In This Issue - Hrc: Fill & Download for Free

Thanks for asking this important question. In 2007, HRC made a terrible mistake when it continued to support ENDA after gender identity was removed. This was wrong, plain and simple. Members of the community are never negotiating chips. This is a decision that no one at the organization would make again and in the ten years since, including through new leadership, HRC is centering trans equality in our work. We will never - *never* - support legislation that is anything but fully inclusive of trans folks.I saw their work on trans equality first hand in Delaware years before I joined the HRC staff. HRC was instrumental in passing the Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Act in Delaware. And by instrumental, I mean we would have never passed the bill without HRC’s commitment, skills, and resources.In the years since, first as a staffer at another organization and now as a spokesperson for HRC, I see every single day that the commitment of the org to trans equality is absolutely. 150%. The work my colleagues are doing on issues ranging from gender identity protections to combating anti-trans violence to making schools more welcoming to defeating anti-trans politicians is awe-inspiring to me.But another thing I appreciate about my colleagues is the understanding that the pain and scars from the 2007 ENDA decision run deep. It’s not just gonna take good work, it’s gonna take sustained good work over years and years. HRC, from Chad Griffin on down, is committed to doing that.

The US withdrawal? “Disappointing if not really surprising”.US ambassador Nikki R. Haley cited “a cesspool of political bias against Israel” and “members of the Commission who themselves violated human rights.” This has been a consistent source of friction with the US, especially since 2009.RT @USUN: With members like China, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Venezuela the Human Rights Council is not worth its name. pic.twitter.com/eEETxFvw19— Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) June 19, 2018The United Nations replaced the Commission on Human Rights with the Human Rights Council (HRC) in 2006, established by a UN vote of 170–4. UN members who strongly opposed the Council were the United States, Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau. Three nations abstained—Venezuela, Iran and Belarus.Forty-seven members of the HRC are elected by a majority of ninety-six votes of the General Assembly. Council members may be suspended by a two-thirds majority vote of the UN. [1]The HRC’s draft resolution aimed “to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language or religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” [2]Timeline of US interaction with the HRC:2006: US ambassador John Bolton (now US National Security Advisor) vigorously opposed the formation of the HRC and the Bush admin boycotted the body.2009: The US relented and joined the HRC.“It’s an imperfect body but it has a decent track record. It could get better, but it stands a worse chance of doing so if the U.S. takes its ball and goes home and allows it to become a playground for strongmen.”—Stephen Pomper, president Barack Obama’s National Security Council.2013: Controversy raged as Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Vietnam joined the org.2016: In his election campaign, Donald Trump pledged to quit the body.June 6, 2017: Nikki Haley announced the US would not continue to participate in the HRC, “the UN must act to keep the worst human rights abusers from obtaining seats on the Council,” … “we must change the elections so countries are forced to make the case for membership based on their records, not on their promises.” [3]Sept 19, 2017: President Donald J. Trump addressed the UN assembly, "It is a massive source of embarrassment to the United Nations that some governments with egregious human rights records sit on the UN Human Rights Council."Sept 21, 2017: Ambassador Nikki Haley warned the US would pull out of the council if bias against Israel continued. [4]Oct 20, 2017: After pledges to promotion of human rights, Angola and Afghanistan were elected to the HRC and Qatar was re-elected. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was elected without making a pledge.June 4, 2018: Special Rapporteur Philip G. Alston presented his annual report on “Extreme Poverty and Human Rights”. [5] He pointed out that based on health, schooling and living conditions, the rate of youth poverty in the US was the highest in the OECD—40m Americans subsist in poverty, 18.5m in extreme poverty (defined by the UN as living on less than US$2 per day) and 5m in third world absolute poverty. [6] The report further stated the top 1% of the US population owns 38% of the nation’s total wealth.June 18, 2018: The UN’s high commissioner for human rights, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein called the US policy of separating children from parents crossing the border “unconscionable.”June 19, 2018: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo praised the US ambassador’s work—Nikki Haley then announced the US withdrawal from the HRC. In unfortunate timing for advocates of human rights, the move was made on “Juneteenth”—the 153rd anniversary of the abolition of slavery, celebrated by 45 of 50 American states. [7]"Disappointing, if not really surprising, news. Given the state of #HumanRights in today's world, the US should be stepping up, not stepping back" -- UN Human Rights Chief #Zeid following USA decision to withdraw from U.N. Human Rights Council.