China, GONGOs, and the Undermining of the UN Human Rights System

 

Luísa Beatriz Ribeiro Silva

 

Debates surrounding China and human rights consistently generate controversy within the international arena. In April, reputable outlets such as Le Monde and The Washington Post published sensitive information revealing how the Chinese government has been exerting influence over United Nations mechanisms, particularly the United Nations Human Rights Council (Leplâtre, 2025; Miller, Ćosić, Lee-Smith, 2025). Both investigations presented credible evidence of activist intimidation, internal procedural manipulation, and —most alarmingly—the establishment of fake non-governmental organizations, commonly referred to as GONGOs (Government-Organized Non-Governmental Organizations), aimed at distorting or suppressing criticism within multilateral forums. This strategy reflects what scholars describe as transnational repression—an approach whereby states seek to extend their authoritarian reach beyond national borders by monitoring, intimidating, or restricting the actions of diaspora communities and civil society actors overseas (Tsourapas, 2020). That such practices thrive under the cover of institutional legitimacy reveals not merely China's strategy, but a fundamental failure of the system to prevent the co-optation of its own rules.

Nowadays, China has positioned itself within the international order as a rising global power. Backed by advancements in high-end technology, a robust economy, and growing diplomatic influence, the country presents itself as a model of development (Zhao, 2010). However, its most prominent vulnerability in inserting itself in multilateral organisms lies in the domain of human rights (Nathan, 2015). The Chinese government faces widespread allegations of human rights violations, including restrictions on freedom of expression and religion, the persecution and torture of Uyghur Muslims, and the repression of Tibetan culture and language, among others (Amnesty International, s.d). These repressive measures are often justified by Chinese authorities as necessary for maintaining social stability and national unity (Amnesty International, s.d). The system’s tolerance for these justifications illustrates how states can exploit sovereignty norms to neutralize human rights oversight.

In light of these challenges, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has identified a strategic means of mitigating international scrutiny by carefully curating its image abroad. This analysis aims to examine how the use of GONGOs by China influences the functioning of UN human rights mechanisms and to explore the broader geopolitical implications of this strategy, which signals a deeper and more structural challenge to the legitimacy and operation of multilateral governance. This is not an isolated maneuver by China, but a symptom of a global order where powerful actors routinely reshape norms to serve national interests, exposing deep systemic vulnerabilities.

 

The Trump Administration and Multilateral Vacuums
While the second Trump administration unfolds, there is no doubt that the international environment is going through a period of uncertainty. As Trump ended historic alliances, applied tariffs to almost every country in the world, and distanced the United States from multilateralism —including its 2018 withdrawal from the Human Rights Council— China presented itself as a possible counterpart to challenge U.S. hegemony. In areas where the United States faltered, China positioned itself as a candidate for leadership. For example, through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), its increasing influence within UN specialized agencies, and the creation of alternative institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which indicate a dual strategy of occupying spaces in existing Western-led institutions while also promoting parallel mechanisms that reflect its own strategic interests (Zhao, 2010). The emergence of alternative institutions is not inherently problematic, but when these operate without normative guardrails, they expose the absence of enforceable standards across the international system to prioritize already existing mechanisms, which leads to greater fragmentation of the multilateral system.

However, to consolidate its leadership claims, China must recalibrate its international image —especially regarding its commitment to human rights (Richardson, 2020). Its credibility and capacity for deeper insertion into the multilateral system depend not only on economic influence or institutional presence, but also on the legitimacy perceived by the international community. In this sense, soft power becomes a critical dimension: the ability to attract and shape preferences through culture, values, and policies is central to legitimizing its rise as global power. China's challenges in this area—particularly due to its human rights record—undermine its efforts to be seen as a trustworthy leader. A credible engagement with multilateral norms, including human rights, is therefore not just a matter of reputation, but a strategic requirement for sustaining long-term influence within global governance structures.

