Trump administration will withdraw US from UN human rights council, report says

[GennGreymane]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...rce=reddit.com

President Donald Trump's administration is said to be set on withdrawing the US from the United Nations Human Rights Council. which meets for a new session next week

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has accused the 47-member organisation based in Geneva of “chronic anti-Israel bias” since she came into office last year and according to a number of reports, the withdrawal is “imminent,” particularly after UN's recent condemnation of Israel's violence against Palestinians in Gaza.

Diplomats believe it is a case of when, not if, the US withdraws according to Reuters, although the State Department did not say in a statement that a decision had been made.

A State Department official told The Independent but that the US "wants a Human Rights Council that fulfils its purpose as the premier international focal point for human rights issues".

The official said that "at its best" the Council compels violators to act towards "positive action," however they noted that " all too frequently, it fails to address critical situations for political reasons – and undermines its own credibility".

The human rights body was formed in 2006, but was shunned administration of President George W Bush. In 2009, President Barack Obama reversed thet decision after taking office.

The council's critical stance of Israel has long been a contentious issue for the US, Israel's main ally. Ms Haley had said last year at this time that Israel is the “only country permanently on the body’s calendar”.

The US ambassador had at the time also called on the council to vote on resolutions against Venezuela, Syria, Eritrea, Belarus, Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of Congo and opposed a periodic review of Israel’s human rights.

The council has a permanent item on the agenda, item seven, looks at suspected violations in the occupied Palestinian territories, which Washington wants removed.

In the last year, that stance may have become more entrenched as the US officially recognised the holy city of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

A withdrawal would mark the latest move by Mr Trump's administration to snub elements of the international community. The US also last month that it would be pulling away from the six-party Iran nuclear deal, which had provided a reduction of sanctions on Tehran in exchange for the country halting development of its nuclear weapons programme.

The US has also already said it will withdraw from the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) citing an anti-Israel bias.

Anjali Dayal, an international security professor at Fordham University, told The Independent that the US move is “not a surprise” given Ms Haley’s consistent stance regarding the council and Israel. Washington has also repeatedly accused the council of shielding the repressive regimes it should be condemning, allowing such nations to join the body and then potentially use it to thwart scrutiny.


Mr Trump has also long been critical of multilateral organisations, including the UN as a whole, as well.

However, Ms Dayal said the US is not without “valid criticisms” of the body. There are “human rights abusers with seats on the Council,” Ms Dayal explained.

But, Ms Dayal argued the issue was “not an unknown” drawback of the council. Ms Haley knew this was a problem coming into office since activists, observer groups, and smaller nations have complained about differing regional processes that allow it to happen for years.

But, Ms Haley is “going much more the Bush administration route,” Ms Dayal said. But the US “will have to be in the room” in order to make any significant change to the council.

The State Department official told The Independent the US "will continue to discuss and work with other UN member states for significant reform of the [Council], and seek to advance human rights wherever and whenever we can," but did not elaborate on what kind of action or negotiating that would entail.
Never in the 12 years of the council, has a serving member dropped out voluntarily. Seven years ago, in the midst of the Arab Spring, Libya was kicked out with the approval of the UN General Assembly.

The 47-member council opens the second of its three annual sessions Monday, when UN human rights chief Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein makes his last address to a regular meeting before stepping down in August.

In terms of the options the US has, secretary of state Mike Pompeo could opt for a full withdrawal from the council— the option preferred by Ms Haley — or remain in the room as an observer, without the right to vote on resolutions.

[Sunseeker]

Jesus fucking christ....

[Captain N]

Brace yourselves -- the resident shit birds are about to flock in here and say this a good thing because the UN is bad...

[Dacien]

There definitely is reason to question whether there is anti-Israel bias at the UN, as Jake Tapper points out:



I don't know whether this decision is a good one or a bad one, but I do think Israel gets an inordinate share of rebuke at the UN.

[Felya]

Brace yourselves -- the resident shit birds are about to flock in here and say this a good thing because the UN is bad...

Too busy celebrating 4 people being killed, because someone in the incident said they need a wall.

This is not leaving the UN. Just the human rights Council. The reason for withdraw is strange. Going with countries on the council not meeting standards, is fine. It’s simply true... But, removing US, who has often been the sole reason why no actions were taken against Israel, because you see bias against Israel, doesn’t make any sense. Because they think there is a bias, Trump will make it so there is no opposition in the council to the bias? Just months after moving the embassy?

[Yunru]

Too busy celebrating 4 people being killed, because someone in the incident said they need a wall.

This is not leaving the UN. Just the human rights Council. The reason for withdraw is strange. Going with countries on the council not meeting standards, is fine. It’s simply true... But, removing US, who has often been the sole reason why no actions were taken against Israel, because you see bias against Israel, doesn’t make any sense. Because they think there is a bias, Trump will make it so there is no opposition in the council?

Being outside they maybe think they can do a genocide or something?

[draynay]

They probably won't like all the human rights our government is violating.

[Daelak]

There definitely is reason to question whether there is anti-Israel bias at the UN, as Jake Tapper points out:



I don't know whether this decision is a good one or a bad one, but I do think Israel gets an inordinate share of rebuke at the UN.

