US rejoins UN Human Rights Council, but not everyone is excited

by mcardinal

Willie R. Tubbs, FISM News

 

Monday, for the first time since 2018, the United States rejoined the United Nations Human Rights Council.

On the surface, this reentry is both another deviation from the Trump administration and a new avenue through which the U.S. can agitate against Russia. Then President Trump had removed America from the Human Rights Council in 2018.

“The timing of this session could not be more appropriate,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement. “Since the opening moments of Russia’s premeditated, unprovoked, and unjustified attack on Ukraine, reports of human rights abuses have been widespread.”

Later today, Blinken, “will deliver remarks to the assembled Council and will use that opportunity to spell out clearly the threat posed by Russia, while noting that Ukraine is far from the only part of the world where the Council’s attention is needed.”

Yet, even as the U.S. enters what on paper is meant to be the worldwide guardian of human decency, at least one critic says the United States is joining a group that has become weighted in favor of oppression and antisemitism.  

“While Russia has declared war on world order, the United Nations has declared war on Israel,” Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, told the audience at CPAC last week. Later, she added, “Trashing Israel is at the core of UN Human Rights practice.”

Bayesfky said the council has passed nearly three times as many resolutions against Israel than any other nation.

The history and membership of the Human Rights Council is, at best, unflattering to the election process. Full democracies are outnumbered on the commission by a factor of 2-to-1.

China, Somalia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Sudan, Libya, Eritrea, Qatar, Pakistan, Venezuela, and Cuba are just some of the nations that enjoy seats on the council despite lengthy human rights wrap sheets. Coincidentally, both Russia and Ukraine each hold one of the council’s 47 seats.

In Bayefsky’s opinion, the most stark proof of the council’s anti-Israel leaning was the creation of “The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel.” She said she believes the commission is an attempt to harm Israel by labeling it a racist state guilty of apartheid and war crimes, damaging its economy, and restricting the Israeli military.

“This scheme is a moral, legal, and political outrage,” Bayefsky said, later adding, “Israel is a country where Arabs and Muslims sit on the Supreme Court, serve as ambassadors, volunteer to serve in the defense forces, a Muslim political party is part of Israel’s governing coalition, and Arabs have more democratic rights in the Jewish state than in any Arab state.”

Last October, when it was officially announced the U.S. was reentering the council, Blinken echoed Bayefsky’s sentiment.

“The Council provides a forum where we can have open discussions about ways we and our partners can improve,” Blinken said. “At the same time, it also suffers from serious flaws, including disproportionate attention on Israel and the membership of several states with egregious human rights records.”

The Human Rights Council was created in 2006 and has always been anathema for Republican presidents. President George W. Bush refused to allow the U.S. to participate. President Barack Obama reversed course, and the U.S. secured three, three-year appointments. President Trump removed the country from the council again in 2018.

Mathematically, the council has created fewer ant-Israel measures when the U.S. has participated than when it has not. In 2015, Ted Piccone, a foreign policy expert writing on behalf of the Brookings Institution, an American research group, found that the bulk of anti-Israel actions occurred when the U.S. was not on the commission.

“The evidence against U.S. withdrawal is already available – its absence from the Council’s tables during the first two years of its existence led to setbacks on multiple fronts, including the preponderant focus on Israel,” Piccone wrote.

However, even when the U.S. has sat on the Human Rights Council, attempts to delegitimize Israel have been prevalent. The new commission of inquiry has also already been set in motion and, with the U.S. focus currently on Russia, could be well on its way to reaching a decidedly anti-Israel conclusion even with objections from the West.  

Worse, as Bayesky pointed out, the deck will always be stacked against Israel. The U.S. is a powerful ally and can flex its muscle in attempt to ward off anti-Israel votes, but the numbers will never favor a pro-Israel position.

When the commission of inquiry was created, it was approved with yes votes from Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Eritrea, Gabon, Indonesia, Libya, Mauritania, Mexico, Namibia, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Uzbekistan and Venezuela.

Austria, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Czechia, Germany, Malawi, Marshall Islands, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay all voted no and the Bahamas, Brazil, Denmark, Fiji, France, India, Italy, Japan, Nepal, Netherlands, Poland, South Korea, Togo and Ukraine abstained.

At present, the commission is seeking submissions of information about “root causes of recurrent tensions,” which Bayefsky says is a thinly veiled attempt to collect a wealth of “Israel bashing” documentation.

Bayefsky encouraged the attendees of CPAC to submit letters in support of Israel.

“Let us prove them wrong by making our own submissions, not because we are going to change the outcome of this kangaroo court, but because we can affect the court of public opinion,” Bayefsky said. “We can identify the real root cause of this conflict: antisemitism. We can testify to the indigenous connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel.”

The commission of inquiry will report to the Human Rights Council in June and September.

DONATE NOW