UN had only collected two thirds of expected payments so far, warning of a “race to bankruptcy”. In an effort to contain the shortfall, the UN chief has proposed a 15 per cent cut to the UN’s regular budget, including a 16 per cent reduction to human rights.

Raphael Vianna David, ISHR’s programme manager for China and Latin America, warns that the blow to an already struggling human rights branch, which has already had to reduce its investigations and restrict human rights visits, will make matters even worse.

“Every one per cent that is cut from the OHCHR is the equivalent of one year’s budget for five special rapporteur mandates or the establishment of two country presences for technical assistance in any country, one fact-finding mission mandate and over 20 country visits by special procedures, which are things that yield impact,” Vianna David said.

Budget discussions at the Fifth Committee are ongoing, and, though unlikely, states can still reject proposed cuts. China and Russia didn’t respond to requests for comment.