(Disclaimer: La Tonique Media LLC does not represent any political ideology. While we do not espouse any political beliefs, we do seek to provide a balance perspective by incorporating voices from both sides of the political spectrum.)

By Matthew Laurence

When the United Nations formed the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in 2006 the mission was clear.  "To work for the protection of all human rights for all people; to help empower people to realize their rights; and to assist those responsible for upholding such rights in ensuring that they are implemented." The United States left the council in 2018 after years of criticism where that mission was considered in danger at best. In light of news that Russia, China, and Cuba will ascend to seats on that council in 2021, it is at worst been compromised. After fourteen years it is worth recognizing why the United States was right to leave this failing experiment, and pursue other means to hold human rights abusers accountable.

Depending on the administration, the UNHRC has received varying degrees of attention from American officials in Washington. The young UNHRC was looked at with skeptical disengagement during the Bush era. With ongoing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, he declined the United States invitation to join.   The Obama administration reversed this decision in 2009 and participated with displaced optimism. It wasn’t until 2016 when the ambassador to the UN Samantha Powers defied John Kerry’s orders to support Russia. Apparently, it’s been a given that UN permanent member states back one another in these elections. Who knew? Now the Trump administration has decided to break off from the body altogether. This decision was made after reforms recommended to the council to address its obvious problems have largely been ignored.

In 2017 Nikki Haley became ambassador to the United Nations. She quickly laid out reforms for the UN Human Rights Council upon her arrival. Some reforms were aimed at a claimed bias against Israel. Others, to stop going after what is seen as "low hanging fruit" resolutions. Resolutions on states such as Sri Lanka who are willing participants, or conversely North Korea where the motion is merely symbolic. Finally, a few reforms were aimed at pointing out the obvious. Why are countries with abysmal human rights records not only allowed to game the system to get seats on the council. But then use that influence to deflect and dodge responsibility for abuses on their citizens? Haley warned that failure to make progress towards these reforms would result in the United States withdrawing from the council.

In 2018 that's exactly what happened. Nikki Haley relished in the opportunity to deliver the news. In her speech, she made it clear why the United States was opting to no longer participate. "Regrettably, it is now clear that our call for reform was not heeded. Human rights abusers continue to serve on and be elected to the council. The world’s most inhumane regimes continue to escape scrutiny, and the council continues politicizing and scapegoating of countries with positive human rights records in an attempt to distract from the abusers in their ranks."

There are 47 member states on the council and each serve 3-year terms. States are elected through a secret ballot by members of the UN  General Assembly, and seats are distributed by geographic region. Because of this, there are occasions where states run for council seats unopposed. Through this process, numerous human rights abusers have won. Saudi Arabia won a seat in 2017 but thankfully did not have enough votes to sit for another 3 years, this time losing to China. A country which has a poor record on women's rights, and is carrying out a war in Yemen should have never been an option. But continuing the dismal pattern of electing authoritarians, China, Russia, and Cuba will be picking up the slack while Venezuela finishes out their term. This pushes the percentage of seats on the council controlled by despotic regimes to 60%.

This election has again sent shock waves to organizations and activists who truly care about advancing human rights. Hillel Neur, the director of UN Watch which is a nonprofit based in Geneva, aptly described it as "equivalent of allowing five convicted arsonists to join the fire brigade." He is joined alongside the UN director at Human Rights Watch Louis Charbonneau who says what we're all already thinking. “Serial rights abusers should not be rewarded with seats on the Human Rights Council.”

According to Human Rights Watch countries such as Saudi Arabia and China have continually used their seat to draw attention away from their abuses along with their allies. Saudi Arabia has even gone so far as to threaten to withdraw millions of funds to not end up on a "list of shame" which documents their killing of children in Yemen. China has a long list of documented abuses. There have not only been continuous attacks on the freedoms of Hong Kong citizens, but Beijing has threatened a direct authoritarian takeover. There is also the genocide of a people and culture in Xinjiang province who are known as the Uighurs. Despite this China will be allowed to use their influence in the UNHRC to stymy any inquiries into the horror. Because as Ted Piccone of the Brookings Institution points out, this is China's long game.

So what can the United States do if it is not to play along with this game? Good-hearted people must not pretend that a state like Russia, who is waging a border war in Ukraine and participated in the Syrian civil war with little regard for human life is here to advance human rights. Because although the intention of the council to promulgate humanitarian values and hold countries accountable was there in the beginning, the evidence is a game of power politics. Where regimes who have no intention of upholding standards of human rights get to direct the conversation and put pressure on those who attempt to shine a light on their injustices. Otherwise free nations must sit and be lectured to with a hand behind their back. Nowhere is this point made more clearly than the UNHRC's treatment of Israel. There are arguments and questions about the tension between Israel and the Palestinian territories concerning how Israel conducts itself. However, since the council’s founding in 2006, there have been ninety resolutions passed against Israel. Conversely, there have been seventy resolutions passed against all other participating nations combined. It’s interesting to note that UN permanent member states such as China, Russia, and even the United States have the privilege of receiving zero resolutions passed against them. As John Kerry made clear to Samantha Powers in 2016, they watch each other's backs. 

Secretary Mike Pompeo issued a statement about the announcement of the election results last week. In it he outlined a few ways the Trump administration has circumvented the UNHRC in pursuing the goal of advancing human rights abroad. "Through the State Department's action, we have punished human rights abusers in Xinjiang, Myanmar, Iran and elsewhere." referring to sanctions that have been levied on individuals to keep them accountable. Just this August the  Department of the Treasury issued sanctions on Hong Kong’s mayor Carrie Lamb for her role in undermining freedoms in the city.  

The United States should not disengage from these countries nor speak out on human rights abuses. Diplomacy is always preferable, and where appropriate they should continue to sanction individuals, organizations, and governments that refuse to uphold basic standards of human rights. Regionally approaching these issues is also important, and multilateral diplomacy that offers both incentives and threatens with action is useful. However, with the UNHRC as we have seen time and time again it has strayed from that mission it issued fourteen years ago. It has become an organization that has allowed tyrants to control and divert attention away from pressing abuses we should all care deeply about. As China and Russia rise to seats in the UN Human Rights Council, the United States should feel as if they were vindicated in leaving the corrupt game.

Mathew is a political writer for La Tonique.