Two cheers for the Human Rights Council (and U.S. diplomacy)

With today’s news that Syria has abandoned its bid to join the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), it’s important to acknowledge the accumulating evidence that the oft-maligned Council is becoming a better, more responsible entity, in no small part because of American diplomatic efforts. Over at Turtle Bay, Colum Lynch broke the news yesterday that Kuwait had emerged as an alternative Arab candidate. It now appears that Syria will not run at all this year, although Damascus claims it will put itself forward for the Council next year (that claim should be viewed skeptically; Iran made the same pledge last year when it abandoned its own candidacy).

Syria’s retreat was the product of intense behind-the-scenes diplomacy aimed at convincing the regional voting bloc to which Syria belongsto reconsider its slate of candidates. Syria’s election would have been a blow to ongoing Western attempts to improve the body’s membership and temper its traditional obsession with Israel’s sins.

The end of Syria’s bid is just one in a series of positive developments that have been emanating from the Council. These include Libya’s expulsion from the body by the full UN General Assembly; the Council’s appointment of a commission of inquiry into the violence in that country; the authorization of a special rapporteur to examine Iran’s human rights record; the adoption of a potentially important resolution on the freedom of association; and, ten days ago, the Council’s first-ever special session on Syria. 

None of this is earth-shattering stuff.  The fate of nations does not rest upon Human Rights Council resolutions. It’s not even clear that human rights law really does; UNHRC resolutions are not legally binding and do not carry the weight of international treaties or conventions. Establishing international norms is a gradual business which it’s difficult to causally link with events on the ground.Some of the Council’s modest achievements may end up being less consequential than they appear. For example, the Council hasn’t yet selected a special rapporteur for Iran, and whatever individual emerges will have to aggressively challenge Tehran’s efforts to squelch the inquiry. And even the good news on Syria has a dark counterpoint: the fact that it took as long as it did to checkmate Syria’s bid indicates the continued strength of regional bloc politics at the United Nations.

But the Obama administration deserves credit for investing modest diplomatic resources in the effort to make the Council more effective and for ignoring those who said it was beyond redemption. U.S. efforts at the Council have yielded notable results in a short period. Perhaps more important, the United States is now fully and aggressively engaged in one of the forums where ideas about human rights and national responsibilities take shape. With key emerging powers like India, Brazil, and Turkey still shaping their international worldview, and with Russia and China peddling an authoritarian alternative, it’s a critical moment to be part of that struggle. "We cede the terrain at our own peril," says U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Suzanne Nossel. "Controversies over Syria’s conduct are just one example of international human rights norms still being hotly contested; if we weren’t there to defend and advance our principles, those ideas would lose ground."