The United States is set to make history on Tuesday by becoming the first nation to entirely skip a scheduled US UN Human Rights Council review since the body's inception two decades ago. This decision to avoid the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva follows a previous withdrawal from the council by the Trump administration, which cited concerns over systemic bias against the U.S. and its allies. By refusing to attend, the U.S. breaks a long-standing tradition of international cooperation regarding human rights oversight among the 193 member states of the United Nations.
A Stance Against the Geneva Body
The decision to shun the council is the culmination of a long-standing dispute between Washington and the United Nations' top rights body. Last year, the U.S. officially withdrew its membership, alleging that the organization suffered from a persistent anti-U.S. and anti-Israel bias. Officials argued that the council failed to live up to the very human rights standards it was designed to protect.
The State Department solidified this position leading up to the scheduled meeting. A spokesperson for the department stated in an email that the government gives "no credibility to the agency." The administration further criticized the council for its failure to condemn what it described as the most egregious violators of human rights around the globe.
Understanding the Universal Periodic Review
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a fundamental process for the Geneva human rights body. Every four to five years, all 193 member states of the United Nations undergo a comprehensive examination of their human rights records. This process is designed to be a constructive dialogue where nations can address their policies in an international forum. Key elements of the review include:
- Formal Presentations: National delegations present their human rights achievements and challenges.
- Interactive Dialogue: Envoys from other countries ask questions and offer specific recommendations.
- Policy Assessment: The process is intended to act as a mirror, helping governments improve their domestic rights policies.
Under current rules, a review cannot proceed without the participation of the country being examined. Typically, a national delegation—which can consist of more than a dozen officials—participates in the session to engage with the international community. The U.S. had previously missed its appointment for this review a year ago, and a subsequent scheduled date was pushed back until Tuesday in hopes that the government would change its mind.
The Impact of the UN Rights Council Withdrawal
By shunning the process, the U.S. avoids formal scrutiny of its domestic and foreign policies. Critics have pointed to several areas of concern regarding the US human rights record that would likely have been raised during the session. These include:
- The use of strong-arm deportations.
- Targeted killings of suspected drug-runners in the Pacific and Caribbean.
The administration has defended these actions in the past, stating they are necessary measures to ensure the safety of the country and protect American workers. However, the State Department remains firm that the council itself is not the proper venue for these discussions. As a spokesperson noted, "This irredeemable body makes a mockery of human rights through consistent failures to uphold its own 'values' as it pushes anti-American rhetoric."
Criticism from Human Rights Advocates
The decision to skip the review has drawn sharp criticism from advocacy groups and legal experts who fear it sets a dangerous precedent for human rights accountability. Jamil Dakwar, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's human rights program, traveled to Geneva to advocate for continued international oversight.
Dakwar expressed concern that the move sends a negative signal to the rest of the world. "The administration is saying to the world, 'we don't care about whether you would review us or not, we're going to continue to violate human rights unabashed,'" Dakwar told reporters. The ACLU and its partners have called on the U.N. human rights chief to provide an independent update on the situation in the U.S. early next year to fill the gap left by the skipped review.
Risks to the Council's Global Credibility
Experts in international law warn that the U.S. absence could undermine the entire global framework for monitoring rights. Eric Tistounet, a visiting professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute and the council's first secretary, noted that the U.S. has historically claimed to follow human rights norms.
Tistounet suggested that when a major global power refuses to show up or justify its absence, it puts the credibility of the review system at risk. There are fears that other nations, which often face intense scrutiny from monitors, may follow the U.S. lead and refuse to participate in their own upcoming reviews, effectively dismantling the universal nature of the UPR process.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the U.S. refuse to participate in the U.N. human rights review?
The U.S. government claims the Human Rights Council lacks credibility and maintains a bias against the U.S. and Israel. The Trump administration described the council as an "irredeemable body" that fails to condemn the world's worst rights violators.
What is the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)?
The UPR is a process in Geneva where all 193 U.N. member states have their human rights records reviewed every four to five years. It involves a presentation by the nation and a period of questioning and recommendations from other countries to improve human rights policies.
Can the review happen without the U.S. delegation?
No, the council states that the process requires the participation of the country in question. If no national representatives are present, the review cannot go forward, which is why the U.S. move effectively halts the international examination of its record.