United States Withdraws From UNHRC India Elected With Highest Number Of Votes

The United States withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in 2019, citing the council's persistent bias against Israel. Simultaneously, India was elected to the UNHRC by the General Assembly, securing the highest number of votes among all candidates. The UNHRC, a specialized agency of the UN, was established in 2006 to promote and protect human rights globally.

The withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in 2019 and India's subsequent election to the same body with an overwhelming majority represent a significant juncture in international relations, highlighting the complex interplay of geopolitics, human rights advocacy, and national interests. The US decision, predicated on its long-standing অভিযোগ of anti-Israel bias within the UNHRC, underscores the deep divisions and politicization that plague multilateral human rights institutions. Conversely, India's successful election reflects a degree of international confidence in its commitment to human rights principles, even as its own domestic record remains subject to scrutiny. This divergence in trajectories invites a deeper examination of the historical context, the underlying motivations of the key actors involved, and the broader implications for the future of human rights governance.

The UNHRC: A Troubled History and Enduring Challenges

To understand the significance of these events, it is crucial to first delve into the history and mandate of the UNHRC itself. Established in 2006, the UNHRC was conceived as a replacement for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), which had become deeply discredited due to its perceived ineffectiveness, selectivity, and politicization. The UNCHR was often criticized for allowing countries with egregious human rights records to serve as members, undermining its credibility and ability to hold states accountable.

The UNHRC, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, was designed to address these shortcomings through several key reforms. These included a strengthened mandate to address human rights violations worldwide, a universal periodic review (UPR) mechanism to assess the human rights records of all UN member states, and an advisory committee to provide expert advice on human rights issues. The council is composed of 47 member states, elected by the UN General Assembly through a direct and secret ballot. Seats are allocated based on equitable geographical distribution, ensuring representation from different regions of the world. Member states serve for a period of three years and are not eligible for immediate re-election after serving two consecutive terms.

Despite these reforms, the UNHRC has continued to face numerous challenges and criticisms. One of the most persistent concerns revolves around the composition of the council itself. Critics argue that the presence of countries with questionable human rights records undermines the UNHRC's legitimacy and effectiveness. The election of such states is often attributed to political horse-trading, regional blocs, and a lack of robust vetting mechanisms. The US, in particular, has consistently raised concerns about the inclusion of countries like Venezuela, China, and Saudi Arabia on the council.

Another major point of contention is the UNHRC's perceived bias against Israel. Resolution condemning Israeli actions in the occupied Palestinian territories are far more numerous than resolutions condemning human rights abuses by other nations. This focus, critics argue, reflects a disproportionate and unwarranted singling out of Israel, often driven by political motivations rather than objective assessments of human rights violations. The UNHRC's agenda item 7, which specifically addresses the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, has been a particular source of controversy.

The UNHRC's effectiveness is also hampered by its limited enforcement powers. Its resolutions are generally non-binding, and its ability to hold states accountable depends largely on their willingness to cooperate. The council relies heavily on mechanisms such as investigations, fact-finding missions, and public reporting to exert pressure on states to improve their human rights records. However, these mechanisms are often met with resistance from states accused of violations, who may deny access to investigators, dismiss reports as biased, or simply ignore the council's recommendations.

The UNHRC's reliance on voluntary cooperation also makes it vulnerable to political manipulation. States can use their membership on the council to shield themselves from scrutiny, to advance their own political agendas, or to undermine the efforts of other states to promote human rights. The council's consensus-based decision-making process can also lead to watered-down resolutions and compromises that fail to adequately address serious human rights concerns.

The United States' Contentious Relationship with the UNHRC

The United States has had a complex and often fraught relationship with the UNHRC since its inception. While the US initially supported the creation of the UNHRC as a replacement for the discredited UNCHR, it has also been a vocal critic of the council's perceived shortcomings. The US has repeatedly expressed concerns about the composition of the council, its perceived bias against Israel, and its overall effectiveness.

