Tuesday’s announcement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley that the United States is leaving the U.N. Human Rights Council — the only country in the world to do so — signifies a “tragic failure,” former ambassador to the council Keith Harper told ThinkProgress.
Citing a perceived anti-Israel bias and other issues, Pompeo and Haley made the announcement on the heels of harsh criticism from the chief U.N. rights body regarding the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the U.S. border with Mexico.
We reached out to retired Ambassador Harper, who represented the United States at the U.N. Human Rights Council under President Barack Obama. Here’s what he had to say about the recent move:
ThinkProgress: In your time on the Human Rights Council, what frustrated you about the body? We’ve heard Ambassador Haley speak of being unable to “fix” the council …
Harper: She’s tried to create excuses for leaving the council. She’s not tried to change the council. It’s within her power to have made fundamental shifts on the specific issues that she’s discussed. So it’s either complete diplomatic incompetence or they really weren’t trying to reform it.
My main frustration with the council is that we’re unable to always act to address the most serious human rights abuses. For example, China is a significant world power. The likelihood of running a resolution and prevailing at the council that’s criticizing China is just not high. They’re in a position to get the votes to defeat that kind of resolution …
The second uniquely problematic aspect of the council is that there is undue attention paid to Israel … Israel should be scrutinized. Every country should be scrutinized. But we have to have the same barometer, the same measuring stick. But when you have a situation where you have an overwhelming number of resolutions every year, and a stand-alone agenda item on Israel every year … then that’s just demonstrates an unfairness and it undermines the credibility of the council…
But you don’t deal with that effectively with disengagement. You deal with that with more engagement.
TP: But despite all that, you didn’t feel inclined to walk out, to quit?
Harper: Absolutely not, because the council’s work is too important. Human rights and the instruments we work with … they are an abstract term, kind of like the Constitution. You need to have a body that says what the actual expectations of states are and the question is, do you want to define those, in a way that we or our allies would define freedom of expression, for example, or do you want China to define what freedom of expression means?
We are abandoning the principle place where these discussions occur and where meat is put on the bones of human rights, and that is a tragic failure, in my estimation.
TP: We happen to be having this conversation on World Refugee Day. Given that the Trump administration’s hostility toward asylum seekers from [Muslim-majority] countries, African countries, Caribbean countries, and Central American countries, what kind of credibility does the U.S. currently have on the issue of human rights?
Harper: U.S. credibility, across the board, on virtually every issue, has been diminished because of this administration. … Even those who were not our allies on the Human Rights Council respected what we said when it came to criticizing their human rights record, because we were the United States. Unfortunately, because of the actions of this president … because of the grotesque activities happening on our Southern border now, separating children from their parents, we have lost a lot of credibility.
TP: You brought up what’s happening at the border with Mexico. Given that we are about to lose our vote on the Human Rights Council, is it possible that other member states might be able to hold the U.S. to task over the fact that we are not only breaking U.S. law by refusing to allow these families to even request asylum here, but are also breaking international law?
Harper: Had you asked this at any time prior to this administration, I would have said that there’s no possible way that a resolution could be run against the United States … but Ambassador Haley’s “taking down names” stance has so alienated the rest of the world, along with the president’s treatment of our NATO allies, that I think it is possible. It’s unlikely, but we’re in a different world today.
TP: It’s possible that U.N. member states figure that if they could get any traction in the U.N. Security Council against Israel (where the U.S. is a permanent member and uses its veto power to Israel’s advantage), they might ease off on the other resolutions that are largely non-binding. But does the U.S. leaving the U.N. Human Rights Council over perceived anti-Israel bias give credibility to voices that accuse the U.S. of a pro-Israel bias, siding only with Israel even if it means losing our voice on other issues, where the U.S. could have made a positive difference?
Harper: I disagree the premise that the failure of states to get what they believe is appropriate action at the Security Council justifies the incredible hyper focus on Israel. I believe that the U.S. focus during my tenure was to try and call balls and strikes, meaning treating like cases alike, and treating different cases differently. The present administration has taken a different tact, in which they are loath to criticize friends and will want to spend all of their attention and resources criticizing those who we perceive as foes. Which I think undermines the credibility of the United States and I think it undermines the human rights agenda.
TP: What is the future of the U.S. as an effective international partner to anyone other than Israel, as we pull out of more international bodies and deals?
Harper: I think what this has demonstrated is that “America First” means “America alone” … and so we have to accept that that is what the current foreign policy is, and Americans who don’t buy into that kind of isolationism, we need to vote [these] people out.
CLARIFICATION: Amb. Harper altered his response to the fifth question in this interview, wishing to clarify his position on Israel.