The Future of the United Nations Human Rights Council
On Tuesday, June 19, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced a withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), midway through its term. Ambassador Haley critically referred to the panel as a “protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias” [1]. Governments accused of human rights abuses have historically found their way on the panel. Congo is the most recently cited member state facing condemnation, with its induction onto the panel occurring while previously undocumented mass graves were being discovered in the country [2]. The U.S. has also continually expressed frustration over the council’s treatment of Israel in its abuses towards Palestine.
However, there was a clear turning point for the U.S. in its decision: the announcement of withdrawal came just days after U.N. human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein criticized the Trump administration’s separation of families at the U.S. border [3]. The U.S. claims to have been critical of the council and its condemnation of Israel for years, but did not take action until one of his controversial policies was directly condemned by the UN, all while leaving al-Hussein’s criticisms unmentioned in Haley and Pompeo’s public address.
Ambassador Haley asserted that guilty parties on the panel have resisted proposals for reform and used their seat on the council as a means of validity and political acceptance [6]. The problem that Haley addresses is partly based on the structure of the UNHRC and raises a question as to how the appointment system should be redesigned. The UNHRC panel is arranged yearly with anonymous, direct elections, giving both electoral power and the power to suspend rights of membership to the General Assembly [4]. The power of the General Assembly to make appointments lacks a system of checks and balances to evade problematic membership. Guilty countries, like Congo, have not been given suspension by the General Assembly and hold the same power on the panel as states without a record of human rights abuses. The U.S. has called for changes in regards to the treatment of Israel and guilty member-states, but not offered a structural plan for reform on how the council functions and appoints seats. Regardless, Nikki Haley has noted that if sufficient reforms were to occur, the U.S. would be “happy to rejoin” the panel [5].
Pompeo also emphasized that the US’s self-retraction from the role was “not a retreat from our human rights commitments,” but rather a severance from the perceived hypocrisy of the UNHRC [6]. However, the ‘perceived hypocrisy’ Pompeo references involves the UNHRC’s complex condemnation of Israel. The U.S. has accused the panel of bias against Israel, but it is the only nation to have deliberately and repeatedly violate a plethora of international laws for a long-running period. While other countries may have committed greater atrocities, Israel has demonstrated one of the most consistent records of international law violations. Human Rights Watch has reported violations throughout 50 years of its occupation of Palestine, falling under 5 categories of abuses: “unlawful killings; forced displacement; abusive detention; the closure of the Gaza Strip and other unjustified restrictions on movement; and the development of settlements, along with the accompanying discriminatory policies that disadvantage Palestinians” [7]. Additionally, many other countries guilty of human rights abuses with disregard for international law do not have historically stable and flourishing democratic systems, such as many of those in the developing world. Israel, on the other hand, has a European-style democracy and demonstrated knowledge of human rights issues, while continuing to violate them.
The U.S.’s decision has faced dissent from human rights advocates and high-level human rights organizations. A joint statement of 12 organizations argued that “[t]his decision is counterproductive to American national security and foreign policy interests and will make it more difficult to advance human rights priorities and aid victims of abuse around the world” [8]. The U.S. will no longer be a whistleblower on human rights abusers from its position on the council and its suspended funding may limit the abilities of the future panel. National Security Advisor John Bolton has stated that with the U.S. stepping down from the council, it will “no longer fund our share of the Human Rights Council or the High Commissioner for Human Rights” [9]. While there is no foreseeable change in the structure of the UNHRC, funding within the organization will decrease. The UNHRC will continue to address the gross human rights violations of Israel and the U.S.’s more limited role on the world stage may put future human rights protections at risk.
To understand more about what the United Nations does to address human rights abuses or how you could help, visit: http://www.un.org/en/sections/what-we-do/protect-human-rights/
References:
[1] Morello, Carol. “U.S. withdraws from U.N. Human Rights Council over perceived bias against Israel.” The Washington Post. 19 June 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-expected-to-back-away-from-un-human-rights-council/2018/06/19/a49c2d0c-733c-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] Lee and Lederman. “Trump Administration Withdraws U.S. from U.N. Human Rights Council.” Time Magazine. 19 June 2018. http://time.com/5316686/trump-administration-withdraws-us-from-un-human-rights-council/
[4] Human Rights Council. General Assembly of the United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/hrcelectfaq.shtml
[5] Lee and Lederman.
[6] Morello, Carol.
[7] “Israel: 50 Years of Occupation Abuses.” Human Rights Watch. June 4 2017. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/04/israel-50-years-occupation-abuses
[8] Lee and Lederman.
[9] “John Bolton: Why the U.S. left the UN Human Rights Council.” UN Watch. 20 June 2018. https://www.unwatch.org/john-bolton-u-s-left-un-human-rights-council/
