The UN General Assembly will hold elections for fifteen seats on the 47-nation Human Rights Council for three-year terms beginning on January 1 on the new year. However there are some questions that are arising about the eligibility of some potential candidates. In an article from the Human Rights Watch, the Human Rights Watch has insisted that the likes of China and Saudi Arabia, should be voted on to the council by UN member nations due to the fact that they are two of the worlds most abusive governments when it comes down human rights as a whole. Russia in its war crimes concerning Syria also makes them an highly controversial candidate as well.
Louis Charbonneau, UN director at Human Rights Watch, has stated that “Serial rights abusers should not be rewarded with seats on the Human Rights Council” and not only has outlined that they are massive violators of human rights in their respected nations, but Charbonneau also goes further by accusing them of trying “to undermine the international human rights system they’re demanding to be a part of.” The Un Resolution 60/251 which formed the UN Rights Council, states that members required to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” and cooperate at all times with the Council. However the issue is recently the UN votes have been uncompetitive among the members which makes it easier for unfit candidates to get on the council according to Charbonneau.
It is very clear that China and Saudi Arabia have no business being seated in the council. As China has been called out by many for their actions in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang, the suppression of information at the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic, and attacks on journalists, activists, and so on. Saudi Arabia on the other continues its efforts of suppressing dissent and activists, and has showed little efforts of accountability for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Both China and Saudi Arabia have also been known for using their seats for “prevent scrutiny of their abuses and those by their allies.” Here I think the UN has to have more consistency in selecting who serves on this Council as allowing nations known for human rights violations to sit on the council would be hypocrisy and ultimate irony as its finest, as currently the likes of Venezuela and Qutar currently currently sit on the Council, and China and Cuba have held seats recently. This was one of the reasons why the United Nations left the Human Rights Council as Nikki Haley explained that the US will not be “part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights.” However, if countries that have human rights violations continue to undermine efforts by the council by having seats but failing to reform their human rights efforts at home, then will efforts from the HRC be taken seriously moving forward and will the UN take a look in the mirror to examine themselves regarding this? Its safe to say that this clearly needs to have some reform in picking who serves on this council so their legitimacy can still be preserved before its too late.
Good choice of blog post topic, Jordan. The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) has been just about the favorite example for those who oppose the UN for years–and with some justification. This is not the first time that serious and serial human rights violating countries have been proposed for seats on the Council, and frequently they have been seated.
Much of the problem has to do with bloc voting in the UN, so it is often impossible for the US or other countries to oppose a candidate country successfully. And, as you point out, the US withdrew from the HRC for these reasons, so now we have even less influence. It does seem the height of hypocrisy to allow countries like China or Russia to serve, especially since there is little evidence that they have or will modify their policies in the process of doing so. –Professor Wallerstein