Trump has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, the Iran deal, even his own nuclear summit before backtracking, and he has now finally pulled out of the UN Human Rights Council. He seems to think that pulling out is the ultimate power move in international diplomacy, when all it really shows is his lack of nuance or creativity.
Yet, to understand the decision to withdraw from the UNHRC, we need to go back to basics and break down the Trump Administration’s conflict with this inter-governmental body.
What is the UNHRC?
As a body under UN jurisdiction, the Human Rights Council was established in 2006 with the mission to advocate human rights globally. The HRC is comprised of 47 members, divided between the five official UN regions. Elections occur annually, with members elected to three year terms and a maximum of two consecutive terms allowed. Two-thirds of members can suspend members, just as in the case of Libya in 2011, and one-third of members can vote to hold special sessions.
What does it do?
With a focus on protecting and promoting human rights, the UNHRC:
- Drafts new HR standards;
- Authorises independent investigations into particular human rights issues, either thematically or based on a state;
- Reviews the human rights standards of UN members through the publication of the Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”) every five years.
Why is the US leaving?
Whilst this may seem shocking, the U.S. withdrawal from the body is not unprecedented nor should it be unexpected.
Politicisation
The US has stated that it is leaving because the HRC is politicised… which given the US’s current “America First” policy at the UN makes this a laughable criticism. The reality is that the whole UN and every single one of it’s bodies are political. The UN is not a supranational body it is merely the stage upon which nations states play out their diplomatic conflicts. What the US is merely complaining about is mathematical. WEOG have 7 votes, Asia and Africa have an absolute majority, this makes it extremely hard for the US to control. In comparison, the US has been the second most prolific user of their veto power on the Security Council but they are not seeking to revoke that power because it is used “politically”.
However, does politicisation matter? Not really, we should strive against it but that does not invalidate the whole process. The HRC has managed to do some valuable work. Countries like Russia, Azerbaijan, Belarus and Sri Lanka have all been blocked from joining and it’s investigations into Syria, Myanmar, Burundi and South Sudan have all been useful.
Inclusivity
The US complaints about the HR records of countries on the council like Saudi Arabia and China are pointless.
- There is no way to quantify HR abuses
- How long do they take to expire? Do atrocities from the First World War still count?
- How do we measure how bad a breach of human rights is? How bad is indiscriminately killing civilians with drone program illegally compared to repressing political freedoms within a country?
- What is the moral culpability of countries who support oppressive regimes?
Trying to measure HR abuses and then preventing countries from participating in the HRC is a bottomless quagmire and would be even more political than the current system.
From a policy standpoint, allowing countries with shady track records to participate does somewhat undermine the council. Although the HRC cannot force countries to do anything, it makes them implicitly sign up to the norms of international human rights. At the end of the day, not having the HRC would only leave human rights worse off, even if it isn’t perfect.
Unfair treatment of Israel
Israel’s unfair treatment by the HRC was the main reason the US withdrew. As already explained, the specific flaws of the HRC do not undermine it’s overall worth. Yet, we should still address the Trump Administration’s argument. Israel is unfairly treated with the body having passed 78 resolutions directly targeting Israel. This is more than for the rest of the world combined, although there are obvious reasons for this.
Israel is a easy target
- As a matter of fact, Israel’s is one of the more egregious human rights abusers. Even the UNSC has sanctioned them on a number of occasions although the US can veto any of these resolutions.
- Palestine enjoys much more international support than most oppressed groups. It is an observer state which means it can advocate much more effectively for the oppressed people within a country.
Israel should be held to a higher standard
There is a good case to be made that Israel should be held to a higher standard. It is trying to pass itself off as a liberal democracy and to do so it must accept the moral standards of other similar countries. If Israel wants WEOG countries to support it, then it needs to adhere to their higher human rights standards.
While there was much talk of boycotting the Russian World Cup, much less fuss was made over the Giro d’Italia starting in Israel, the first grand tour to start outside of Europe. Israel also receives tens of billions of dollars in military aid from the US at the same time as the US is cutting humanitarian aid that benefits Palestinians.
The alienation of Israel, it’s human rights abuses and trying to pass itself off as a liberal democracy have all made them an easy target for the HRC.
What has the US withdrawal accomplished?
Well.. nothing. The US is trying to play the victim and drum up sympathy for its position, but as the richest and most powerful country in the world it is hardly a convincing act. In reality the US has had a bigger hand in shaping the current world order than any other country, organisations like the UN, WTO and the World Bank all adhere more to a US worldview than any other. This is what makes Donald Trump’s “America First” policy so absurd because the US has built this world order to benefit itself by pursuing interventionist foreign policy for the last hundred years.
All Trump is doing is shooting himself in the foot over and over again. Before it joined the HRC, there were six special sessions on Israel, since the US joined there have only been two. There has also been a decrease in resolutions directed at Israel and a greater focus on countries like North Korea, Iran and Syria. Leaving the HRC is only going to make problems that Trump gave as reasons for leaving worse. In its absence, countries like China will have more scope to shape the HRC in it’s own image in the same way the US has shaped international organisations in the past. This will only form a power vacuum the US will regret creating.
