New authoritarian states to the UN Human Rights Council

The UN Human Rights Council has existed since 2006. The Council has long been criticized as a UN body with major credibility problems as a large proportion of its members have been accused of systematically violating human rights themselves.

The 47 members sit for three-year terms. When China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Cuba – all of which have been sharply criticized by human rights organizations – were elected at the same time in 2013, many protested.

Russia was expelled from the council in April last year. But China and Cuba are still among the chosen ones – along with countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Somalia, Eritrea and Uzbekistan.

New for this year are, for example, Sudan, Kyrgyzstan, Vietnam and Algeria.

Large percentage free

The Freedom House think tank, which assesses the world’s countries according to the degree of civil and political freedoms and rights, now ranks 70 percent of the countries in the council as unfree in some sense. 30 percent are considered completely free.

This reflects the general decline of democracy in the world, according to Pål Wrange, professor of international law at Stockholm University.

But the question is how valid the council’s criticism becomes when it comes from states with major democratic flaws, which in some cases commit gross abuses against their own citizens.

— When the council gives criticism, there is rarely a lack of justification for that criticism. The problem is rather the council’s silence in many cases, says Pål Wrange.

— Of those who do not behave, there are many who escape criticism for political reasons.

One such country is China, he says.

— China has made itself almost immune through powerful diplomacy.

Sweden has received criticism

Sweden applied for a seat on the council in 2013–2015 but was not elected. However, Sweden has received criticism on several occasions.

In November, the council’s expert panel criticized Sweden’s work against systematic racism in law enforcement. The lack of trust between the police and minority groups was stated to be “one of the biggest problems encountered”.

The work with Sami rights has also received criticism. And in 2015, Sweden’s drug policy received harsh criticism because syringe exchanges and other care interventions for drug users were limited.

Annelie Börjesson, president of the Swedish UN Federation, believes that the criticism is relevant. At the same time, she notes that the council’s conclusions often lack balance.

— I was there in 2020 when Sweden was reviewed last time and Sweden received far more recommendations than many other countries, which are known for not being particularly good representatives in the MR field, received.

— Enormous problems and abuses in certain cultures and contexts are overlooked while we are scrutinized more harshly and criticized for comparatively minor problems.

Not just the “talented”

She still believes that the council is relevant.

— It is a forum that the countries of the world felt they needed. The MR Council fulfills an important function after all, for example through the function which means that all countries are routinely reviewed over a four-year period, says Annelie Börjesson.

Pål Wrange emphasizes that countries that may be exposed to criticism often put a lot of effort into getting a place. On the other hand, it would also not have been good if the council only consisted of “the best in the class,” he says.

— There would be a strong over-representation of Western states and other countries would perhaps take less seriously what the council says when the criticism mainly comes from states that are different from one’s own state.