Rejected by the United States and Israel, who recently announced his departure from the agency, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) completes this year 19 years of existence. The forum was created in 2006 to replace the former Human Rights Commission, which according to the UN Secretary-General himself at the time, Kofi Annan, considered weakened.
“He was no longer a mere commission, as there were dozens inside the UN, and became a council, equated to the other two major councils of the UN, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Development Council. Then, the very creation of the Human Rights Council already pointed to this place of greater prestige, most prominent in the theme of human rights within the organization, ”explains political scientist Mauricio Santoro, professor at the Center for Navy Political Studies.
Commanded by a High Commissioner, chosen by the United Nations Secretary-General, the Council is composed of 47 countries, elected by the 193 UN members, for 3-year terms. Each year, elections renew a third of its composition. Brazil, for example, was elected in 2023 to stay in the agency until 2026.
In addition to the commissioner and representatives of the countries, the agency also has a consultative committee, working groups and specialists designated for specific missions.
The board’s function is to reinforce the promotion and protection of human rights around the world, address violation situations and make recommendations on them. Among their instruments are resolutions and decisions, which function as the expression of the will of the international community on certain situations. In 19 years, more than 1,400 resolutions on situations have been published in various countries.
“The adoption of a resolution sends a strong political signal that can incite governments to act in order to remedy these situations,” says the agency’s own website.
According to Santoro, resolutions have an impact that goes beyond the political signal or a simple “embarrassment” to some countries, such as those who deal with international human rights treaties as legal instruments higher than their own legislations, as is the case of Brazil, Chile and Argentina.
“When you have a UN decision, a resolution, or some kind of debate on the Human Rights Council, very often, they also involve these legal commitments that the countries have made, in treaties,” he says.
In addition to resolutions, there are also the investigation and factual committees, which can help in international criminal proceedings, as well as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which periodically evaluates the human rights situation of all UN-member countries. All of them have been evaluated at least three times since 2006 and, at this time, the advice makes its fourth round of UPR.
“She is universal. All countries are examined. It is not something that happens only with some violators. Once every four or five years, these countries go through a round of evaluation and the Human Rights Council publishes a report with their analyzes and their suggestions of what each country can do to improve their conditions, ”explains Santoro .
USA
On February 3, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order that determined that his country “will not participate” and “nor seek election” for the Human Rights Council, of which he was one of 47 members of 2022 to 2024. In addition, the US will no longer finance the council.
In the document, Trump justified his departure by stating that the board “has protected human rights violators by allowing them to use the organization to shield their scrutiny.”
This is not the first time that the US president officializes the departure of the organization. In 2018, in his first government, Trump decided to leave the council while his country had a mandate, which would end only the following year.
“President Trump has a perspective on the insertion of the United States in the international system that is very peculiar. He considers that the United States is the most important country of all and cannot be harmed at any time, for no reason, right? And all those organisms and agreements that he considers in some way harmful to the interests of the United States, he rejects, ”says the professor of International Relations at the State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) Williams Gonçalves.
In the executive order signed on February 3, Trump mentions that the United States helped found the UN after World War II to prevent global conflicts and promote peace, but that “some agencies and organisms have distanced themselves from this mission and, in Sometimes they act against the interests of the United States while attacking their allies and propagates anti -Semitism. ”
The US departure from the council occurred the same week that Trump suggested that the Palestinians leave Gaza and relocated in other countries. The inhabitants of Palestinian territory have suffered in the last 15 months, with Israeli attacks.
“The main question is the issue of Palestinians. The main denunciation that the council makes is the treatment that the State of Israel dispenses with Palestinians. A treatment that came to paroxysm after Hamas’s onslaught against some members of Israel’s society. Trump considers that criticism of Israel is somehow a critique of the United States. And, in a way, he is right, since the United States supported from start to finish, all the genocidal action of Israel in the Gaza Strip, ”explains Gonçalves.
Israel, by the way, announced that it would follow the example of the United States about the Council. “Israel considers Trump’s decision not to participate in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Israel joins the United States and will not participate in the Unhrc, ”wrote Israeli chancellor Gideon Sa’ar on his social networks, adding that the organ“ obsessively demonizes his country.
In an interview with the news agency Reutersthe Special Rapporteur of the UNHRC for Israel and the territories occupied Palestinian, Francesca Albanese, classified as “arrogance” the decision of the Israelis to leave the council.
The International Amnesty International Organization condemned US departure from the Council at a time when “Palestinians in Gaza face genocide, forced displacement and denial to critical humanitarian support.” At times like this, according to the entity, the “international community should strengthen urgently and not abandon mechanisms of liability and justice”.
Consequences
According to Mauricio Santoro, even failing to participate in the council, the US remains subject to its scrutiny. “It is a political emptying no longer having the United States, which are the largest economy and have the largest military weight.”
There is also the issue of financing cutting, which can disrupt the board’s work. “The UN often works with very tight and very erratic budgets. Very often, the leaders of each of the UN’s major institutions spend a year there in hand, going to the big donors, asking for help, asking for extra financing to deal with a crisis situation, ”explains Santoro.
In addition to direct impacts on the board’s representation and financing, departure from the United States can have effects on other countries that have ideological alignment with Trump.
“Trump is creating a kind of political franchise. They have presidents in other parts of the planet that present themselves, for example, like Latin American Trump, African Trump. He created a political model that is finding many followers. For example, we have seen that Argentina has replicated many of these actions of the president. He came out, for example, from the World Health Organization. Will it come out [do Conselho de Direitos Humanos] Also? ”Asks Santoro.
In addition to the Unhrc, the United States also announced its departure from the World Health Organization (WHO), the end of funding to the United Nations Agency for Palestinian Refugees (Unrwa) and the reassessment of their participation in the United Nations to Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO).
New dynamics
Mauricio Santoro points out that the US led the creation of the United Nations and it is curious to see, at this moment, the “Creator turning against the creature.” “This is very unusual. And let’s say, we have a number of concerns, because what is the alternative for international organizations. They perform very important functions, create a global environment that is more predictable, that is more stable, where there are better mechanisms of transparency, to share information, ”he says.
Professor Antonio Jorge Ramalho da Rocha, from the University of Brasilia (UNB), considers that the current US government withdraws the values promoted by his country shortly after World War II.
“They will lose more than any other countries about it. In the long run, this is the acceleration of its decay. I have no doubt that it is a mistake from the point of view of their interest. The United States was based on the basis of this shared conviction, this amount that human beings must be protected by states. The entire political structure of the United States is set up to prevent the rulers from oppressing citizens to protect individual freedoms, ”he explains.
According to Rocha, the vacuum left by the United States on the council may be a chance for other countries, such as those from the European Union and the Global South, including Brazil, take a leadership role in the defense of human rights on the planet.
“Countries that value these values embrace the council, finance their actions. Today there is a leadership vacuum. It is a great opportunity for a country like Brazil, which has a tradition of respect, defense and promotion of multilateralism. It remains to be seen if it has energy, resources and clear vision to occupy this space, ”concludes the teacher.
