The Human Rights Council is a UN body and a subsidiary of the General Assembly, which was established on March 15, 2006, after the dissolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights. One of the council's tasks is to strive to promote respect for human rights around the world. The following points should be considered in this regard:
1. After its establishment, the Human Rights Council experienced a political alignment in its structure, which affected its performance. For this reason, many countries consider the performance of this council to be tainted by political motives and with double standards. During the suspension of Russia's membership, the council did not even follow its professional principles based on the investigation into the Bucha incident and only used Western guidelines for judging and deciding.
2. The resolution adopted by the General Assembly states that this Assembly may suspend the membership of a member of the Human Rights Council who has committed gross and systematic acts in violation of human rights. Of course, no independent international investigation has been conducted to clarify the unknown dimensions of the Bucha incident and that Russia has committed gross and systematic acts of human rights violations. Only Ukraine and Western countries have blamed Moscow for the Bucha incident, An issue that the Russians called staging and denied. Unproven claims by the West that have suspended Russia's membership are legally "alleged violations" that take longer to prove. The council could have sent a fact-finding mission to Ukraine, regardless of the atmosphere in the West and their media, and submitted its report to the UN General Assembly for a decision without haste and independently.
3. The countries proposing to suspend Russia's membership, including the United States and NATO members, have been among the human rights violators in recent years and have always enjoyed a safe margin in the UN Human Rights Council. The United States and NATO have committed crimes in Afghanistan for nearly twenty years, repeatedly committing blatant human rights abuses in Bagram and Kabul prisons and war crimes in this land, worse than the Russians in Ukraine. The UN human rights body has never taken action against the United States or NATO. For many years, the United Nations has turned a blind eye to the crimes of the Zionist regime, which is a clear example of war crimes and genocide. It was for the massacre of the Yemeni people too. Numerous other reasons and evidences indicate the existence of dual criteria for judging the human rights situation in the world.
4. The suspension of Russia's membership in the Human Rights Council could have several consequences on international relations. Naturally, the expulsion or suspension of countries from the Human Rights Council is a reason to gradually reduce the sense of responsibility of these countries for the protection of human rights, and this is contrary to the duties of the UN Human Rights Council. Naturally, when countries are members of this council, they try to accept the council's rules and regulations for the protection of human rights, but in case of expulsion or suspension, they will no longer have a commitment in this regard and the issue of human rights will become a neutral and unreliable issue at the international level. On the other hand, the suspension of the membership of countries such as Russia, intensifies the differences in the UN, which reduces the consensus of the members at critical moments for the defense of human rights. Although Russia has stated that despite the suspension of membership, it is fulfilling its commitments to protect human rights in the world, despite the current differences, its implementation has been met with skepticism.
5. The Islamic Republic of Iran, in adhering to its principles while supporting the territorial integrity of independent countries, opposes war, crime and human rights violations, and at the same time does not allow the domination of major powers over world institutions and accepts the interference of political motives in international decisions. Accordingly, the text of the resolution of the General Assembly of the Human Rights Council was an example of the abuse of the UN human rights mechanism for political purposes, and in a correct and expert action, voted against the suspension of Russia's membership in the Council. Explaining its decision, the Islamic Republic of Iran also stressed the need for a peaceful settlement of disputes based on international law and full respect for all parties to the Charter of the United Nations and international law.
Overall, the UN General Assembly vote on Russia's suspension from the UN Human Rights Council showed political motivation and dual criteria for making fundamental decisions and reaffirmed the United States' efforts to maintain its hegemonic position. Continuation of such an approach will exacerbate differences and divisions among members and make it difficult to make fair judgments about international issues. Separating human rights issues from any political considerations and avoiding double standards is an issue that the international community must work to achieve in a unified manner.
Your Comment