Under the Bush administration, the US initially refused to join the UNHRC, citing concerns about its membership and agenda. However, the Obama administration reversed this policy in 2009, arguing that the US could be more effective in promoting human rights by engaging with the council from within. The US subsequently played an active role in the UNHRC, advocating for resolutions on a range of human rights issues and working to reform the council's procedures.

Despite its engagement, the US continued to express concerns about the UNHRC's perceived bias against Israel. The Obama administration repeatedly criticized the council's disproportionate focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its adoption of resolutions that it viewed as unfair and unbalanced. However, the administration maintained that the US could better address these concerns by remaining a member of the council and working to influence its decisions from within.

The Trump administration took a much more confrontational approach to the UNHRC. President Trump and his administration officials repeatedly condemned the council's perceived bias against Israel and threatened to withdraw the US if it did not address these concerns. In June 2018, the US announced its withdrawal from the UNHRC, citing its "chronic bias against Israel" and its failure to hold human rights abusers accountable.

The US withdrawal was widely condemned by human rights organizations and many other countries, who argued that it would weaken the UNHRC and undermine international efforts to promote human rights. Critics also argued that the US decision was motivated by a desire to shield Israel from scrutiny of its human rights record in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The US withdrawal from the UNHRC was not the first time that the country had withdrawn from a UN body. In 1984, the US withdrew from UNESCO, the UN's cultural agency, citing concerns about its mismanagement and anti-American bias. The US rejoined UNESCO in 2003. These withdrawals demonstrate a pattern of the US using its participation in international organizations as leverage to advance its own interests and values.

The Biden administration rejoined the UNHRC in 2022, reversing the Trump administration's decision. The Biden administration argued that the US could be more effective in promoting human rights by engaging with the council and working to reform it from within. However, the US continues to express concerns about the UNHRC's perceived bias against Israel and its membership composition.

India's Election to the UNHRC: A Balancing Act

In contrast to the US withdrawal, India's election to the UNHRC in 2019 with the highest number of votes among all candidates represented a significant diplomatic success. India has been a consistent participant in the UN system and has sought to play a constructive role in promoting human rights. Its election to the UNHRC reflected a degree of international confidence in its commitment to human rights principles, even as its own domestic record remains subject to scrutiny.

India's approach to human rights is shaped by its unique history, culture, and political system. As a large and diverse democracy, India faces numerous challenges in protecting and promoting human rights. These challenges include poverty, inequality, discrimination, and violence. India also faces significant security threats, including terrorism and insurgency, which can sometimes lead to human rights abuses.

Despite these challenges, India has made significant progress in promoting human rights over the years. The Indian Constitution guarantees a wide range of fundamental rights, including the right to equality, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the right to life and personal liberty. India has also ratified many international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

India's human rights record has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, particularly in relation to issues such as freedom of expression, religious freedom, and the treatment of minorities. Critics have raised concerns about the use of sedition laws to silence dissent, the rise of Hindu nationalism and its impact on religious minorities, and the situation in Jammu and Kashmir.

Despite these concerns, India remains committed to promoting human rights both domestically and internationally. Its election to the UNHRC provided it with a platform to advocate for its human rights priorities and to influence international human rights discourse. India has used its membership on the UNHRC to promote issues such as the right to development, the fight against terrorism, and the protection of vulnerable groups.

India's approach to the UNHRC is characterized by a balancing act between its commitment to human rights principles and its own national interests. India seeks to play a constructive role in the UNHRC while also protecting its sovereignty and avoiding undue criticism of its domestic policies. This balancing act can be challenging, particularly when India's human rights record comes under scrutiny.

India's membership in the UNHRC also provides it with an opportunity to engage in dialogue and cooperation with other countries on human rights issues. India has used its membership to build relationships with other countries and to promote a more inclusive and equitable international human rights system.

The Broader Implications for International Human Rights Governance

The US withdrawal from the UNHRC and India's election to the council have broader implications for international human rights governance. The US withdrawal weakens the UNHRC and undermines international efforts to promote human rights. It also emboldens other countries to disregard human rights norms and to resist scrutiny of their human rights records.

