United States skips UN review of its human rights record – Al Jazeera

United States Non-Participation in Universal Periodic Review and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

The United States did not send a delegation to its mandatory human rights review at the United Nations Human Rights Council. This marks only the second instance of a UN member state abstaining from the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, following a similar action by Israel. The absence undermines key tenets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to international cooperation, justice, and equality.

Impact on SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The UPR is a fundamental mechanism for ensuring accountability and strengthening institutional frameworks for human rights, directly aligning with the objectives of SDG 16. The non-participation of the United States presents a significant challenge to this goal.

• Weakening Global Governance: The refusal to participate in a mandatory review process undermines the effectiveness, accountability, and transparency of international institutions, a core target of SDG 16.
• Eroding Accountability Mechanisms: The action sets a precedent that could encourage other nations to disregard their obligations, weakening the multilateral system designed to hold all states to the same human rights standards.
• Diminishing Access to Justice: By avoiding scrutiny, the U.S. sidesteps an international forum designed to address human rights issues and provide a platform for dialogue on justice and institutional reform.

Setback for SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities and SDG 5: Gender Equality

The scheduled review was set to address topics critical to the advancement of SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequality within and among countries. The U.S. withdrawal from this dialogue represents a missed opportunity to address systemic issues affecting vulnerable populations.

1. Immigrant Rights: The failure to engage on the topic of immigrant rights prevents international assessment and recommendations aimed at ensuring non-discriminatory policies and protecting marginalized groups.
2. LGBTQ Rights: Discussion on LGBTQ rights is integral to both SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality). Avoiding this review stymies progress on ensuring equal rights and protections for all individuals regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
3. The Death Penalty: Scrutiny of capital punishment relates directly to ensuring equal access to justice and protecting the rights of those in vulnerable situations, a key concern within the framework of SDG 10.

Contradiction of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The decision reflects a broader policy of disengagement from multilateral cooperation, in direct opposition to SDG 17, which calls for revitalizing the global partnership for sustainable development. International reactions highlighted this departure from collaborative principles.

• Rejection of Multilateralism: The U.S. State Department’s justification, stating it would not be “lectured” by other nations, signals a rejection of the cooperative engagement essential for achieving the SDGs.
• International Criticism: Representatives from China and Cuba characterized the absence as a “lack of respect for the UPR mechanism” and a fear of oversight, underscoring the damage to international partnerships.
• Hostility to International Frameworks: The action is consistent with a pattern of hostility toward international institutions, including the sanctioning of officials at the International Criminal Court (ICC), further fracturing the global cooperation required by SDG 17.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article’s central theme is the United States’ refusal to participate in the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR), a mechanism designed to scrutinize the human rights records of member states. This directly relates to the goal of building “effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The UPR process, managed by the UN Human Rights Council, is a key international institution for promoting justice and human rights. The US’s non-participation, along with its criticism of the Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court (ICC), highlights a challenge to the strength and effectiveness of global governance institutions.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • The article explicitly mentions that “LGBTQ, immigrant rights, and the death penalty had been on the agenda for discussion at the meeting.” These topics are directly linked to ensuring equal rights and non-discrimination for vulnerable and marginalized groups. The scrutiny of a country’s record on these issues is a core component of addressing inequalities within and among countries. The refusal to engage in this discussion implies a setback for promoting the inclusion and rights of these specific populations.

3. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • This goal emphasizes the need for global partnerships and cooperation to achieve sustainable development. The article details the Trump administration’s “hostile to international frameworks” stance and its depiction of “international cooperation on many issues as a waste of time.” The US’s decision to “snub the mandatory procedure” and join Israel as the only other country to do so represents a significant withdrawal from a key multilateral process, undermining the spirit of global partnership and collective responsibility for human rights.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The UPR is a mechanism designed to hold national institutions accountable for their human rights records. By refusing to attend, the US is avoiding a key process for international accountability and transparency.
   • Target 16.8: “Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance.” While the article focuses on the US, a developed country, its withdrawal from a mandatory UN process sets a precedent that weakens the principle of universal participation in global governance institutions. The article notes that all 193 UN member states are supposed to undergo this scrutiny.
   • Target 16.a: “Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation…” The article discusses the US’s rejection of “oversight by international institutions,” which is a direct contradiction of this target’s emphasis on using international cooperation to strengthen national human rights frameworks.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… or other status.” The planned discussion of “LGBTQ” and “immigrant rights” directly pertains to the inclusion and rights of these specific groups. The US’s absence prevents an international review of its progress toward this target.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…” The UPR process is a forum where discriminatory policies and practices are reviewed. The agenda items mentioned suggest that US policies in these areas were to be examined, which is central to achieving this target.

3. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.16: “Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships…” The article highlights the US administration’s view that “international cooperation on many issues as a waste of time,” which is the antithesis of this target. Refusing to participate in the UPR is a clear example of weakening, rather than enhancing, a global partnership for human rights.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Implied Indicators for SDG 16

   • The article does not cite specific numerical indicators, but it provides a clear qualitative measure related to institutional strength and accountability. An implied indicator is a country’s **participation and cooperation with international human rights mechanisms**, such as the UPR and the ICC. The article states the US “did not send a representative” and became the “second country in history to snub the mandatory procedure,” which serves as a direct, negative data point for this indicator.

2. Implied Indicators for SDG 10

   • Progress towards reducing inequalities can be measured by the **existence and enforcement of laws and policies that protect vulnerable groups**. The article implies this by noting that “LGBTQ” and “immigrant rights” were on the agenda for scrutiny. The review process itself is a way to assess these national policies. The US’s avoidance of this review prevents an international assessment of its performance against this indicator.

3. Implied Indicators for SDG 17

   • An indicator for partnerships is the **level of a country’s engagement in multilateral and global governance frameworks**. The article provides a clear measure of this by describing the US administration as “notably hostile to international frameworks” and highlighting its withdrawal from the UPR. This action is a direct indicator of a decreased commitment to global partnerships for human rights.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

Source: aljazeera.com