Questions are mounting over the impartiality of UN counterterrorism special rapporteur Ben Saul, with critics pointing to $150,000 in Chinese government funding received by his office in 2024, a documented pattern of one-sided criticism of Western and democratic states, and his public response to the Pahalgam terror attack of April 2025. The concerns were detailed in a report published in the online magazine American Thinker earlier this week.

The Pahalgam Attack and Saul's Response

On 22 April 2025, a Pakistan-backed terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba gunned down 26 people — predominantly Hindu tourists — in a horrific attack in Pahalgam. Survivors recounted how the attackers allegedly separated victims by religion, asking them to identify their faith or recite the Islamic declaration of faith, and shooting those who could not comply.

Seven months later, on 24 November 2025, Saul co-signed a joint OHCHR statement with more than a dozen other UN experts. While the statement opened with a condemnation of the Pahalgam attack, its substance focused almost entirely on India's response — citing unverified reports, characterising demolitions of properties linked to terror suspects as collective punishment, and describing the blocking of social media accounts as disproportionate.

The statement, according to the report, did not engage with the context of the measures: a massacre in which victims were separated by religion and executed by a Pakistan-based group with a documented record of cross-border attacks. Indian officials have maintained that the demolished properties belonged to identified, proven militants — not uninvolved residents — and that the security response followed an attack explicitly designed to provoke communal violence.

China Funding and Mandate Concerns

A May 2026 study by Geneva-based UN Watch, titled 'From Watchdogs to Ideologues', examined 13 UN Special Procedures mandate-holders and flagged 'politicised appointments, selective targeting of democracies and troubling funding arrangements.' With regard to Saul specifically, the study highlighted 'one-sided criticism of Western powers and a documented silence on China's own record.'

UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer raised questions about Saul's independence in an interview with Sky News Australia, asking how Saul could claim to be independent while his office accepted money from Beijing. The funds reportedly went to Saul's office rather than his personal accounts, though the report noted a lack of detailed public accounting.

Critically, Saul's office has issued no statements condemning China's mass detention of Uyghur Muslims — a situation that falls squarely within a counterterrorism mandate, according to the report. This silence, juxtaposed with the China funding, forms the core of the independence challenge.

Broader Pattern of Criticism

The UN Watch findings go beyond the China funding question. The study accuses Saul of whitewashing antisemitism, defending extremists, and engaging in one-sided anti-Israel rhetoric that critics argue overlooks Israel's legitimate security concerns. The report was authored by Fatima El Hashimi, described as a Moroccan researcher and journalist.

An independent mandate-holder is expected to assess both terrorist acts and state responses with equal rigour, according to established UN Special Procedures norms. The accumulation of undisclosed funding, selective criticism, and the handling of the Pahalgam response has, according to critics, raised serious questions about whether that standard is being met.

What Happens Next

The scrutiny arrives at a sensitive moment for the UN human rights architecture, with multiple mandate-holders facing questions about political bias. Whether the UN Human Rights Council or the broader OHCHR leadership will respond to the UN Watch findings remains to be seen. For India, the episode adds a fresh dimension to its ongoing effort to hold international institutions accountable for how they frame cross-border terrorism originating from Pakistan.