As the world’s preeminent peacekeeping and human rights institution, the United Nations projects an image of impartiality in global conflicts. Yet, its reporting on crises often reveals a pattern of selective narratives, geopolitical biases, and the suppression of inconvenient truths. From Iraq to Syria, from Palestine to Myanmar, and now in Bangladesh, the UN’s role in shaping conflict narratives has frequently come under scrutiny. Its reports, rather than providing an objective account, often reflect the political interests of dominant global actors.

A striking case in point is a UN report published earlier this month. Titled “Human Rights Violations and Abuses Related to the Protests of July and August 2024 in Bangladesh,” the report lays full blame for the violence of the so-called July Uprising on the former Awami League government, ignoring crucial geopolitical undercurrents and the role of external forces in fueling instability. A critical examination of this report—alongside historical cases of UN misreporting—reveals how international institutions can shape conflict narratives in ways that align with the strategic interests of powerful global players.

The UN has long been accused of presenting selective and sometimes misleading accounts of conflicts, often reinforcing narratives that serve Western geopolitical interests. The 2003 Iraq War, the Syrian Civil War, and the Rohingya crisis offer stark examples of how the institution has, at times, either passively accepted or actively contributed to distorted narratives.

Before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the UN Security Council was presented with intelligence reports—later debunked—suggesting that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. While the UN did not explicitly endorse the invasion, its failure to challenge these false claims contributed to the war’s justification.

Similarly, during the Syrian conflict, UN reports on chemical weapons attacks relied heavily on intelligence provided by Western-backed opposition groups while often dismissing counterclaims made by the Syrian government and independent investigators. The 2018 Douma attack, for instance, became the basis for Western airstrikes, yet subsequent investigations suggested the evidence had been manipulated. Such selective reporting played a crucial role in shaping global perceptions and justifying foreign military interventions.

This recurring pattern of selective conflict reporting demonstrates how the UN can be instrumental in legitimizing geopolitical agendas under the guise of impartial observation.

The protests and violent clashes that erupted in Bangladesh in July and August 2024 were swiftly framed by the UN as a grassroots democratic movement suppressed by state repression. However, this simplistic characterization ignores critical nuances. While The Times reported that 3,000 people died after August 5, the UN report made no mention of this figure. Likewise, the targeted killing of 15 police officers—including a pregnant officer—in Sirajganj was conspicuously absent from the UN’s account. These omissions suggest a deliberate narrative choice.

Despite its portrayal as an organic uprising, the July Uprising bore signs of external orchestration. While many protesters had legitimate grievances, the movement appeared to be bolstered by foreign-backed NGOs, media networks, and opposition groups seeking to destabilize Bangladesh’s political order. The Washington Post reported in October that several army officers were dismissed for refusing to comply with the newly formed government’s directives—an indication of internal rifts with external influences.

There is compelling evidence suggesting that elements within Western diplomatic circles and regional actors played a role in fueling anti-government sentiment before and during the uprising. Prominent media organizations, think tanks, and advocacy groups—often funded by Western institutions—amplified narratives of state brutality while downplaying violent opposition tactics. This strategy mirrors the color revolutions of Eastern Europe and the Arab Spring, where external forces engineered regime changes under the pretext of democracy promotion.

The UN’s February 12 report placed exclusive blame on the Awami League government, neglecting independent accounts and security reports indicating that armed factions within the protest movement had systematically attacked law enforcement and political opponents. State security forces, in many instances, were responding to organized and well-armed groups—not merely peaceful demonstrators. By failing to acknowledge this reality, the report distorts the true nature of the conflict.

The report’s failure to present a balanced account echoes past UN reporting biases, where state actors are selectively held accountable while opposition-led violence is overlooked. This selective framing aligns with a familiar pattern in which the UN avoids addressing Western interference in domestic conflicts while amplifying allegations against governments that fall out of favor with the international order.

Moreover, the report sidesteps the role of foreign-backed organizations in fueling unrest, despite evidence of external funding, strategic coordination, and media manipulation. In doing so, it strengthens the perception that the Awami League government was illegitimate and oppressive, setting the stage for further foreign interventions, sanctions, or diplomatic pressures—an approach reminiscent of past geopolitical maneuvering in strategically significant nations.

The UN’s history of conflict reporting suggests that its role extends beyond mere observation; it actively influences political outcomes through selective narratives. The case of Bangladesh in 2024 follows a broader trend in which complex political crises are reduced to one-dimensional tales of government oppression. By omitting evidence of foreign interference, violent opposition tactics, and the strategic interests at play, the February 12 report functions more as a political tool than as an objective human rights assessment.

This raises a fundamental question: To what extent is the UN truly neutral in its reporting? If history serves as any indication, its reports often reflect the geopolitical strategies of the world’s most powerful actors. For nations like Bangladesh facing political turbulence, this selective reporting is not just misleading—it can be destabilizing, reinforcing external agendas at the cost of national sovereignty.

In an era where narratives shape global policy, it is imperative to question the authority of international reports that claim to speak for the truth. More often than not, these reports are deeply entwined with the strategic interests of global power brokers.