India's election to the UNHRC, on the other hand, strengthens the council and provides it with a greater voice in international human rights discussions. It also demonstrates that countries with diverse perspectives and experiences can play a constructive role in promoting human rights.

The events highlight the challenges and complexities of international human rights governance. The UNHRC faces numerous challenges, including its membership composition, its perceived bias, and its limited enforcement powers. These challenges require a concerted effort by all stakeholders to reform the council and to make it more effective in promoting and protecting human rights.

The US withdrawal and India's election also underscore the importance of national interests in shaping foreign policy. The US decision was motivated by a desire to protect Israel from scrutiny, while India's election was driven by a desire to enhance its international standing and to promote its values. These competing interests can make it difficult to achieve consensus on human rights issues and to build a truly universal human rights system.

The future of international human rights governance will depend on the willingness of states to cooperate and to uphold their human rights obligations. The UNHRC can play a vital role in promoting human rights, but its effectiveness depends on the support and cooperation of its member states. It also depends on the willingness of states to hold each other accountable for human rights violations.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, is a foundational document in international human rights law. It sets out fundamental rights and freedoms that are considered to be universal and inalienable. The UDHR provides the normative framework for the UNHRC's work.

The UDHR's key provisions include articles related to equality, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial. These provisions are relevant to the UNHRC's mandate to promote and protect human rights worldwide. The UDHR also recognizes the importance of economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to education, the right to health, and the right to an adequate standard of living.

The UNHRC's work is also guided by other international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These treaties are legally binding on states that have ratified them.

The UNHRC uses a variety of mechanisms to promote and protect human rights, including investigations, fact-finding missions, and public reporting. The council also works to develop international human rights standards and to provide technical assistance to states to improve their human rights records.

The UNHRC's effectiveness depends on the cooperation of member states. States are expected to cooperate with the council's investigations and to implement its recommendations. However, many states are reluctant to cooperate with the UNHRC, particularly when they are accused of human rights violations.

The UNHRC also faces challenges related to its funding and resources. The council's budget is relatively small, and it relies heavily on voluntary contributions from member states. This can limit its ability to carry out its mandate effectively.

Despite these challenges, the UNHRC remains an important forum for discussing and promoting human rights. It provides a platform for victims of human rights violations to be heard and for states to be held accountable for their actions. The UNHRC also plays a vital role in developing international human rights standards and in promoting a more just and equitable world.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a long-standing issue that has been a major focus of the UNHRC's attention. The UNHRC has repeatedly condemned Israel's actions in the occupied Palestinian territories, including its settlement construction, its use of force against Palestinians, and its blockade of Gaza.

The UNHRC's criticism of Israel has been a major source of contention between the US and the council. The US has accused the UNHRC of bias against Israel and has defended Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism.

The UNHRC's effectiveness has been a subject of debate for many years. Critics argue that the council is too politicized and that it is not effective in holding states accountable for human rights violations. Supporters argue that the UNHRC plays a vital role in promoting human rights and that it has made significant progress in addressing human rights violations worldwide.

India's human rights record has been a subject of increasing scrutiny in recent years. Critics have raised concerns about issues such as freedom of expression, religious freedom, and the treatment of minorities. The Indian government has defended its human rights record and has argued that it is committed to protecting the rights of all its citizens.

The creation of the UNHRC to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights was a response to the perceived failures of the UNCHR. The UNCHR was criticized for its selectivity and politicization, and the UNHRC was created to address these shortcomings.

The US has a history of criticizing the UN and other international organizations. The US has often accused the UN of being inefficient, biased, and ineffective. The US has also withdrawn from several UN bodies over the years, including UNESCO and the UNHRC.

The UNHRC will continue to face challenges related to its membership, effectiveness, and impartiality. The council will need to address these challenges in order to maintain its credibility and to effectively promote human rights worldwide. India will likely use its seat on the council to promote its human rights priorities and to engage in international diplomacy. India's approach to the UNHRC will be shaped by its commitment to human rights principles and its own national interests.