Was the United States right in its decision to leave the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC)? Honestly, I’m not sure. It’s a mixed package. On one hand, the U.S. sent a strong message, drawing criticism to a Council that has arguably lost its way. On the other hand, the U.S. will lose leverage and input regarding reform.
However, American officials are right in their criticisms that the Human Rights Council is a “protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias,” as U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley put it. Ambassador Haley further elaborated: “We take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights.”
I don’t always agree with Nikki Haley, but on this I wholeheartedly do. One only has to look at the membership roster for the UNHRC to quickly see that something isn’t right. The UNHRC was set up to investigate human rights abuses, and yet many of those on the Council are believed to currently be violating human rights.
Previously, Saudi Arabia has been elected to key leadership roles within the UNHRC, giving it decision-making power to select experts and set the tone for discussion. Saudi Arabia was even awarded the Chair for the women’s rights commission, despite the country’s rather poor record regarding women’s rights. Freedom House claims that Saudi Arabia is the 7th most repressive country in the world, just a few places lower than North Korea.
Other current members include the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Venezuela, the Philippines, and several other countries with questionable or even outright terrible human rights records. In the DRC, President Joseph Kabila has clung to power beyond mandated term limits, using the military to quell protests. Yet the UNHRC is giving Kabila’s government not just a seat at the table but a powerful voice on human rights?
Or how about Venezuela, which has widely been accused of rigging recent elections and has used violence to suppress protests. Meanwhile, the Philippines’ war on drugs has cost thousands of lives, resulted in vigilante justice, and has been widely condemned by the international community. One might justify Nicolás Maduro’s power grab in Venezuela or the Filipino war on drugs. Maybe the argument is there, but regardless, neither country should be a member of the UNHRC while such events are unfolding at home.
The inclusion of such flagrant human rights violators is a joke, and by extension, the UNHRC is a joke. Many of the violations aren’t moral gray areas or the result of complex and uncontrollable situations. DRC President Kabila is in direct violation of the DRC’s constitution. Venezuela’s election interferences are well-documented and obvious. Yet these countries have been chosen for membership to the UNHRC.
Further, Ambassador Haley claims that she had pushed for sweeping reforms but argued that China, Russia, and others had worked to undermine those efforts.
American leaders also cited an alleged bias against Israel. This last bit worries me. American leaders are supposed to advocate for the United States. It’s fine to stand up for allies but at the same time, it’s important to make sure that said allies don’t have undue influence over our policymakers and their policies. Whether that’s the case here, I have no idea. The political and human rights situation in Israel is too complex and I am too unfamiliar to render comment.
Admittedly, the United States has been accused of various human rights violations itself. Again, I don’t know if the allegations are true. Either way, the UNHRC, in my opinion, is in need of a serious overhaul if it is going to effectively pursue its mission. Human rights certainly are important, but I struggle to believe that the UNHRC, as it is currently structured, can safeguard such rights.
