Among the articles in The J. Post on the US decision to leave the UN Human Rights Council was one by Seth Frantzman entitled “Is the UNHRC an old boy’s club of dictators?” This contains a very illuminating table that lists members of the UNHRC that shows unequivocally how biased it is. Out of its 46 member states there have been (from 2008-2018) 26 that are are considered to be “not free” based on analysis by the Freedom House, an international agency that monitors human rights around the world. And these countries have been re-elected time and time again, and by this means prevent criticism of their own human rights records.
Such countries as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Ethiopia, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Russia, Qatar, Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, and so on, all with scores on the Freedom index of less than 36% , pass judgement on western democracies and Israel. Not only has Israel been censored more times than all other countries in the world combined, but the UNHRC has a permanent item (#7) on its agenda requiring that it rejudge Israel every six months.
This is a ludicrous situation whereby countries with no human rights protections are able to sit almost permanently in judgement on all others. The problem is that if only countries with good human rights records were allowed to be members, then it would be a mainly American-European Club and open to criticism by human rights violators (most of the rest of the world) that it was biased.
It was right for the US to leave the UNHRC, because the situation is farcical. It’s like the foxes guarding the chicken coop. The UNHRC needs to be disbanded in its present state as useless. But, how the UN could reform itself seems beyond the realm of possibility.