US shock the International Community in Withdrawal from the UNHRC
In a move that has shocked the international community, the US announced its decision to withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council.
The address, delivered by Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the UN, criticised the international human rights organisation for being “hypocritical” and making a mockery of human rights.
Continuing her flurry of heavy reproaches, she went on to say that the 47-member, international council is, “an organisation that is not worthy of its name”.
“For too long,” Haley said, “the Human Rights Council has been a protector of human rights abusers, and a cesspool of political bias.”
This is not the first time the US have rejected the UNHRC. During George W Bush’s presidency, the US boycotted the UNHRC, but the change to an Obama administration saw this turned around quickly.
Ms Haley’s sentiments echo remnants of the G.W Bush administration, but there have been more recent tensions between the US and the UNHRC.
On the 1st June the US vetoed a resolution put forward by the Security Council condemning Israel’s use of excessive force. Haley rejected the resolution as biased, stating that it is “grossly one-sided” and “morally bankrupt”, and also mentioned that the Security Council had failed to mention Hamas’s role in instigating violence.
Following that, on the 13th June the UN General Assembly held an emergency session in which 193 member states voted for a resolution on the Protection of the Palestinian civilian population. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 120 in favour, 8 against, with 45 abstentions.
The US decision to withdraw has been met with disappointment but given the history of discord was not considered a surprise by Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, High Commissioner for the UNHRC.
Such a bold move highlights a trend of the US for rejecting multilateral engagement. It also reneges their seat at the table of discussions about international human rights abuses, leaving them alongside Iran, North Korea and Eritrea as states that do not want to participate in discussions at the UNHRC.
From the US’s perspective however, it is precisely this conversation that they feel enables member states to flagrantly abuse human rights laws. They feel these discussions allow states to act with impunity, using their membership of the UNHRC as a cover.
The President of the UNHRC, H.E. Mr. Miroslav Lajčák, responded in a tweet:
“While I recognize it is the prerogative of any member to take such decision, in times when the value & strength of multilateralism & human rights are being challenged on daily basis, it is essential we uphold a strong & vibrant HRC recognizing it as a central part of the #UN.”
In the official statement similar thoughts resounded:
“Given today’s global challenges, he (the President of the UNHRC) believes that our collective work to ensure a better world will benefit from more dialogue and collaboration – not less. In that regard, he encourages the United States to remain engaged in the work of the Human Rights Council.”