The United States, until now maintaining observer status in the 2-year-old United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC; the successor to the UN Commission on Human Rights), has decided to withdraw except in cases of “deep national interest.” The reason? It claims that the body has become dominated by Middle Eastern and African nations with an interest in bashing Israel over all other human rights concerns.

A look at the current members (with staggered three-year terms) shows a handful of countries that would happily enjoy criticizing Israel at the expense of taking a hard look at their own abuses: Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. At the same time, there’s at least one that would probably defend Israel (Canada) and others that would shy away–abstain–from being overly critical of Israel (Japan, South Korea, France, UK, Netherlands, and most European countries).

Turning to the record, the UNHRC does show itself to be a bit of a joke. In its first year, 9 resolutions were leveled against Israel, and none against any other country (like Sudan, Zimbabwe or Myanmar). While there might certainly be human rights abuses in the Palestinian territories, they pale against those committed in Darfur. This disparity is really impossible to overlook.

What say those members who don’t have an axe to grind against Israel? Maxime Verhagen, the Netherlands’ Foreign Minister, has said, “At the United Nations, censuring Israel has become something of a habit, while Hamas’s terror is referred to in coded language or not at all. The Netherlands believes the record should be set straight, both in New York and at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.” It’s not difficult to infer from his words that the Netherlands would rather see its voice be heard on a panel where it might be dominated by differing interests, than capitulate that voice altogether.

Juliette de Rivero, head of Human Rights Watch offered, “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 the US should have redoubled its efforts to make the Council work as it should.”

Reasons for the US withdrawal range from it not wanting its own human rights abuses aired on an international stage, to wanting to sap the power and legitimacy of the Council (much like it did to the League of Nations 90 years ago). Since there hasn’t been any official announcement, we’re left to guessing its motives along with the impact it will have on the body.

This brings up a number of interesting questions:

• Should the US participate in the UN Human Rights Council?
• How do international bodies prevent “the tyranny of the majority” from setting the agenda?
• How do international bodies prevent a “bully” from setting the agenda?
• Who should act as neutral arbiters in cases of human rights abuses?
• Does the UNHRC fulfill a useful purpose?