#StandUp4HumanRights— UN Human Rights (@UNHumanRights) June 19, 2018July 2, 2018: The council meets again on the issue of Israel and Palestine. [8]The UN, The US, Israel and PalestineSince the UN’s Resolution 181 for the partition of Palestine in 1947, the UN Security Council has made 225 resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine, most recently calling for an end to Israeli settlements. [9]– Safety– Dignity– Human rights & fundamental freedomsfor ALL migrants – children, women & men – at ALL times@UNmigration info: https://t.co/K9ZNxSYgZA pic.twitter.com/RcTfNfDQix— United Nations (@UN) May 26, 2018The UN General Assembly has condemned Israel in 45 resolutions over six decades, many times citing the strategic relationship with the US as “encouraging Israeli aggression and expansion”.In 2002, US ambassador John Negroponte articulated the cornerstone of US doctrine—a condemnation of terrorism, a commitment to a political settlement and a requirement for an improvement in “safety and security” before any withdrawal by Israel to territories held at the time of the Second Intifada—the Palestinian uprising in September, 2000.The UN sees the Israeli occupation since 1967 of Palestine as a violation of the principle of jus ad bellum and international law. [10]In practice, the withdrawal from the Human Rights Council won’t much affect US diplomacy around the world.The US has a consistent, century-long history of conservative domestic politicians rejecting both multilateral diplomacy and refusing to sign or ratify international treaties. This has always shaped the US’ stance on the world stage.The Human Rights Council is responsible for promoting & protecting the human rights of all people all over the 🌎. More on @UN_HRC: https://t.co/eQAhSgKfzD pic.twitter.com/EODHuo1t8n— United Nations (@UN) June 19, 2018Timeline of US world diplomacy:1919: England, Italy, France and the US met for the Paris Peace Conference. The Treaty of Versailles created a huge conservative backlash in the US. Republicans were alarmed at provisions for territorial integrity of signing member countries, plus requirements for US participation in economic sanctions and multilateral diplomatic initiatives. The US refused to sign.1920: After the conservative furore in the US over the Treaty of Versailles, the US never joined the League of Nations.1951: 145 nations agreed to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the non-refoulement of refugees to countries where their their life or freedom is threatened. The US has never signed the Convention. [11]1967: The 1967 Protocol was signed by 146 UN members. The US, Venezuela and Cabo Verde have agreed to the Protocol but will not ratify the 1951 Convention. The US instead offered partial support for the Convention via the Protocol and later, domestic law after passing the Refugee Protection Act of 2010. [12]1979: 17 nations ratified the Outer Space Treaty banning nuclear weapons, military manoeuvres in space and the claiming of sovereign territory on celestial bodies. The US has not signed the OST—neither has any spacefaring nation. On June 18, 2018 president Trump announced the intention to form a US Space Force. [13]1980: The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women guaranteed women equal rights—especially access to housing and equal pay. It was ratified by 187 UN members and signed by president Carter. US Senate conservatives refused to ratify the convention on the grounds that it would allow a right to abortion.1982: The Law of the Sea Treaty governing international waters and underwater resources, ratified by 161 countries—has never been ratified by the US Senate.1990: The Convention of The Rights of the Child was ratified by 193 countries. Only the US and Somalia refused to sign. President Clinton signed the convention in 1995. Conservative US Senators refused to ratify. They believed the agreement would prevent parents disciplining their children and outlaw home schooling.1996: The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was ratified by 157 UN members but doesn’t go into practice unless every country with a nuclear reactor joins. The US has not made a nuclear test since 1992 but has never signed the treaty—conservatives claim it won’t be an effective nuclear deterrent.1997: 191 countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The US Senate unanimously