With its withdrawal from the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, the United States has reached a new low in an already worse than desired relationship with the international human rights system. When the council was established in 2006 to hopefully address problems within the prior-existing Human Rights Commission, the Bush Administration did not initially join the Council amid concerns that the U.S. would not get elected. The Obama Administration chose to participate, arguing that it was requisite of a nation that is trying to set a higher standard of human rights. Now, the Trump Administration has withdrawn the United States entirely. Nikki Haley referenced the election of countries with poor human rights records, and too heavy of an emphasis on Israeli human rights violations, as reasons for the American withdrawal. These criticisms are not new, and were among those that were meant to be resolved with the introduction of this revised council in 2006. By expanding the election of Human Rights Council members from Economic and Social Council to the General Assembly, there was hope that countries with awful human rights records would not be elected. Despite these concerns, will America’s boycott of the Council further global human rights?
Probably not. In addressing the issue of anti-Israeli bias, the United States can only hurt Israel by leaving the Council. Given that no other country followed the United States in its early termination of membership, the Council is stable. Although the United Kingdom and Australia will still support Israel on the Council, the United States was Israel’s most powerful ally on the Council, meaning that Israel has lost some of its clout. For this same reason, the United States will only hurt the Council’s standing regarding the domestic human rights standing of its members. Although the U.S. has its own human rights issues, by giving up its power on the Council, it grants more power to members it has criticised, including Cuba and Venezuela. The Trump Administration lambasted a U.N. report released this past week on poverty levels in the United States, furthering its hostile relationship with the international body. Unfortunately, America’s lack of participation in international humanitarian legal infrastructure isn’t new. The U.S. is not a member of the International Criminal Court, and was not an observer state until 2009, seven years after the Court was established.
The U.S.’s action is not bleak for the Human Rights Council. Given that so few states boycott it, it still has legitimacy among most states, and particularly among major powers. With the U.S.’s absence, other countries will have the opportunity to push for more power within the Council. Possible outsider candidates are Belgium and Saudi Arabia - Belgium leading the EU charge on boycotting goods manufactured in Gaza, Saudi Arabia looking to highlight its slow but progressive shift on women’s rights. Australia and the United Kingdom could also fill this role. But where does that leave the United States? It’s up to the individual to push the agenda on human rights in foreign and domestic affairs. The immense public pressure placed on the Trump Administration in response to separating immigrant children from their families has been a great test to show that the Administration will respond on human rights issues if pressure is strong. Although this came after over 1,000 children were separated, the popular defense of human rights, and the explicit connection of this issue to international human rights, is an extremely positive sign. The challenge is in raising awareness and maintaining public pressure against human rights abuses. If we use recent events to elevate popular support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and continue to introduce our peers to the importance of human rights accountability, we can generate a positive impact out of the United States’s rash decision to leave the Human Rights Council.
Probably not. In addressing the issue of anti-Israeli bias, the United States can only hurt Israel by leaving the Council. Given that no other country followed the United States in its early termination of membership, the Council is stable. Although the United Kingdom and Australia will still support Israel on the Council, the United States was Israel’s most powerful ally on the Council, meaning that Israel has lost some of its clout. For this same reason, the United States will only hurt the Council’s standing regarding the domestic human rights standing of its members. Although the U.S. has its own human rights issues, by giving up its power on the Council, it grants more power to members it has criticised, including Cuba and Venezuela. The Trump Administration lambasted a U.N. report released this past week on poverty levels in the United States, furthering its hostile relationship with the international body. Unfortunately, America’s lack of participation in international humanitarian legal infrastructure isn’t new. The U.S. is not a member of the International Criminal Court, and was not an observer state until 2009, seven years after the Court was established.
The U.S.’s action is not bleak for the Human Rights Council. Given that so few states boycott it, it still has legitimacy among most states, and particularly among major powers. With the U.S.’s absence, other countries will have the opportunity to push for more power within the Council. Possible outsider candidates are Belgium and Saudi Arabia - Belgium leading the EU charge on boycotting goods manufactured in Gaza, Saudi Arabia looking to highlight its slow but progressive shift on women’s rights. Australia and the United Kingdom could also fill this role. But where does that leave the United States? It’s up to the individual to push the agenda on human rights in foreign and domestic affairs. The immense public pressure placed on the Trump Administration in response to separating immigrant children from their families has been a great test to show that the Administration will respond on human rights issues if pressure is strong. Although this came after over 1,000 children were separated, the popular defense of human rights, and the explicit connection of this issue to international human rights, is an extremely positive sign. The challenge is in raising awareness and maintaining public pressure against human rights abuses. If we use recent events to elevate popular support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and continue to introduce our peers to the importance of human rights accountability, we can generate a positive impact out of the United States’s rash decision to leave the Human Rights Council.