The United Nations mechanisms, particularly the Human Rights Council, pose a strategic challenge to states like China, as some of its councils enable the participation of civil entities. This means that organizations outside government structures can speak up during sessions to expose national human rights realities, potentially undermining state-controlled narratives. While the inclusion of civil society is celebrated, the system provides insufficient checks to prevent its distortion by states intent on silencing dissent.

The Human Rights Council is an intergovernmental body within the UN system responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe and for addressing violations and making recommendations (United Nations Human Rights Council, s.d). In the plenary, delegates from 47 member states have the floor to discuss important matters regarding the promotion or violations of human rights.

To increase representation, NGOs are welcomed as observers to the sessions, provided that they have consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (United Nations Human Rights Council, s.d). This consultative status ensures that the organization has applied through appropriate procedures and has proven itself to be reputable, with recognized contributions in its field. NGOs with this status are allowed to attend meetings, submit statements, and make oral interventions, enabling them to influence policy decisions and share expertise with the UN. This measure is vital, as it enables civil society to advocate within international institutions and opens space for marginalized communities to have a voice (Vreche, 2020; Burkhalter, 2023). However, this system also creates a vulnerability: actors with strategic interests can manipulate these rules to project state-controlled entities as autonomous civil society, reproducing a practice of transnational repression and undermining multilateral governance. 

 

GONGOs and the Infiltration of UN Processes
The present problem elucidates how this supposedly reputable and serious space is subject to manipulation. While GONGOs claim NGO status, they differ fundamentally by serving state agendas, particularly in authoritarian regimes. Evidence suggests that certain Chinese NGOs were being sponsored by the CCP to promote a curated narrative, discredit dissident opinions, and obstruct criticism (Leplâtre, 2025; Miller; Ćosić, Lee-Smith, 2025). Le Monde and The Washington Post revealed that of approximately 106 Chinese NGOs registered with the UN, at least 50 were tied to the CCP (Leplâtre, 2025; Miller, Ćosić, Lee-Smith, 2025). These include organizations with names such as the China Society for Human Rights Studies, the China Foundation for Human Rights Development, and the China Ethnic Minorities’ Association for External Exchanges (Miller, Ćosic, Lee-Smith, 2025). Despite their formal designation as non-governmental entities, findings revealed that more than 50 of these organizations' constitutive documents required party authorization for the hiring of employees, demonstrating high influence of the government within the organization (Miller, Ćosic, Lee-Smith, 2025). Furthermore, 46 of their leaders simultaneously held positions in government agencies (Miller, Ćosic, Lee-Smith, 2025).

This alleged influence is particularly concerning given the increasing presence of Chinese NGOs in UN plenary sessions. In nearly 300 sessions analyzed, 33 Chinese NGOs participated —yet none of their statements contained any criticism of the Chinese government (Miller, Ćosic, Lee-Smith, 2025). This pattern strongly suggests a coordinated effort by Beijing to control the narrative within these international forums. Furthermore, it also undermines the credibility of international mechanisms that rely on open and pluralistic civil society participation, ultimately weakening the institutions meant to uphold universal human rights standards.

Moreover, Chinese human rights activists affiliated with independent NGOs —those not linked to the CCP— have reportedly faced intimidation and surveillance, allegedly carried out by entities believed to be connected to the Chinese government (Lee-Smith, Ćosic, 2025; Wee, Nebehay, 2015). For instance, Chinese human rights defenders have reported being followed, filmed, and harassed during their presence at UN sessions —acts corroborated by testimonies gathered by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (Lee-Smith, Ćosić, 2025). In one documented case, activist Dolkun Isa, a Uyghur representative, was expelled from a UN meeting after complaints from the Chinese delegation (Agence France-Presse, 2023). Such actions raise serious concerns about the safety of civil society actors and the integrity of the UN's human rights mechanisms. While the journalistic investigations provide solid leads, it is critical to recognize the UN’s limited capacity to internally verify such relationships, making this form of manipulation even more insidious and difficult to confront.

