General

Why the US left the UN Human Rights Council – and why it matters

Rosa
Freedman, The Conversation, June 20, 2018

The US’s
announcement that it is leaving the
UN Human Rights Council
should not surprise anyone, since the Trump
administration has long made clear its disdain for many parts of the United
Nations. But the damage that the decision is likely to cause could nonetheless
topple an increasingly wobbly house of cards.
The US’s
empty chair in Geneva. EPA/Salvatore
di Nolfi

When the
Human Rights Council was created in 2006, the US (then under the Bush
administration) voted against
its establishment
and refused to stand for election to it, though it
nonetheless provided the Council with significant funding and supported its
work as the UN’s only intergovernmental human rights body. The US’s objections
centred on the argument that the design of the Council did not do enough to
address problems of politicisation, bias and the membership eligibility of
well-known rights violators – problems that had dogged its predecessor. And
those arguments have continued throughout the Council’s 12-year history.

Many
countries and NGOs have criticised
the council’s bias against Israel, and the presence of grave human rights
abusers (such as Burundi) as members of the body. But even the Council’s
harshest critics have generally recognised that to make effective changes, you
have to be in the ring. The US’s decision to leave bucks that trend.
The
Council has 47 members, elected for fixed terms, with seats distributed to
ensure proportionate geographic representation. Because it is made up of states
represented by diplomats tasked with protecting their national interests, it is
an inherently political entity. Its remit is to promote, protect and develop
human rights – but it only has “soft” powers, not legally binding ones.
Instead, much of its work involves fact-finding, information-sharing,
capacity-building, and technical assistance. On those fronts, it has often had
great success, particularly in establishing
international investigations
into major violations worldwide.
But as
would be expected with any political body – let alone one representing all
nation states – the Council undeniably suffers from deep problems.
Bias and
diversion
One of
the most glaring and long-running issues is an excessive and
disproportionate focus on Israel
. There is no question that Israel
commits human rights abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or that it
is an occupying power in those territories. But since the Council’s creation,
those human rights abuses have received more scrutiny than grotesque atrocities
elsewhere.
Israel is
the only country singled out for its own item on the Council’s permanent
agenda, Agenda Item 7. There have
been more special sessions convened on Israel than any other country, even
Syria. And in total, Israel has received more of the council’s attention than
the Democratic Republic of Congo (where millions of people have been killed or
displaced
in recent years), Darfur and Sri Lanka (where genocides
were perpetrated), North Korea, and Yemen. And this is not just more than each
of those countries – but more than all
of them combined
.
This
disproportionate scrutiny undermines the Council’s credibility and diverts
resources away from other areas that desperately require attention. But some
countries have taken some steps to address the issue. The sessions convened
around Agenda Item 7 are not well attended, with many states refusing to
participate in the discussions about Israel at every council session. And
pressure has been placed on the Organisation of Islamic States, a political
bloc with 54 members, not to constantly raise Israel during discussions on all
other regular agenda items.
Let’s be
clear: even though there is disproportionate and excessive attention placed on
Israel, the Council does focus on an awful lot of other grave and crisis
situations. And that work is not overshadowed or cancelled out simply because
of bias against Israel.
A second
oft-cited criticism of the Council is that it allows well-known human rights
abusers to take seats. But this is an intergovernmental body – and that means
all states have the opportunity to stand for election. If elected by their
peers, they have the right to be a member. There are “soft” membership
criteria, and states make pledges and commitments during their campaigns – but,
ultimately, it comes down to elections.
Some
known rights abusers, notably Iran
and Syria,
previously withdrew their candidacies when it became clear that they wouldn’t
be elected, while Libya’s membership was suspended in
2011 because of the serious human rights violations occurring there. But other
violators have secured membership – most recently, Burundi was put forward by
the African Group and elected to
the Council
despite its ongoing
gross and systemic rights violations.
Giving up
The
Council is also used by some states to promote agendas that directly undermine
human rights. Countries such as Cuba, Pakistan and Russia have been at the
forefront of efforts
to protect “the family” or “religious freedom” in order to justify
state-sponsored violence and discrimination against ethnic, religious and
sexual orientation minorities.
For these
and other reasons, there have been some efforts to try to implement hard and
soft reforms. The Trump administration initially made that reform agenda
central to its engagement with the Council – in recent weeks it floated a draft
resolution on reforms and sought allies to co-sponsor it. But while many
countries and NGOs agreed with the substance of the proposal, it was strongly and
publicly opposed
by several organisations, among them Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch and the International Service for Human
Rights.
Those
NGOs wrote to 60 states setting out concerns that opening a formal reform
process would likely backfire, with states hostile to human rights using that
process to undermine rather than strengthen the Human Rights Council. Their
intervention seems to have been the final straw for the US. But although the
Trump administration has long made it clear that human rights and
multilateralism are not its priorities, this move will have a major impact.
Even America’s closest allies on the Council have expressed their disappointment
at this decision.
The
Council is the world’s main human rights body – and it is crucial that all
states engage with its work. The US has long been a leader on human rights,
particularly through its work and support for the UN’s Geneva-based human
rights mechanisms. By abandoning ship, the US has made it that much harder for
like-minded states to protect and promote human rights. And it has set a
dangerous and worrying precedent that other countries, particularly those who
commit grave violations, may emulate.