voted against joining.1997: 160 countries outlawed the use of landmines in the Ottawa Treaty. Although the US has not used landmines for 27 years, it has never signed the treaty.1998: The formation of the International Criminal Court was ratified by 121 countries. The ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity and was voted against by the US. President Clinton signed the treaty—it was never sent to the Senate for ratification and president G.W. Bush revoked Clinton’s signature in 2002.Sexual and gender-based crimes are crimes under the #ICC #RomeStatute. On this International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence, join our efforts to #endrapeinwar and build a #morejustworld. Find out more about this Day: https://t.co/6SUqHImBe3 @endrapeinwar pic.twitter.com/oZi1JPpfo0— Int'l Criminal Court (@IntlCrimCourt) June 19, 20182014: The Arms Trade Treaty was agreed to by 94 nations, including five of the world’s top ten arms producers—the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. Russia, China, Ukraine and Israel have not signed. In the US, the NRA strenuously opposed the Treaty.Critics of the current US administration point to chaos and controversy created by president Trump, citing:Praise for Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un and Rodrigo Duterte;Public criticism of long-term allies and their heads of state with numerous misrepresentations of fact;Threats to further escalate tariffs into trade wars;Wholesale rejection of climate change science;Concerns about the US establishing an embassy in Jerusalem, the city which was originally to be a corpus separatum, not declared part of Israel by PM Ben-Gurion until three years after the state was created by the UN; [14]The 2018 detention of thousands of children seeking entry at the US border;It is the Democrats fault for being weak and ineffective with Boarder Security and Crime. Tell them to start thinking about the people devastated by Crime coming from illegal immigration. Change the laws!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2018A statement by Trump that he would “shut the government down” just before the 2018 US midterms if the Senate refused to approve funds for a border wall;Trump’s trademark zero sum approach to diplomacy and doubling down in negotiations where there is any resistance.Donald Trump, “Make America Great Again” | Credit: Gage Skidmore, Flickr.The reality is that the United States during its tenure as the world’s major superpower has always followed the beat of its own drum. Since 2016, the rhetoric has become more intransigent.In 2018, much of the world sees the US as a profoundly divided culture, with a history of strong conservative politics. Add racial tension, evangelical and religious politics, nihilistic splinter groups, libertarian movements, domestic conflict, inequality and ideological rifts—there appears to be increased capacity for social chaos.Against this backdrop—there’s a profound policy trend towards isolationism, plus a backlash against multilateral international politics. The current admin instead favours individual agreements, bilateral diplomacy and transactional quid pro quo negotiation.Trump shows a willingness to challenge established order and a propensity for maverick behaviour both internationally and at home. In this climate, radical politics and confrontation find fertile ground.For better or worse, the Trump idea of world diplomacy is a commitment to “America First”.Footnotes[1] A/60/L.48 - E[2] GENERAL ASSEMBLY ESTABLISHES NEW HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL BY VOTE OF 170 IN FAVOUR TO 4 AGAINST, WITH 3 ABSTENTIONS[3] Ambassador Nikki Haley: Remarks at the Graduate Institute of Geneva[4] Press Briefing by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley[5] Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights[6] "Contempt for the poor in US drives cruel policies,” says UN expert[7] Juneteenth World Wide Celebration[8] Why nobody but the US voted against the UN’s anti-Israel resolution[9] A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947[10] Decrying Long-standing Occupation of Palestinian Lands, Delegations Tell General Assembly Peace Efforts Must Move beyond Words, Promises[11] The 1951 Refugee Convention[12] US: Renewing America’s Commitment to the Refugee Convention[13] David Caune's answer to Why would Trump create a space force?[14] 9 Things to Know About Jerusalem as U.S. Embassy Opens

