US lobbies UNHRC from the sidelines to shield Israel

Two months following President Donald Trump’s declaration to pause U.S. involvement with the United Nations Human Rights Council, US is influencing its work by putting pressure on it publicly and behind the scenes, seven diplomats and rights workers revealed, Reuters reported.

How is the US influencing the UNHRC from outside?

During a six-week session of the 47-member council that concluded on Friday, the United States kept its seat vacant. However, sources indicated that its lobbying and pressure efforts yielded some success. They stated the U.S., which has blamed the council of an anti-Israel bias, had concentrated on countering a proposal by Pakistan on the composition of an International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM), an extremely rigorous type of U.N. investigation, on Israel’s activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

On Wednesday, the council, dedicated to promoting and protecting global human rights, passed Pakistan’s proposal without including the establishment of the IIIM.

The council has initiated a commission of inquiry regarding the Palestinian issue Territories, but Pakistan’s proposal would have established an additional probe with enhanced capabilities to collect evidence for possible usage in international courts. 

Is the US undermining international human rights work?

According to a March 31 letter from Brian Mast, Chairman of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, and James R. Risch, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warned against voting the proposal through.

“Any HRC member state or U.N. entity that supports an Israel-specific IIM … will face the same consequences as the ICC faced,”

the letter stated.

It seemed to reference sanctions that the House of Representatives approved against the International Criminal Court, in response to its arrest warrants issued for Israel’s prime minister and former defense minister concerning Israel’s campaign Gaza.

In its final form, Pakistan’s proposal referred only to inviting the United Nations General Assembly to consider an IIIM in the future.

Two diplomats in Geneva reported receiving requests from U.S. officials to contest the revised wording before it was altered investigation.

“They were saying: ‘back off on this issue, ‘” Reuters revealed. A U.S. State Department spokesperson stated it was in agreement with the executive order signed by Trump on Feb. 4, exiting the U.S. from the council and would not partake in it, saying: “As a matter of policy, we do not comment on private diplomatic conversations.”

“The U.S. seems to be trying to have it both ways. It doesn’t want to pay for or participate in the U.N., but it still wants to boss it around,” stated Lucy McKernan, Deputy Director for United Nations at Human Rights Watch’s Geneva office.

The US shapes human rights decisions from afar

International human rights institutions currently face a crucial moment as the world may be heading towards a future marked by lawlessness and chaos power. The U.S. used to be the leading donor to the U.N. human rights system, but Trump has claimed the U.N. is “not being well run,” leading to aid cuts from his administration that necessitated reductions in support.

During this session, the U.S. and Israel have also fought the mandate of one of the council’s independent experts. The Israeli ambassador stated on March 24 that Francesca Albanese, a vocal opponent of Israeli activities in Gaza, had violated a U.N. code of conduct through “blatant antisemitic behaviour and discourse”, a diplomatic letter revealed.

According to a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, Albanese was “unfit for her role”. 

According to a letter from the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures dated 28 March, the internal body responsible for ensuring U.N. experts follow a code of conduct condemned what it called a coordinated campaign against Albanese.

It found no evidence supporting Israel’s claims against Albanese. Nonetheless, it is establishing social media guidelines for U.N. experts due to concerns raised regarding her X posts.