Withdrawing from the Human Rights Council is a monumental mistake

Many aspects of the new foreign policy aimed at affirming the global interests of the United States are commendable, but mistakes are made that require strong criticism. Although it has been established that many UNRWA officials and staff members openly supported and subsidized Hamas terrorists, this fact has no bearing on the work of the Human Rights Council, apart from the fact that within this very important body the excesses committed by Israel in Gaza have been condemned. That is so simply because that is its function. Indeed, no organization that protects the victims' rights and safety can, in fact, justify indiscriminate bombings that killed thousands of civilians.

However, this does not mean support for the appalling terrorism of Hamas by the Human Rights Council. UNRWA and the Council are two very different entities. Therefore, that or any other justification is insufficient for the United States to withdraw and give way to its adversaries and enemies in the Council. It is certainly regrettable that in the periodic selection of Council members, groups of countries from each region of the globe have chosen countries that represent the denial of human rights in their regions, such as Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, China, and others like them. However, this is a diplomatic issue that must be handled behind the scenes in order to exert all possible pressure to prevent this from happening in the future.

Countries in each region elect members from their region in the following proportion:

• African States: 13 seats
• Asia and Pacific States: 13 seats
• Latin America and the Caribbean: 8 seats
• Western European and other States: 7 seats
• Eastern European States: 6 seats

These 47 members are elected for a three-year term and are NOT eligible for immediate re-election. Among those elected who are now members of the Council, there is the regrettable presence of countries such as Cuba (which expires in 2026) or Vietnam and China (which expire in 2025), and some others that might not be consistent with US or EU foreign policy, but do not practice systematic human rights violations as a state policy.

Moreover, it must be acknowledged that the Council was paying increasing attention to human rights violations in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, as well as in other countries around the world where they are systematically violated, hearing numerous testimonies condemning the policies of those countries and appointing specialized personnel to investigate the allegations. One need only read its reports. In fact, the Office of the High Commissioner, in its attention to Latin America, maintains permanent offices in Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and a "peace mission" in Haiti, as well as subsidiary regional offices in Panama and Chile, and permanent advisors assigned to all other Latin American countries, including Venezuela.

None of these facts justifies the withdrawal of the United States or any other democratic country from the Human Rights Council. This action actually represents a victory for the enemies of democracy, who are the worst violators of human rights and will then be able to impose their agendas worldwide with absolute impunity. The correct policy is to give them the upper hand in that international forum and to exert effective diplomatic pressure behind the scenes to prevent countries that systematically violate human rights from being elected to the forum where those rights must be firmly proclaimed and defended, and those countries condemned to international ostracism.

No se puede fundamentar que el Consejo de Derechos Humanos humanos está cumpliendo su papel, cuando es un nido de dictaduras y países violadores,, donde tenemos a la dictadura cubana.
Y así pasa en muchas instituciones de las Naciones Unidas, como la Organización Mundial de la salud y muchas otras que están financiando y auspiciando a los enemigos de EEUU.
Estoy totalmente de acuerdo que la Administración haga un análisis de esas instituciones y donde no se puedan hacer correcciones a plazo inmediato que EEUU, se retire y trate de buscar otros mecanismos para defender los intereses de la nación y expandir su influencia como primera Potencia ón Biden- Harris.

Por favor, observe que la nota es sobre el Consejo de Derechos Humanos. La situación no es comparable con lo sucedido con la UNRWA ni tampoco con las realidades de la política desarrollada por Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus desde la OMS. Por eso, en el contexto del Consejo, tenemos que reconocer que en todos los países ocurren violaciones de los derechos humanos. ¡En todos! Por tanto, es indispensable distinguir entre quienes los violan sistemáticamente como política de Estado y entre los que tienen leyes y reglamentos para protegerlos y defender a las víctimas. En unos no hay defensa posible, pero en los otros sí la hay, aunque a veces no sea suficientemente respetada. Bajo esa óptica, debemos abstenernos de generalizar con el calificativo de "nido de dictaduras". Entre los países electos como miembros del Consejo tenemos, por ejemplo, a Alemania, Bélgica, Brasil, Bulgaria, Chile, Chipre, Colombia, Costa Rica, España, Francia, Islandia, Islas Marshall, Japón, Kuwait, Maldivas, Marruecos, México, Países Bajos, República Checa, República Dominicana, Rumania, Sudáfrica, Suiza, Tailandia... En fin, muchos de ellos que quizás no tengan el historial ejemplar que quisiéramos pero donde hay democracias que, con mayor o menor efectividad, funcionan con leyes protectoras de los derechos humanos. Por lo tanto, la cuestión es trabajar por medios diplomáticos con esos países (y poner firme presión en otros menos recomendables) para aprovechar que son mayoría y, como mayoría, pueden promover cambios en la defensa de los derechos humanos a nivel tanto nacional como internacional.