Gross Violation of Human Rights Violation is Generic to Chinese RegimeThe death of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo, suffering from cancer, in a hospital under heavy guard in July, 2017 highlighted the China’s deepening contempt for and dismal record of human rights. In fact, the Human rights violation is generic to China’s authoritarian and increasingly totalitarian regime with ever expanding cultural domain of the state. China has a murky human rights record in Tibet, Hong Kong and Xinjiang, most notably when the Xi assumed power in 2012. However, the human rights condition is very grim in Xinjiang as nearly one million Uyghur Muslims are placed in government controlled prison like camps for de-learning their own culture and espousing Han culture. Since Party Secretary Chen Quanguo was transferred from Tibet to Xinjiang in August 2016, the Xinjiang regional government has adopted many draconian measures as surveillance over Uyghur have been stepped up and their cultural and religious rights are violated with no compunction. This is nothing less than a cultural cleansing of Uyghur, which Chen Quanguo has already mastered in Tibet.Why Global Community is Silent on Uyghur Issue in Xinjiang, China?Some Human rights groups, most notably the US based Human Rights Watch in Association with Amnesty International has demanded the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) to resolve to hold in-depth inquiry into Human rights violation in Xinjiang. (New York Times: 2019). Though the last meeting of HRC held on 19-22 march, 2019 at Geneva discussed this issue but nothing came out. Other nations including the US and European countries and notably Muslim countries are largely silent on this issue. It is true that the response of global community, UN agencies and Human rights organizations have not been robust to the extent required in proportion to the violation of Human rights in Xinjiang. The possible reasons for this silence may be:1. The economic and military rise of China with her increasing assertiveness in regional and external issues have placed the global community in the defensive mode viz-viz China. The members of the global community are confronting China on external issues like her assertiveness in South China Sea or Trade war with the US. Thus they have neither occasion nor will to confront China on her internal; matters.2. The leading countries have their own interests to realize with China in various forms and for that they are required to ignore Chinese human rights violations. For example in June, 2017 the European Union failed for the first time ever to deliver a statement under a standing agenda item on Human rights violation at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), because Greece blocked the necessary EU consensus for such an intervention due to its unwillingness to criticize human rights violations in China, with which it has substantial trade ties. Pakistan, Champion of unity of Muslim Umma on Kashmir issue has persistently ignored the Uyghur’s plight as she is in close embrace with China due to various projects including CPEC (HRW World Report: 2019) Thus, many nations, due to their strategic and economic ties with China are looking in other direction.3. Due to her aggressive attitude, China has repeatedly has been repeatedly cajoling, forcefully persuading and even threatening, countries and human rights organization to go soft on the issue of Human rights both within UNHRC and outside. China has been using both public as well as private pressure to block concerted international action. For example, in March 2019, just before the UNHRC meet in Geneva, Chinese ambassador in Geneva sent a letter to members of HRC asking them not to participate or co-sponsor any resolution against China in the interest of bilateral relations. Chinese diplomats have personally approached them on this issue (Human Rights Watch: 2019).China’s aggressive diplomacy and pressure tactics on human rights violation in Xinjiang include, but not limited to: pressuring UN officials to remove the critical submissions; providing blatantly false or misleading responses on critical issues; urging delegations to praise China’s rights record; warning critical countries of negative consequences to their bilateral relationship; prevailing upon OIC(Organization of Islamic Cooperation), a global Muslim body to commend China for treatment of her Muslim population; not allowing independent China groups to participate in any consultation or make submissions without fear of reprisals and so on. To cap it all, in 2017, China blocked the UN accreditation of a Uyghur activist Dolkun Isa at a UN meet and declared him a terrorist without any proof and forced his exit from the proposed meet.In brief, China military and economic rise, countries’ narrow interests and China’s aggressive diplomacy largely explain the silence of global community on the abysmally low human rights record in Xinjiang.REFERENCE$1. New York Times (2019) Rights Groups Seek U.N. Inquiry Into China’s Mass Detention of Muslims. New York Times 04 February, 2019. Available At: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/world/asia/un-xinjiang-uighurs-china.html2. Human Rights Watch (2019) China responds to Right Review with threats. Available At: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/01/un-china-responds-rights-review-threats3. HRW World Report-2018 (2019) Available At: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/china-and-tibet