One would think that a basic regard for human dignity would be a prerequisite for entry onto the Human Rights Council (UNHRC), evidently this is not the case. And yet a laughable 26 out of the 47 member states have been categorized as human rights violators by the American human rights watchdog Freedom House. Since 2009, there has been only one instance in which over 50 percent of the members were not human rights abusers.
The deplorable human rights track record within the council is a direct result of the process by which countries obtain seats. States are voted in by secret ballot in the General Assembly, and a simple majority vote is needed to secure a seat. There are no other qualifiers for entry, and even countries that have been sanctioned by the Security Council are eligible. To make matters worse, the hidden nature of the vote encourages states to engage in backdoor negotiations to exchange and secure votes. This type of political wheeling and dealing was exposed in 2013 when WikiLeaks shared documents showing that Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom agreed to exchange votes prior to an election.
The bloc voting system established at the time of the council’s founding is an additional cause for its tendency to allow dictatorships to participate. To encourage geographic diversity, it was mandated that the council be composed of regional blocs, 13 seats from Asia, 13 from Africa and so on. This structure severely limits the capability of the General Assembly to vote based on human rights criteria. Even more ludicrous is the common practice of regional blocs to submit as candidates the exact number of states needed to fill their quota, effectively rendering the General Assembly election as impactful as a Model U.N. vote.
The solution to the hypocrisy of the Human Rights Council is not particularly complex. It takes a bloated bureaucratic mess like the UN to allow a wound such as this to fester for over ten years. The first step is to remove the bloc voting system. Geographic diversity is a noble cause within the UNHRC, but not when it comes at the expense of the primary directive of the council. Autocracies from different parts of the world are still autocracies.
The next stage is to implement the initial barriers of entry that the US suggested in 2006, at the time of the council’s founding. The Bush administration proposed that no country currently sanctioned by the Security Council be allowed a seat. The Americans also required that nations receive a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly to be voted into the UNHRC. The restrictions were rejected by the rest of the UN. Based on the number of tyrants that have called the council home since its founding, this has proven to be a terrible mistake.
Putting the measures into effect now would have a dual effect. Restricting membership based on Security Council sanctions would prevent known human rights abusers from sitting on the UNHRC. Having a higher majority vote requirement would also make it more difficult for unsavory states to buy enough votes to gain election. I believe it would also be prudent to make voting public, thereby forcing each nation to justify their voting patterns to the rest of the international community.
In his recent speech at the UN, the U.S. President chastised the UN for the embarrassing oxymoron that is the United Nations Human Rights Council. In this instance, other world leaders should follow his example and pressure the UN to act. If they don’t, it seems as though countries like Saudi Arabia will be leading the global human rights crusade. But hey, women are allowed to drive there now! Who knows what will come next.