By John J. Metzler
The United States has been elected to the United Nations' Human Rights Council, the controversial human rights assembly that the Biden administration rejoined earlier in the year. In uncontested elections, or should we say "selections," Washington won a spot along with 17 other states, ranging from free nations, including Finland and Lithuania, to failed states such as Somalia, and even serial rights abusers, as is Eritrea.
America is back?
The 193-member U.N. General Assembly in New York held these elections to the 47-member Human Rights Council (HRC), which picked new members representing the regional groups: Africa, Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Western Europe and Others.
Hillel Neuer, the executive secretary of the watchdog group, U.N. Watch, tweeted that while elections are designed to weed out the world's worst rights abusers, "oppressive regimes like China, Cuba, Libya, Russia and Eritrea routinely win elections, and the stamp of international legitimacy."
Given the council's past actions, the Trump administration pulled out of the Geneva-based body in 2018, largely over this very issue of uncompetitive elections and the HRC's excessive criticism of Israel.
Yet Washington's "win" was a pyrrhic political victory at best; we were selected but our vote tally represented an almost insulting innuendo from the membership. Stated another way, Washington's final vote tally lagged behind serial rights abusers, such as Somalia, Cameron and the United Arab Emirates! Out of the 193 members in the U.N. General Assembly, the U.S. won 168 votes. Gambia gained 186, Somalia 171 and only Eritrea garnered fewer with 144.
Following the selection, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, "The Council provides a forum where we can have open discussions about ways we and our partners can improve. 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." Sadly so.
Countries like the West African state of Cameroon have a pitiful human rights record. Moreover, Freedom House, the global human rights monitor, rates both Eritrea and Somalia among the least free countries in the world.
Newly elected members set to serve three-year terms include, Benin, Gambia, Cameron, Somalia, Eritrea, India, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Lithuania, Montenegro, Paraguay, Argentina, Honduras, Finland, Luxembourg and the United States.
American U.N. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield stated that by being back on the HRC, "Our initial efforts as full members in the Council will focus on what we can accomplish in situations of dire need, such as in Afghanistan, Burma, China, Ethiopia, Syria and Yemen."
She added, "Finally, we will press against the election of countries with egregious human rights records."
When the new members take their seats in January, just under a third of the entire HRC membership will represent democratic states. Members like Cuba, China, Russia and Pakistan already sit in judgment on the Council.
Facing this grim political calculus, how can Western democratic states hope to tip the Council's balance away from the entrenched authoritarian states?
Having covered past HRC proceedings in Geneva and viewing the bubble under which the council operates, it's almost taken for granted that members operate in a largely unchallenged cloud cuckoo land. I recall communist China putting on lavish exhibits which verged on political pornography where the persecuted Muslim Uighurs of Xinjiang province were presented as happy and dancing peasants all under Beijing's red banner. Serious discussions are sidetracked, stifled or shut down.
Thus, is Washington's political pushback effort even worth it? So, with a disappointing and almost insulting 168 votes, should we proclaim America is back? Sort of.
John J. Metzler (jjmcolumn@earthlink.net) is a United Nations correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He is the author of "Divided Dynamism ― The Diplomacy of Separated Nations: Germany, Korea, China."
 |
America is back?
The 193-member U.N. General Assembly in New York held these elections to the 47-member Human Rights Council (HRC), which picked new members representing the regional groups: Africa, Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Western Europe and Others.
Hillel Neuer, the executive secretary of the watchdog group, U.N. Watch, tweeted that while elections are designed to weed out the world's worst rights abusers, "oppressive regimes like China, Cuba, Libya, Russia and Eritrea routinely win elections, and the stamp of international legitimacy."
Given the council's past actions, the Trump administration pulled out of the Geneva-based body in 2018, largely over this very issue of uncompetitive elections and the HRC's excessive criticism of Israel.
Yet Washington's "win" was a pyrrhic political victory at best; we were selected but our vote tally represented an almost insulting innuendo from the membership. Stated another way, Washington's final vote tally lagged behind serial rights abusers, such as Somalia, Cameron and the United Arab Emirates! Out of the 193 members in the U.N. General Assembly, the U.S. won 168 votes. Gambia gained 186, Somalia 171 and only Eritrea garnered fewer with 144.
Following the selection, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, "The Council provides a forum where we can have open discussions about ways we and our partners can improve. 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." Sadly so.
Countries like the West African state of Cameroon have a pitiful human rights record. Moreover, Freedom House, the global human rights monitor, rates both Eritrea and Somalia among the least free countries in the world.
Newly elected members set to serve three-year terms include, Benin, Gambia, Cameron, Somalia, Eritrea, India, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Lithuania, Montenegro, Paraguay, Argentina, Honduras, Finland, Luxembourg and the United States.
American U.N. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield stated that by being back on the HRC, "Our initial efforts as full members in the Council will focus on what we can accomplish in situations of dire need, such as in Afghanistan, Burma, China, Ethiopia, Syria and Yemen."
She added, "Finally, we will press against the election of countries with egregious human rights records."
When the new members take their seats in January, just under a third of the entire HRC membership will represent democratic states. Members like Cuba, China, Russia and Pakistan already sit in judgment on the Council.
Facing this grim political calculus, how can Western democratic states hope to tip the Council's balance away from the entrenched authoritarian states?
Having covered past HRC proceedings in Geneva and viewing the bubble under which the council operates, it's almost taken for granted that members operate in a largely unchallenged cloud cuckoo land. I recall communist China putting on lavish exhibits which verged on political pornography where the persecuted Muslim Uighurs of Xinjiang province were presented as happy and dancing peasants all under Beijing's red banner. Serious discussions are sidetracked, stifled or shut down.
Thus, is Washington's political pushback effort even worth it? So, with a disappointing and almost insulting 168 votes, should we proclaim America is back? Sort of.
John J. Metzler (jjmcolumn@earthlink.net) is a United Nations correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He is the author of "Divided Dynamism ― The Diplomacy of Separated Nations: Germany, Korea, China."
![[INTERVIEW] Hip-hop group Uptown returns after 13 years with new lineup](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/0eae35da5e9c40c38cf439e550a2eb3e.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] ASTRO members aim to shine in musical theater](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/df16760dc50f469d93434f66a069465c.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