It's a bad decision.

[Felya]

Being outside they maybe think they can do a genocide or something?

I’m not sure what you mean.

I edited my post, because I forgot we moved the embassy just a couple of months ago. When US has been the only voice to keep the bias of the council from impacting Israel, this accomplished the complete opposite. He poked the hornets nest with the embassy move, but this is handing the stick over to someone else and running away.

What do you think Trump’s reaction to UN will be. When they denounce Israel, in a way US has been able to block. What are the odds that Trump would use that to inflame our tension with allies, even though it’s his fault we couldn’t prevent it?

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Sounds like China made a new deposit to Trumps personal account this weekend.

[Felya]

They probably won't like all the human rights our government is violating.

I don’t think that’s the point. You need to consider that we were the singular reason for Israel to not be punished more severely. With Trump creating the inevitability of Human Rights Council needing to issue a statement, after the shit storm Trump’s embassy move created. What happens when instead of driving the council against their bias, we are attacking our allies for passing a resolution we would have blocked if stayed in?

[Thepersona]

Being outside they maybe think they can do a genocide or something?

Separation of families is a form of genocide. The US is RIGHT NOW conducting genocidal policies

[Felya]

Separation of families is a form of genocide. The US is RIGHT NOW conducting genocidal policies

I don’t know how to discuss this topic, without breaking forum rules.

- - - Updated - - -

The UN is made up of pretty much most nations of the world - Israel is not better than all the countries that the US constantly bully.

This is just a case of the US pretty much demanding to get their way.

No, US has an overwhelming voice in the council. Us leaving is specifically because it will result in a global conflict. Jerusalem is a Molotov cocktail that Trump tossed, which will have an inevitable response from the council. One I can guarantee, Trump’s US will find abhorrent and divisive.

[Kasierith]

As much as I dislike the hypocrisy, along with anti-Semitic undertones, of targeting the US's relation to Israel when close "friends" like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are a thing, the US has nothing to gain from walking away from the discussion. The HRC has no teeth to it, so the US loses none of its sovereignty by participating (which was how the US shaped its creation to begin with).

[draynay]

I don’t think that’s the point.

I wasn't ascribing motive, just characterizing the present administration as uninterested in human rights.

[Felya]

As much as I dislike the hypocrisy, along with anti-Semitic undertones, of targeting the US's relation to Israel when close "friends" like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are a thing, the US has nothing to gain from walking away from the discussion. The HRC has no teeth to it, so the US loses none of its sovereignty by participating (which was how the US shaped its creation to begin with).

It’s not hypocritical to stay in the council. We were the voice that inhibited those members. It gave them the perception they mater, but US had the final vote. If the goal was to keep the council’s anti Israel bias in check, being in the council is the simplest way to accomplish the goal. Without US to inhibit the reaction, we will instead be in disagreement with UN members. I think that disagreement leaving closed doors and the sheen of US success in keeping bias from becoming reality, is the point of what Trump is doing. This will further push the conflict he created during Paris Accord and G7, by removing US from our leadership roles and then complaining that results are unfair.

[Kiri]

It’s not hypocritical to stay in the council. We were the voice that inhibited those members. It gave them the perception they mater, but US had the final vote. If the goal was to keep the council’s anti Israel bias in check, being in the council is the simplest way to accomplish the goal. Without US to inhibit the reaction, we will instead be in disagreement with UN members. I think that disagreement leaving closed doors and the sheen of US success in keeping bias from becoming reality, is the point of what Trump is doing. This will further push the conflict he created during Paris Accord and G7, by removing US from our leadership roles and then complaining that results are unfair.

That's the game plan, though. Doing something is hard. Having others do stuff and then complaining about it is much easier. That's pretty much the Trump admin's relationship to congress, too.

[Mayhem]

As everything Trump does, this makes no sense whatsoever, so it probably will be what is going to happen.

[Kasierith]

It’s not hypocritical to stay in the council. We were the voice that inhibited those members. It gave them the perception they mater, but US had the final vote. If the goal was to keep the council’s anti Israel bias in check, being in the council is the simplest way to accomplish the goal. Without US to inhibit the reaction, we will instead be in disagreement with UN members. I think that disagreement leaving closed doors and the sheen of US success in keeping bias from becoming reality, is the point of what Trump is doing. This will further push the conflict he created during Paris Accord and G7, by removing US from our leadership roles and then complaining that results are unfair.

Hypocritical that so much focus is established on Israel when we have far less reliable allies doing far worse things.

[Draco-Onis]

There definitely is reason to question whether there is anti-Israel bias at the UN, as Jake Tapper points out:

I don't know whether this decision is a good one or a bad one, but I do think Israel gets an inordinate share of rebuke at the UN.

This is the wrong decision, when things are not what they should be the US should use it's power and influence to be the voice of reason and change things. We are acting like children taking our toys and going home whenever there is even an ounce of push back or criticism. We should be striving to make the world into what it should be not what it is. This is another moronic decision by an administration that keeps promising to do things better but always runs away with their tail between their legs instead of pulling up their sleeves and doing the hard work of diplomacy.