The New Human Rights Council

So what do the elections to the UN’s Human Rights Council tell us about the state of human rights in the world today?

The elections took place ten days ago. There are 47 members of the HRC, and each has a three year term. A third of the membership is elected each year. All the members of the UN General Assembly can vote, through secret ballot. Any country can stand but each UN regional group gets a fixed number of seats to ensure fair representation (WEOG, the group the UK belongs to, gets two seats). Each member can only be re-elected once, after which they have to come off the Council for at least a year.

The UK was running for re-election for its second three-year term this year. We didn’t take anything for granted. We published our manifesto setting out our record, and our pledges for our new term. We took part in “hustings” in New York and Geneva to set out our case.

In WEOG, the UK was re-elected, gaining 173 votes in the General Assembly. The US was also elected – replacing France – after a year off the Council. From 2010-16 the US played a key part in turning round an ailing Council, and no other western state has their lobbying reach. Their excellent delegation, led by a dynamic and brilliant ambassador, has been one of our closest partners. Having them back is a boost for the UN, and international human rights.

The Eastern European Group saw the biggest drama of the election. Russia’s surprise defeat was the first time Russia has failed to be elected to the UN’s main human rights body for 60 years. Russia’s actions in Syria and Ukraine will certainly have played a part in this, as will Russia’s wider spoiling role in the HRC. Following previous losses for Belarus, Syria and Iran, this demonstrates what can be achieved through competitive elections.

The Eastern European Group is now as progressive as it has ever been, with four EU members – Croatia, Hungary, Latvia and Slovenia – plus Georgia and Albania. Highlighting the progress the country has made, and also the difference a principled ambassador can make, Albania has been particularly notable.

In the African Group, Tunisia got elected for the first time since the Arab Spring and got most votes from all regions this year. They bring with them the authority of a country that has weathered dictatorship and extremist challenges to forge a constitutional democracy founded on civil and political rights. Yet too often the position on human rights by African members is dominated by the grievances of the colonial era, real and perceived, rather than by an impartial appraisal of a country’s human rights record, and where responsibility really lies.

In “Asia” – a broad UN region stretching from Cyprus through the Middle East to Australasia – we’re happy to see Japan back, a country that epitomises the rules based international system. The composition of the Asia Group is now slightly more progressive overall. Sadly the same cannot be said of the Latin American grouping, where Mexico’s departure is a real loss.

The Human Rights Council is not and will never be some sort of progressive vanguard, leading the world in human rights. Its function is to be a global and representative forum for discussing human rights. The fact that all regions of the world compete to be elected gives it legitimacy and authority; and whatever the day to day agreements, lends force to the universality of human rights upon which the UN Charter and the HRC are founded.