Pamela Taylor/Human Rights Tribune – While never issuing an official statement regarding the decision to pull back from the Council, a diplomat at the US Mission in Geneva, insisting on anonymity, gave HRT the following statement:

“The US remains deeply dedicated to human rights around the world but unfortunately the UN Human Rights Council has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to serve that purpose. Instead it continues to refuse to address grave and ongoing human rights violations including Zimbabwe, Iran and taken only weak and ineffective action on Sudan while passing 20 unbalanced resolutions against a single country: Israel.”

A statement from Washington said the US was scaling back its participation rather than withdrawing from the Council. The Geneva statement clarified this, saying that “occasions may arise when the US finds it absolutely necessary to address issues at the Council but those occasions will not be frequent.”

The move left diplomats and NGOs in Geneva scratching their heads. America’s allies called it ‘unhelpful’ with one speculating that the timing may be related to the US election year and the pressures being applied by America’s powerful pro-Israeli lobby.

NGOs such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) called the US decision, ‘an abandonment of human rights defenders and victims.” According to Juliette de Rivero of HRW “whatever the Council’s problems, this decision is a victory for abusive states and a betrayal of those fighting for their rights worldwide.”

Some diplomats however could barely hide their glee. Cuba’s Mission in Geneva immediately issued a press release saying,” Washington fears scrutiny on human rights”, a reference to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of member states currently going on at the Council. However, others pointed out that all UN members are subject to the UPR process, including the United States.

The majority of diplomats could not even hazard an off the record guess as to why the US took this decision now. “It is certainly not helpful and we don’t understand it at this point in time,” said one of America’s staunchest supporters, speaking off the record.

Peter Splinter of Amnesty International, himself a former diplomat from Canada agreed the timing is very strange. “Protecting human rights has been part of the American fiber. It is not like them to walk away. The US is not one to cut and run but that’s what they did. Normally the Americans roll up their sleeves and deal with whatever comes their way, with or without the approval of others.”

Puzzlement over the timing of the announcement was even greater given that Sri Lanka was denied its bid for a seat in the Council in May because of its human rights record while a similar decision was made last year regarding Belarus. The concern now is that the Council’s center of gravity will again shift back to an unhealthy dominance by member nations with less than sterling human rights records.

Juliette de Rivero of Human Rights Watch is not optimistic about the immediate future. “The human rights record of the US, particularly abuses in its counterterrorism efforts, undermined its credibility in defending human rights at the Council.” She cited the refusal of the US to cooperate with UN experts who sought to investigate the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Despite this she said that “having the US at the table was very important to building a stronger, more effective Human Rights Council. Instead of ceding the field to those who want to shield abusers from scrutiny,” she said, “the US should have redoubled its efforts to make the Council work as it should.”

Several diplomats and NGOs believe that whether the next President of the United States is a Democrat or a Republican the US decision is temporary. “I think the US will come back even if (John) McCain wins,” said Amnesty’s Peter Splinter. “And I believe the US will one day become a full member of the Council.”

See our article "US quits Human Rights Council?"