 

UN Constraints and Diplomatic Limitations
The United Nations has acknowledged concerns regarding the use of government-organized non-governmental organizations (GONGOs) within its human rights mechanisms (Miller, Ćosic, Lee-Smith, 2025). However, the organization's response has been measured, reflecting the complexities of international diplomacy, the decline of multilateral governance and the influence of powerful member states (Miller, Ćosic, Lee-Smith, 2025).

In response to growing international criticism regarding its conduct in multilateral human rights mechanisms, the Chinese government has publicly reiterated its commitment to a “people-centered” approach grounded in national sovereignty. In February 2025, a statement published by the Permanent Mission of China to the United Nations in Geneva, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs called for the reform and improvement of global human rights governance, emphasizing the need for inclusivity and the rejection of double standards and external interference (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, 2025). Although the statement does not directly address the allegations concerning the use of GONGOs, it reveals the narrative through which China seeks to reframe the debate on human rights at the international level.

On the other hand, some countries have called for stricter accreditation processes for NGOs to ensure genuine civil society participation (Shah, 2024). Nevertheless, the UN's capacity to implement significant reforms is constrained by the need for consensus among its diverse membership, including influential states like China. Additionally, the current normative and bureaucratic framework lacks enforcement mechanisms capable of distinguishing between legitimate and state-controlled NGOs without triggering diplomatic backlash (Shah, 2024). This regulatory gap highlights a deeper governance failure in the multilateral system—where institutional inertia and political sensitivities routinely override accountability, leaving human rights mechanisms increasingly vulnerable to instrumentalization by authoritarian actors.

 

Impacts on the System and the Rise of Transnational Repression
Such interference supports the growing body of literature on transnational repression or transnational authoritarianism. According to Tsourapas (2020), this refers to “any effort to prevent acts of political dissent against an authoritarian state by targeting one or more existing or potential members of its emigrant or diaspora communities.”

Through the infiltration of the UN system using GONGOs, China undermines and discredits international human rights mechanisms. It uses state instruments to act beyond its borders, manipulating narratives and silencing communities. This strategy deeply affects civil society, spreading practices of intimidation, silencing, and marginalization, thereby discouraging genuine participation in global governance (Leplâtre, 2025; Miller, Ćosić, Lee-Smith, 2025). The space for denouncing human rights violations is minimized in a forum increasingly co-opted and intimidating. Structurally, the multilateral system was designed to guarantee human rights through mechanisms that prioritize civil society participation. However, what is increasingly evident is that these same mechanisms —intended as safeguards— can be exploited by actors who nominally follow the rules while systematically undermining their substance. The GONGOs case illustrates how institutional loopholes and the absence of effective enforcement allow for the distortion of mechanisms rooted in universal values and cooperation.

As China rises into the system as a global power, it leverages both its active diplomacy and economic strength to consolidate influence. Within this context, it perpetuates an asymmetric power dynamic. Authentic NGOs and activists are disadvantaged when faced with a state actor that possesses virtually unlimited resources, institutional access, and coercive capabilities. In this regard, GONGOs function not just as propaganda tools, but as instruments of a broader reconfiguration of international spaces, where the multilateral system is increasingly being undervalued and delegitimized.

 

Conclusion
These scenarios reveal the structural limits of contemporary multilateralism. The instrumentalization of global governance mechanisms by powerful states such as China highlights the fragility of international institutions when confronted with actors that exploit rules for strategic gain rather than shared values (Shah, 2024). It raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness and interest of the current global governance architecture in holding powers accountable or ensuring the protection of universal rights. 

More than an isolated problem, the case of GONGOs reveals a broader strategic trend: the reconstruction of international norms and platforms in ways that erode institutional credibility and reshape the multilateral system to reflect shifting power dynamics, all under the language of legitimacy and engagement. It is important, however, to recognize that China is not alone in instrumentalizing multilateral institutions. Critical literature highlights how global governance structures, including the UN, have historically been shaped by the political interests of dominant powers. Thus, rather than framing China as a singular actor, its conduct should be understood as part of a broader pattern of strategic institutional capture to consolidate itself as a power, like others have done. Understanding and responding to this trend is essential if the global system is to maintain its normative credibility and operational viability in the years to come, especially where human rights are concerned.

