What is behind United States decision to abandon UN Human Rights Council?

Adjust Comment Print

The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, announced the pullout Tuesday, calling the body "a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights".

But some supporters of the United States withdrawal said the council's evident bias against Israel, while a key concern, was just one reason justifying the U.S. action.

Let's hope the USA decision triggers a reassessment by the UNHRC of its mission and a real change in its review of human rights violations around the world in which Israel is not the focus.

"It's a setback that they've made this decision because the cooperation has been good", said Soini.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the USA move, branding the council "a biased, hostile, anti-Israel organization that has betrayed its mission of protecting human rights".

"You should know that your efforts to block negotiations and thwart reform were a contributing factor in the us decision to withdraw from the Council", Haley wrote in the letter to NGOs, which was obtained by POLITICO with the recipient's name blacked out.

President Trump has recently faced widespread, vociferous condemnation for his "zero tolerance" immigration policy that is separating children from their families at the US-Mexico border.

President Borut Pahor of Slovenia - the home country of Melania Trump - said the American withdrawal was "bad news" for "everybody" who cares about human rights.

The argument is the same: It is not the United Nations framework that is responsible for anti-Israel resolutions but the member states, and countries such as Venezuela or Qatar, that will continue to guarantee that Israel gets no fair shake, with the U.S. or without.

Mehbooba Mufti Resigns As CM; BJP Demands Governor Rule In Jammu & Kashmir
The use of pellet guns to disperse protests was condemned around the world as thousands of civilians suffered injuries. The BJP's national general secretary also added, "We had to respect the mandate of the people".

Haley said the United States had given the human rights body "opportunity after opportunity" to make changes. "When this administration began 17 months ago, we were well aware of the enormous flaws in the Human Rights Council", she continued. The EU assured that it "remains steadfastly and reliably committed to the Human Rights Council", and said it would continue to try to fix the body's problems despite the United States withdrawal.

The Americans complain about the constant carping on Israel, which of course should be criticised, but every time the council convenes?

"Al Jazeera's Rosiland Jordan, reporting from Washington, DC, said the United States exit from the 47-member Geneva-based body" did not come as a shock", as it was something that Haley had talked about nearly from the moment that she became the U.S. ambassador to the UN in early 2017. The body has a permanent standing agenda item on suspected violations committed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories that Washington wanted removed.

"It's the right decision to defund the Human Rights Council".

But there are credible arguments and debates over how the United States, for now the world's most powerful nation, should protect human rights. She also criticized countries which shared US values and encouraged Washington to remain, but "were unwilling to seriously challenge the status quo". Indeed, its decision to fully withdraw appears to be a rebuke of the council, in that it withdraws the US's ability to take a front seat in important global issues.

It's not clear who will step in to defend Israel so vigorously, Labonte says.

"When the Human Rights Council was first stood up back in 2006 the ambassador to the United Nations at the time was John Bolton, who persuaded then-President Bush not to join the body for the reasons that Haley today spelled out", said Al Jazeera's Jordan.

"It's something that reflects a widely held view in the United States", he said. The Obama administration rejoined the council in 2009, arguing that "engagement" with the member nations was a better way to address their actions.