UN under fire for ‘selective silence’ and anti-India bias amid Global conflicts: DNA analysis

UN under fire after report by Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese accused India of violating international law through arms supplies to Israel, arguing that such claims reflect a pattern of selective targeting.

Amid escalating global tensions and renewed debates over international diplomacy, sharp criticism has been directed at the United Nations (UN), with allegations that the body is failing to prioritise peace and is instead enabling selective narratives against certain countries, including India.

The criticism comes at a time when the United States is pushing for dialogue, Iran has not ruled out negotiations, and even Pakistan is attempting to facilitate a ceasefire, raising questions about the UN’s role in preventing further conflict.

In today’s episode of DNA, Rahul Sinha, Managing Editor of Zee News, conducted a detailed analysis, questioning the effectiveness and neutrality of the United Nations. He argued that despite the risk of widespread destruction if hostilities resume, the global body appears more focused on shaping narratives against India rather than addressing urgent geopolitical crises.

Add Zee News as a Preferred Source

A key point of contention highlighted in the analysis was a recent report titled Torture and Genocide, presented at the UN by Francesca Albanese, the Special Rapporteur on Palestine. Following the report, Albanese stated in an interview that India is violating international law by supplying arms to Israel, despite calls from the International Court of Justice to halt such transactions. She further alleged that India’s support to Israel makes it complicit in genocide, could expose it to legal consequences, and indicates that New Delhi is no longer the voice of the Global South, while also straying from its foundational ideals.

The analysis raised concerns over the report’s focus, noting that while it addresses the situation in Gaza and actions attributed to Israel, it places significant allegations on India. It described this as indicative of a broader pattern where UN platforms are allegedly used to advance specific agendas. Background details about Albanese were also discussed, including her appointment to the UN in May 2022, extension of tenure in April 2025, and her earlier positions calling for sanctions on Israel and supporting legal action against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Further, references were made to past criticism of Albanese, including an official complaint filed by UN Watch in February 2026 and sanctions imposed by the United States in July 2025 over alleged bias. The discussion also cited observations by political thinkers such as Noam Chomsky and Henry Kissinger, suggesting that the UN at times reflects the interests of powerful nations or becomes a मंच for disputes rather than solutions.

The programme also questioned what it described as selective silence on other global conflicts. It cited the absence of commentary on alleged attacks in Iran, including a reported strike on a girls’ school in Minab that resulted in the deaths of over 120 children aged between 7 and 12. It also referred to alleged inaction on issues in Afghanistan and Balochistan, including claims presented at a UN Human Rights Council meeting that over 1,200 Baloch civilians were forcibly disappeared in 2025.

Additionally, the analysis pointed to previous UN observations on India, such as criticism of the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2020, references in the 2022 Children and Armed Conflict report regarding Jammu and Kashmir, the deferral of India’s National Human Rights Commission rating in 2024–25, and remarks on anti-terror laws in March 2026.

The programme also highlighted that such UN reports, despite costing significant resources, reportedly around ₹14 crore, do not carry direct legal enforceability, but can influence global narratives and diplomatic pressure. Citing former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, it noted that while the UN has authority, it often lacks the power to enforce its decisions.

The analysis concluded by questioning whether the United Nations has deviated from its core mandate, suggesting that its current functioning raises concerns about impartiality and effectiveness in addressing global conflicts.