Is the United Nations Council of Human Rights or Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights  (OHCHR) a “cesspool of political bias”?  This is the charge levelled today by Nikki Haley, the United States of America Ambassador to the UN; who has accused the OHCHR of defending abusers of Human Rights, indicating that “Human Rights abusers continue to serve on and be elected to the Council”.

It is certainly true that the 107 members nations that have served on the OHCHR so far include many countries which have been accused of Human Rights abuses; notably perhaps, China, Egypt, the Russian Federation,the UK and of course, the United States of America itself.  It should be noted that although some of these accusations relate to cases of the recent past, they nevertheless took place since the inception of the OHCHR  in 2006.

It would certainly appear true then, that the OHCHR itself comprises (or has comprised) nations which themselves commit abuses of Human Rights.  In which case, perhaps the United States of America is justified in wanting to cease its involvement in such “a hypocritical and self-serving organisation”…  The United States of America should know whereof it speaks, after all it is one of those very same hypocrites: being guilty of both committing human rights abuses whilst at the same time condemning the abuses by others!  It may also perhaps be relevant to note that the United States of America is itself also guilty of exercising) political bias – as it showed at the end of 2017 when it publicly threatened the other member states of the United Nations in relation to the vote against declaring Jerusalem as the capital of Israel!

What strikes me with all of this, is the apparent ease with which a nation, political body or organisation can exhibit such a clear dichotomy in its own behaviour…  It may well be appropriate to accuse the OHCHR of being a cesspool of political bias, however it seems ridiculous to me to be able to maintain that position, whilst at the same time remaining a part of other organisations against whom similar criticisms can be levelled; say for example the United Nations Security Council…

The UN Security Council is a key body of the United Nations and is charged with “the maintenance of international peace and security”.  It comprises 15 member states, of which 5 are permanent (The United States of America, France, the United Kingdom, China and the Russian Federation) and 10 are elected to 2-year terms.  The Security Council addresses complaints raised to it by member states and then resolves a course of action through a system of voting.  It is empowered to direct countries to cease hostilities and can require member states to impose economic sanctions of other member states who refuse to comply.  One key feature of the Security Council however, is that each of the 5 permanent members has a veto – through the exercising of which a resolution can be prevented from being implemented: a feature which the United States of America has used a number of times.  According to Wikipedia, since 1946 one or other of the permanent members of the Security Council has exercised a veto 248 times – of which 81 (more than 30%) involved a veto by the Unites States of America.

The stupidity of such a system is evident when one considers that plaintiffs may find themselves raising complaints for arbitration to the very subject of their complaint…  In March 15 2014, the Ukraine requested support from the UN Security Council concerning the military annexation of its country by the Russian Federation.  Surprisingly enough, the resulting resolution was vetoed by the Russian Federation!!!

It would seem then, that the Security Council might also be considered to be  a body subject to political bias, yet the United States of America has not withdrawn from that august body.  Why then should the United States of America single-out the OHCHR for special treatment in this regard?  It appears inconsistent to withdraw from one and not the other.  If the behaviour causing an issue is the hypocrisy shown by the body and its members, should the United States of America not reign in its own hypocrisy and display the same approach to all bodies that exhibit political bias – in particular those of which it is an active member?

Perhaps the departure of the United States of America from the OHCHR will permit that the world in general re-thinks its approach to global diplomacy.  The inability of the United Nations to apply its own commonly agreed standards and rules can only serve to undermine its legitimacy.  Should its legitimacy be ultimately removed (and we cannot be far from that point now) I can only assume that it will go the way of the League of Nations – which existed only briefly in the interval between the two World Wars.

There is no credibility in this action of the United States of America, but it does at least show the ineffectiveness of the UN.  Perhaps were other like-minded nations to follow suit then the door can be opened to more meaningful progress.  If there is to be a body that can truly represent common standards across the globe, then it cannot be a body which is subject to the whims of one or two powerful forces.  The concept that 5 countries can veto the wishes of every other country on the globe is not only the antithesis of democracy, but it is arrogant in the extreme.