On 13 October 2020, the United Nations General Assembly elected 15 new members to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for a three-year term starting in January 2021. Although Saudi Arabia failed to secure a place on the 47-seat body, China, Russia, and Cuba were elected in a vote that elicited an outcry in the human rights community.
With 16 candidates and 15 seats, Saudi Arabia was the only country not to be elected. Out of the five regional groups, the Asia-Pacific regional group was the only one with a competitive bid, with five countries running for four seats. Saudi Arabia came fifth with 90 votes, followed by China (139), Nepal (150), Uzbekistan (169), and Pakistan (169). Human Rights organisations have attributed Saudi Arabia’s defeat to the deterioration of its international reputation following high profile human rights scandals such as the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the detention of several women’s rights defenders. China’s 139 votes are also a drastic fall from the 180 votes the country received in 2016. According to the UN Director at Human Rights Watch, Louis Charbonneau, this illustrates that “more states are disturbed by China’s abysmal rights record”.
Although the Saudi defeat and China’s loss of support are positive steps, all four winners of the Asia-Pacific group have been criticised for their human rights record in the past. Similarly, other human rights violators like Russia and Cuba have also secured a seat at the Council. According to human rights organisations, the fact that human rights violators have been elected to the UN’s top human rights body greatly undermines its credibility. Besides committing human rights violations at home, countries like China and Cuba have also attempted to undermine the international human rights system by using their seats at the UNHRC to prevent scrutiny of their abuses and those perpetrated by their allies.
The election of these human rights violators will, however, not prevent the Council from carrying out its mission. Experts agree that by sitting at the Council, abusers “will be directly in the spotlight”. Kevin Jon Heller, professor of international law at the University of Copenhagen, argues that “their position as the supposed guardian of human rights makes it far more difficult for them to hide their own human rights abuses”.
What the election results clearly reveal is the profound need to reform the current system of entry to the UNHRC. Experts seem to agree that the non-competitive nature of elections is the main problem. Given the lack of competition, candidates are assured seats at the Council regardless of their human rights record. Saudi Arabia’s failure to enter the Council highlights the importance of competition in UNHRC elections. According to Charbonneau, “China, Cuba and Russia might have lost too” had there been more competition. In this context, experts and human rights organisations have urged countries to refuse to vote for unfit candidates when there are no other options.
Almudena holds a MA in Human Rights Law at SOAS, University of London and has experience working for human rights organisations in Spain. She is especially interested in International Refugee and Migration Law, democracy promotion, freedom of speech and gender-based violence issues. She hopes to work at a human rights advocacy organisation.