By John J. MetzlerIn a ritual of near farcical folly, the UN General Assembly has elected fourteen new members to join the Geneva-based Human Rights Council.
The otherwise low-key annual ballot raises political hypocrisy to a heightened level. These new Council members including countries like Angola, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan and Vietnam have been selected to serve for three-year terms to sit in collective judgement on cases of civil and human rights.
The 47-member Council is courting continuing controversy through such a process. Here’s why.
The annual election among UN General Assembly members choosing candidates from five Regional groups inside the Council was actually a selection; None of the proposed candidates faced opposition and thus each country was destined to win by default.
Sadly, in recent years back room deals among the regional groups make such cozy arrangements whereby there is no direct competition for the seats. Rather, the chosen candidate only needs to gain a simple majority from the 193-member Assembly. That’s pretty easy.
“When the UN highest human rights body becomes a case of the foxes guarding the henhouse, the world’s victims suffer,” stated Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch a human rights monitor based in Geneva.
Human rights activists deem these new members as “unqualified” to sit in judgements of UN resolutions concerning human rights.
Let’s take a quick look at some of the new members which will sit in political judgement.
Africa
Four African seats were filled. Angola, Egypt, Mauritius and South Africa have been brought on board. Angola’s human rights record is tragically lamentable. In the respected annual Freedom House survey, the resource-rich country is saddled by endemic corruption and rates only 28 out of 100 in a score of civil and political freedoms.
Egypt too, despite its military rulers being close to the U.S., holds a poor rights record with a Freedom House score of 18/100.
Sadly South Africa has seen an increasingly “questionable” human rights record but remains listed as a free country. Mauritius an island state in the Indian Ocean scores as Free with an impressive rating of 86/100.
Asia
India, Iraq, Pakistan and Vietnam have been selected. Iraq’s government remains highly sectarian lacking civil and political freedoms gaining a 31/100 Freedom House score.
Pakistan too, run by a military influenced government, gains a mere 32/100 rating and is listed as only partly free. There’s the persecution of the Christian minority in both cases. India to its credit holds a 63/100 Freedom House rating.
Vietnam, gained a two-year extension to its Council tenure and remains a unquestioned one Party political system where the ruling communist party has been in power since 1975, when they forcefully re-united Vietnam. The country scores poorly in civil and political rights gaining a 20/100 score and sadly has seen notable religious rights harassment and systematic internet censorship.
Eastern Europe
Both the Baltic state of Estonia and ex-Yugoslav Slovenia are well established as free and practicing democratic states.
Latin America
Chile is a long-time democracy while Ecuador, while having some political challenges, remains largely free.
Western Europe
Both Italy and the United Kingdom were chosen to the Rights Council. Both states are established democracies.
These fourteen new members take their places in January 2026.
According to UN Watch, already 56% of the UN Human Rights Council’s current members are not democracies including such regimes as China, Cuba, Qatar, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Somalia and Vietnam. Now Vietnam, as mentioned, is extending its three year tenure.
UN Watch’s Neuer warned, “Regrettably, the European Union has not said a word about the hypocritical candidates that only undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the UN human rights system.”
This selection process cheapens and insults those countries needing political transparency by installing dubious candidates who are actually part of the problem and not the solution.
For such odious authoritarian regimes, the elevation to the Human Rights Council brings an unwarranted legitimacy and inclusion into a forum where the protection of human rights should be premised on precisely the opposite.
John J. Metzler is a United Nations correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He is the author of Divided Dynamism the Diplomacy of Separated Nations: Germany, Korea, China (2014).
Free Press International
[Publish This Content]
