The UN General Assembly’s vote on Thursday to suspend Russia from the body’s Human Rights Council drew a new clear delineation of the global order in a way that seemed to go far beyond allegations of Russian war crimes in Ukraine.
On the one hand, 95 nations – just over half the UN members, but enough to reach the necessary two-thirds of those entitled to vote – backed the resolution, which the United States and dozens of others supported. The total included members of NATO and the European Union, some small Pacific island nations, and much of Latin America.
Using her votes, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said, “The international community has taken a united step in the right direction.” Calling the vote an “important and historic moment,” she said it “sent a strong message that.” the suffering of victims and survivors is not ignored”.
Germany intercepts Russian talks about indiscriminate killings in Ukraine
But the total was a significant reduction from the 141 who voted in favor of last month’s General Assembly non-binding measure condemning Russia’s “aggression” in Ukraine.
On the other hand, among the 24 countries that opposed Thursday’s action — compared to five last month — included China, Iran, Vietnam, Algeria, Ethiopia, much of Central Asia and Cuba, all of which previously abstained .
“We are firmly opposed to the politicization of human rights issues” and “double standards,” China’s official said. Days after pictures circulated of dead civilians lying on the streets of the Kiev suburb of Bucha after Russian troops withdrew, the suspension resolution “was not drafted in an open and transparent manner,” he said, and “forces countries to opt for a side to decide”.
Most notable were Thursday’s 58 abstentions from those who refused to choose sides in a way that some said would undermine the UN system itself. They include all but a handful of African nations and the entire Persian Gulf. Many of those who abstained strongly condemned what was happening in Ukraine and seemed to have little doubt as to who was responsible.
But most have expressed unease at deciding how credible and chilling the allegations of torture and premeditated killings of civilians are before the allegations have been fully investigated by the UN and other investigations have been launched to do just that.
Singapore, which voted to condemn last month and whose prime minister visited the White House with President Biden last week, said it was “deeply concerned and troubled” by the latest reports and images from Bucha. But she explained Thursday’s abstention as support for the “independent, international commission of inquiry” already set up by the Human Rights Council to investigate alleged human rights abuses and called on all countries to cooperate with it.
A few abstainers, many with human rights concerns of their own, argued that the suspension vote set a bad precedent and aggravated an already dire situation. Saudi Arabia, which backed last month’s resolution, called Russia’s suspension “an escalation move” and “a form of politicizing the Council’s work…that gives certainty.” [countries] more rights than others.”
In devastated Chernihiv, the Russian siege leaves a city asking, “Why?”
Russia’s Deputy Ambassador Gennady Kuzmin called the resolution “human rights colonialism” and an “attempt by the United States to maintain its dominant position and total control in international relations” at the expense of smaller states.
“Today is neither the time nor the place for theater or this type of extremely theatrical performance” unrelated to the actual situation on the ground in Ukraine, Kuzmin said. He urged members to “really reconsider their decision and vote against the West’s attempt to destroy them [U.N.’s] human rights architecture.”
This architecture, centered on the Human Rights Council, has historically been one of the most troubled buildings in the UN system, long accused of the pressure to take sides that underlay some defendants in the suspension vote.
Established in 2006, it replaced the Human Rights Commission, one of the founding bodies of the UN Charter after World War II. One of the Commission’s first tasks was to appoint a drafting committee for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But by the turn of the century, the commission had fallen into disrepute, accused of bias, with a membership that included numerous alleged violators and proceedings that often degenerated into finger pointing and shouting.
The newly created Council should address these issues. Its 47 members are elected by regional groups of nations and confirmed by the General Assembly for three-year terms, with no member serving more than two consecutive terms. In several meetings a year, it is to closely coordinate its work on monitoring and promoting compliance with human rights and international humanitarian law with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The Council’s founding resolution obliges all members to “respect the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights”. It includes a paragraph outlining the suspension procedure for any member committing “gross and systematic violations” of these rights, a provision used in 2011 to suspend Libya following Muammar Gaddafi’s violent crackdown on anti-government protesters.
Libya’s suspension prompted continued questions about the same problems that had plagued the commission — even the presence of suspected perpetrators on the council.
Many smaller and less powerful countries believe the council gives them a way to stand up to major powers like the United States. This has sparked outrage in a number of US administrations over repeated votes against Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and a reluctance to criticize countries opposed to the United States.
In 2018, as part of his broader effort to separate the United States from international institutions, President Donald Trump withdrew from the council to protest his criticism of Israel and failure to criticize countries in favor of the US.
The Biden administration rejoined the council last year, arguing, like a number of its predecessors, that the United States could have more influence inside than outside the organization. Current membership, even without Russia, includes a number of US-designated problem nations, including Eritrea, Cuba and China.
“Today it was Russia, but tomorrow it could be any of our members,” said Cuba’s representative, speaking out against the suspension decision. “Could this assembly someday pass a resolution suspending the United States’ membership of the Human Rights Council? We all know that has not happened and will not happen,” despite US invasions and sanctions over the years.
Brazil, which abstained, said the various investigations should be allowed to complete their work. “Only then would this General Assembly be able to better assess Russia’s alleged crimes,” said the Brazilian delegate. “We must at all costs avoid repeating the mistakes of the old Commission.”
After the vote concluded, Russia asked for the floor again, to say it did not want to be a member of a council that “is effectively monopolized by a group of states that use it for their short-term goals,” and had already resigned . That drew challenges from Britain, whose delegate said it “sounds like someone who’s just been fired and is handing in his resignation”.
The British diplomat saw a silver lining, noting that while the suspension would keep the seat open, leaving would trigger a new election by the Eastern Europe regional group and the opportunity for a new member “who is really committed to human rights, to take this seat. ”