THE US is expected to announce its withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) due to “anti-Israel bias”.
The UNHRC commenced its 35th regular session in Geneva yesterday. It will run until June 23 and is set to host two panel discussions as well as a full-day focused on women’s rights. It is predicted that the US will make an announcement regarding its future position with the council at the end of the three-week session.
US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, will attend the session where she will host a discussion on human rights in Venezuela. She is expected to use the international event as an opportunity to issue an ultimatum to the UNHRC over reforming its attitude towards Israel or face US withdrawal.
The Israeli occupation of Palestine is a fixed item on the UNHRC agenda and is therefore required to be discussed during every session.
In an opinion piece for the Washington Post Last weekend Haley wrote about the hypocrisy of the council’s focus on Israel, a US ally, stating that the board are “wrongly singling out Israel for criticism”.
She added: “When the council passes more than 70 resolutions against Israel, a country with a strong human rights record, and just seven resolutions against Iran, a country with an abysmal human rights record, you know something is seriously wrong.”
Former Israel Ambassador to the US and current deputy minister of centrist-right Israeli political party, Kulanu, Michael Oren tweeted that: “US decision to quit the insanely anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council would send a moral message to the world”.
However, John Fisher, Geneva director of the US-based Human Rights Watch, downplayed any threat of US withdrawal, stating: “Our understanding is that it is going to be a message of engagement and reform.”
Fisher added that while Israel’s actions did justify analysis from the council, the persistent focus on the country over other human rights abusers such as North Korea or Syria was “a reasonable concern”.
WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?
HALEY, who also holds cabinet rank in President Trump’s administration, is not the first US ambassador to raise concerns of anti-Israeli actions from the council.
America has been critical of the council’s attitude towards Israel since its creation in 2006. The US boycotted the council under President George W Bush in 2007 and later rejoined under Barack Obama in 2009.
The UN has placed increasing pressure upon Israel over its conduct on occupied land in Syria and Palestine and US officials argue that the focus on the Jewish State is biased and unbalanced.
The US has often been the only member state to vote against Israeli resolutions, however, it has not always been alone.
In March 2017, the UNHRC adopted five resolutions critical of Israel’s alleged human rights abuses, including a motion to ensure accountability and justice for all violations of international law in occupied Palestinian territory.
The UK backed two of these proposals but put the council “on notice”, adding that: “If things do not change, in the future we will adopt a policy of voting against all resolutions concerning Israel’s conduct in the occupied Syrian and Palestinian Territories.”
Haley also took aim at the council’s perceived overlooking of other countries’ wrongdoings, arguing: “Being a member of this council is a privilege and no country who is a human rights violator should be allowed a seat at the table.
“It’s hard to accept that this council has never considered a resolution on Venezuela and yet in March it adopted five biased resolutions against a single country, Israel. It is essential that this council address its chronic anti-Israel bias if it is to have any credibility.”
However, the US has previously failed to criticise other human rights violators such as allies Saudi Arabia who drew strong criticism from human rights groups when they became members of the council in 2013.
WHAT WILL THIS MEAN?
THE council consists of 47 member states and works to order investigations into governments who violate human rights.
A US withdrawal has been widely criticised by human rights organisations including Freedom House and the Jacob Blaustein Institute who have produced a paper encouraging the US to remain part of the UNHRC.
The paper, entitled Game-Changer: The US at the UN Human Rights Council, argues that a continued US presence on the council has contributed towards the scrutiny of human rights abusers across the globe. The paper also states that with “absent US engagement, the council’s treatment of Israel can be expected to become even more problematic, affecting not only the Human Rights Council but also other UN bodies and international forums, to the detriment of both America’s and Israel’s interests”.
ISOLATIONISM
UNDER President Trump the US has moved further and further away from multilateralism.
The risk of a US withdrawal from the UNHRC follows Trump’s decision earlier this week to pull out of the UN Paris Climate Agreement, making it the only country other than Syria and Nicaragua to not be a signatory of the climate change action plan.
The climate agreement requires countries to regularly report on their national efforts to combat global warming, as well as their commitments to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
The move signalled criticism from countries across the world and forced Prime Minister Theresa May to clarify her desire for the US to remain in the Paris Agreement during a BBC Question Time election special.
May said: “I actually have spoken to Donald Trump and told him that the UK believes in the Paris agreement and that we didn’t want the United States to leave the Paris agreement.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here