It was officially announced this week that the US has quit the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). This is the first time any nation has ever voluntarily left. When it was first established in 2006, the Bush administration simply did not join, and it was only in 2009 that the Obama administration brought the US in.
So why did they quit?
Bizarre Letter
The day after the US quit the US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, wrote a letter to the International Humanist and Ethical Union that blames them for the US leaving.
You can find the full text of her letter here.
The extract that specifically claims that the reason they have left is because of the IHEU reads …
So what is the story here?
The US turned up, made some demands, and everybody says “no” – it was valid criticism of specific proposals. In other words, the IHEU was a joint signatory to a letter sent by 15 advocacy groups at the UN Human Rights Council on 13 June 2018. The letter expressed concern at moves by the US Government to reduce the role for civil society organisations through a process of ‘efficiency savings’.
Because other member states, including China and also Russia, also said “No”, and IHEU signed that letter, the US now claims that the IHEU stance was a contributing factor to their decision to withdraw US membership.
Translation: US turns up, and bully-boy style makes unreasonable demands that boils down to reducing the input that NGOs have. Everybody says “No” and articulates the reasons why. The US then proceeds to throw all its toys out of the pram, storms away to have a good cry, and blames some random NGO for it all.
Welcome to the Trump era of diplomacy.
The IHEU responds
Andrew Copson (pictured), the President of IHEU, has issued the following response …
“We will continue our vital work to protect and promote human rights around the world. We are sorry to have lost an important partner in the United States but now the world can see how fragile individual states’ support for human rights can be. This in turn illustrates the importance of the international human rights system for us all. We hope that – in happier and more civilised political days to come, the United States will reflect on its decision and agree to return to once again work with us and others to improve the imperfect human rights institutions which are the best hope for humanity.”
Tweets – For IHEU Human Rights truly do matter – having a voice matters
Tweets from the IHEU spell out the precise details …
Remember when the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, pulled the US out of the Human Rights Council yesterday? Well, she also sent us a letter. And guess what? Apparently it's all IHEU's fault! https://t.co/VyUxVdY76e
— Humanists International (@HumanistsInt) June 21, 2018
To be clear, our recent joint letter objected to 'cost saving' and 'time saving' proposals which would have marginalized the role of civil society at the Human Rights Council. We think that would have been bad for accountability, squeezing out non-state human rights defenders.
— Humanists International (@HumanistsInt) June 21, 2018
Nikki Haley says this put us on the wrong side of "a key human rights issue". Obviously, it was not a human rights issue as such, it was an institutional issue. And we don't think we were on the wrong side.
— Humanists International (@HumanistsInt) June 21, 2018
She also said in her letter to us that "You put yourself on the side of Russia and China", on the grounds that they also raised objections to the US proposals. It's an interesting attempt at implying guilt by association (coming from the Trump administration!).
— Humanists International (@HumanistsInt) June 21, 2018
Btw, IHEU has repeatedly criticised at the Human Rights Council both Russia and China. Some links:https://t.co/MECXRH6GKxhttps://t.co/IjxZHyxHj3https://t.co/qurfEVQbruhttps://t.co/3K3u7MrtVAhttps://t.co/vqsay6UXkQhttps://t.co/EdLb7cX5pZhttps://t.co/lSUkpMPzq7
— Humanists International (@HumanistsInt) June 21, 2018
Haley's letter also framed IHEU and our co-signatories as undertaking "efforts to block negotiations" – in fact our letter simply explained, politely and in detail, our view on the proposed reforms. Far from "blocking" negotiations, it was a legitimate contribution to debate.
— Humanists International (@HumanistsInt) June 21, 2018
We actually share + have previously voiced many of the US's concerns re the HRC (on uncontested elections, membership of rights violators, etc). But as we said yesterday before receiving Haley's letter, we value multilateralism & regret the US withdrawal https://t.co/QwfP7mLWeY
— Humanists International (@HumanistsInt) June 21, 2018
It's a shame the US responded to nuanced feedback on specific proposals, from a group of highly reputable NGOs, as if all criticism must be malign and obstructionist. It speaks of an administration that from the top down does not value criticism or understand how to receive it.
— Humanists International (@HumanistsInt) June 21, 2018
Two final remarks on the content of Haley's letter. The US says the input from us and other NGOs was "deconstructive". Actually, it was valid criticism of specific proposals. Compare that to *quitting* your membership & support because you don't get what you want right away!
— Humanists International (@HumanistsInt) June 21, 2018
And she finishes with what seems to be a threat: the US won't work with NGOs who criticize. This is chilling. It mirrors the worst impulses of authoritarian states—responding to even the most thoughtful, well-intended criticism from civil society with vitriol, & freezing us out.
— Humanists International (@HumanistsInt) June 21, 2018
Don't worry. We're fine. But if you don't think nation states should be trying to bully non-government organizations (they accuse us of "siding with Russia and China" – utterly weird!) then please consider supporting our #HumanistsAtRisk campaign today: https://t.co/SCagUfhYSi
— Humanists International (@HumanistsInt) June 21, 2018