The rate at which the Trump administration is
withdrawing its membership from legally constituted international bodies is
real cause for concern.
After months of speculation,
US permanent representative to the United Nations Nikki Haley, together with
Foreign Secretary Mike Pompeo on Tuesday announced the US withdrawal from the
Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
It is ironic that the US made
the announcement to quit the global rights body when it is currently mired in a
storm over Trump's "zero tolerance" policy on immigration.
The separation and caging of
migrant parents and their children, a cruel and shameful act, has been roundly
condemned not just by American citizens, but world leaders, the Pope and the
United Nations as well.
According to reports, more than 2 300 children have
been taken from parents since May 5 under the zero tolerance policy. US
Catholic bishops described it as "immoral", while Amnesty
International described the policy as "nothing short of torture".
Governor Andrew Cuomo in a
statement said, "The Trump administration's policy to tear apart families
is a moral failing and a human tragedy."
British Prime Minister Theresa
May weighed in saying, "The pictures of children being held in what appear
to be cages are deeply disturbing . . . This is wrong, this is not something
that we agree with, and this is not the United Kingdom's approach."
The US move was announced on
the eve of World Refugee Day, which was commemorated yesterday. The rate at
which the US is withdrawing membership from crucial international bodies is
shocking and points to new political thinking and how to conduct state affairs
differently on the world stage. The only conceivable conclusion is that the
world should not be surprised if Trump announces that they are pulling out of
the United Nations.
This has already been talked
about in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, although not
authoritatively.
There are precedents to the
current withdrawal. In January 2017, the US announced its withdrawal from the
Paris climate accord; it left another UN body - the United Nations Children's
Fund (UNICEF); pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal; unilaterally recognised
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and subsequently relocated its embassy from
Tel Aviv.
Justifying the withdrawal, Ambassador Haley argued
that their objective to reform the UNHRC from within had not worked: "One
year ago, I travelled to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. On
that occasion, I outlined the US priorities for advancing human rights and I declared
our intent to remain a part of the Human Rights Council if essential reforms
were achieved. These reforms were needed in order to make the council a serious
advocate for human rights," said Ambassador Haley.
However, the insincerity of
what Ambassador Haley said was evident considering the human rights issue at
play while she was making the statement, labelling the UNHRC as a
"protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias."
History will one day be the
judge.
She added, "Look at the council membership and
you see an appalling disrespect for the most basic human rights."
The United States' bone of
contention is the way the UNHRC scrutinises Israel's human rights record, and
that there are countries with a poor rights record.
How the United States' top
diplomat fails to acknowledge that the same rights abuses they are complaining
about are taking place in their own backyard for immigrants, and that children
also have rights that need to be protected by the United States of America, is
anybody's guess.
The US says quitting from the
rights body is not an abandonment of its responsibilities, but only
"taking this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a
part of a hypocritical and self-serving organisation that makes a mockery of
human rights," she said.
Only this week, the UN
reported that a record 68,5 million people have been forced to flee their homes
due to civil strife, violence and persecution.
Pope Francis yesterday
cautioned that "people have to be settled in the best possible way, but
creating psychosis is not the cure."
To the UNHRC, Haley's remarks
were as old as the council itself.
"When the council was
created in 2005, then US ambassador John Bolton lobbied successfully against
the Bush administration joining it.
"After the 2008
elections, the United States opted to join, concluding that it could better
steer the work of the council from the inside, including defending Israel,
rather than from the sidelines," UN Dispatch reported.
The UN also thinks that this
was not a fantastic idea, the same way as quitting the climate change agreement
and the Iran nuclear deal were not.
The executive director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth
Roth sums it up all: "The Trump administration's withdrawal from the Human
Rights Council is a sad reflection of its one-dimensional human rights policy
in which the US defends Israeli abuses from criticism above all else.
"By walking away, the US
is turning its back not just on the UN, but on victims of human rights abuses
around the world, including in Syria, Yemen, North Korea and Myanmar. Now other
governments will have to redouble their efforts to ensure that the council
addresses the world's most serious human rights problems."
But, leaving the rights body
will not absolve the United States of its international obligations unless if
it is prepared to cede its power and authority in other UN bodies, the United
Nations Security Council included, where it has veto power.
Is the US prepared to have
China and Russia in leading positions at the UN?
We are cognisant of the fact
that the current turn of events might not be reversible as long as President
Trump is in power.
We are also mindful that the
US might withdraw from more treaties and agreements, contrary to the dictates
of international law. We are also not confident that his allies can persuade
him to rethink some of these self-inflicting damages, considering what happened
at the G7 Summit in Canada recently, when it looked like the summit had turned
into a G6+1.
But, when all is said and
done, where is this path to isolation taking the United States?
Source:allafrica
No comments:
Post a Comment