 

References

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE. China Tries to Block Prominent Uyghur Speaker at UN. VoaNews, 23 mar. 2023. Disponível em: https://www.voanews.com/a/china-tries-to-block-prominent-uyghur-speaker-at-un-/7019424.html. Acesso em: 30 jun. 2025. 

ALECCI, S. Cyberattack against Uyghur rights activists shows hallmarks of Chinese repression tactics, researchers say. ICIJ, 28 abr. 2025. Disponível em: https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-targets/cyberattack-against-uyghur-rights-activists-shows-hallmarks-of-chinese-repression-tactics-researchers-say/. Acesso em: 10 mai. 2025.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. Everything You Need to Know about Human Rights in China 2020. Amnesty International, [s.d]. Disponível em: https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/east-asia/china/report-china/.Acesso em: 8 mai. 2025.

BURKHALTER, D.O difícil caminho das ONGs para obter acesso à ONU. SwissInfo, 31 mar. 2023. Disponível em: https://www.swissinfo.ch/por/politica/ongs-enfrentam-dificuldades-para-ter-acesso-%C3%A0-onu/48325400?utm_source. Acesso em: 13 maio. 2025. 

LEPLÂTRE, S. A l’ONU, le travail de sape des fausses ONG chinoises. Le Monde, 30 abr. 2025. Disponível em: https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/04/30/a-l-onu-le-travail-de-sape-des-fausses-ong-chinoises_6601872_3210.html. Acesso em: 8 mai. 2025.

LEE-SMITH, T.; ĆOSIĆ, J. At the U.N., China is deploying a growing army of puppet organizations to monitor and intimidate human rights activists. ICIJ,28 abr. 2025. Disponível em: https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-targets/united-nations-ngo-gongo-intimidate-human-rights/.Acesso em: 10 mai. 2025.

MILLER, G.; ĆOSIĆ, J.; LEE-SMITH, T. China deploys NGOs to quash criticism at U.N. organizations in Geneva. Washington Post, 28 abr. 2025. Disponível em: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/04/28/china-ngos-un-geneva/. Acesso em: 8 mai. 2025.

NATHAN, A. China 's Challenge. Journal of Democracy, v. 26, n. 1, p. 156–170, 2015. 

RICHARDSON, S. China's Influence on the Global Human Rights System. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution, 2020. 

SHAH, I. Progress at a price: UN NGO Committee reforms yield mixed results. Democracy Without Borders, 21 ago. 2024. Disponível em: https://www.democracywithoutborders.org/33092/progress-at-a-price-un-ngo-committee-reforms-yield-mixed-results. Acesso em: 14 maio. 2025.

TSOURAPAS, G. Global Autocracies: Strategies of Transnational Repression, Legitimation, and Co-Optation in World Politics. International Studies Review, v. 23, n. 3, 29 ago. 2020.

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL. OHCHR | HRC | Welcome to the Human Rights Council. Disponível em: https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/about-council. Acesso em: 15 mai. 2025.

VRECHE, C. A Sociedade Civil na Política Internacional: Os Papeis das ONGs na Construção do Regime Internacional de Direitos Humanos. Anais XI Seminário Nacional Sociologia e Política, p. 1–18, 2020. 

WEE, S.; NEBEHAY, S. At U.N., China uses intimidation tactics to silence rights activists. Reuters, 6 out. 2015. Disponível em: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china-softpower-rights/. Acesso em: 12 mai. 2025.

ZHAO, S. The China Model: Can It Replace the Western Model of modernization? Journal of Contemporary China, v. 19, n. 65, p. 419–436, 28 abr. 2010.