UN hypocrisy: Why human rights violators lead

On October 9, 2024, the United Nations held its annual elections for the Human Rights Council (HRC) membership. Commendable contenders such as the Czech Republic, Cyprus, and South Korea were among the countries competing, all with responsible human rights records. Yet, standing alongside them were Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two countries notorious for abuses. While Saudi Arabia narrowly missed out—placing sixth in the Asia-Pacific regional race for five seats—Qatar not only secured a seat, but came in second overall.

If it were not for the HRC’s long record of seating some of the most flagrant violators of fundamental freedoms like China, Russia, Cuba, and Pakistan, Qatar’s election might be a surprise given its treatment of migrant workers, suppression of free speech, and support for radical Islam and terrorist groups like Hamas.

How is it that, yet again, human rights oversight is being entrusted to a country that should be in the committee’s crosshairs?

Having served as Israel’s elections officer at the UN, I witnessed firsthand how countries’ elections to important UN bodies are driven by factors far removed from merit. One of the most problematic factors is the practice of countries in different regional groups agreeing to rotate membership on various committees rather than to have competitive elections. This practice spares countries the time and resources to campaign and make the case for what they can contribute. In the case of the HRC vote, six candidates were vying for five seats, which meant that Qatar had a high chance of winning.

Another factor is the widespread use of mutual support agreements. Behind closed doors, countries often strike deals to exchange votes, committing to support each other’s bids for various UN bodies, regardless of whether the candidates have the necessary credentials. This practice allows countries with poor human rights records to secure seats in exchange for offering support elsewhere.

Then, there are the bilateral and multilateral relationships that influence voting. While the ballots for these elections are technically secret, votes are often based on alliances or regional affiliations. In Qatar’s case, as a Muslim and Arab country, it likely received substantial backing from its regional bloc of Arab and Muslim nations, whose support was based more on shared political and cultural interests than on an objective assessment of Qatar’s human rights record.

These blocs of support, combined with vote-trading arrangements, make it challenging to prevent unqualified candidates from securing seats.

Qatar’s election to the Human Rights Council is not the only disturbing example of countries with poor human rights records gaining influence in UN bodies. For instance, Saudi Arabia, a country known for its abysmal treatment of women, was appointed to chair the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women next year. The idea that Saudi Arabia—a country where women only recently gained the right to drive, where male guardianship laws severely restrict their autonomy, and where gender-based violence often goes unpunished highlights the absurdity of the UN’s system of putting the fox in charge of protecting the henhouse.

Why should the world take the UN’s commitment to human rights seriously when the institutions meant to protect those rights are chaired and influenced by regimes that routinely violate them?

The problem is not restricted to the issue of human rights. Iran, for example, incongruously holds a seat on the UN’s Disarmament Commission despite its ongoing nuclear ambitions and violation of UN resolutions restricting its development of ballistic missiles.

The UN must reform its election processes to prioritize merit and qualifications over backroom deals and regional politics. Countries must start casting their votes based on the candidates’ actual records and their ability to uphold the values of the bodies they seek to serve. Until this happens, authoritarian regimes will continue to wield disproportionate influence in international bodies, undermining efforts to advance the global agenda of fundamental rights and freedoms.