The United States of America has been the most influential country in shaping the international order since the mid-twentieth century. Through its foreign policies, the ruling elite in Washington has sought to strengthen its global hegemony by adopting strategies aimed at reshaping international institutions to align with its interests. The United Nations Human Rights Council serves as a prominent example of this trend, as its relationship with the United States has fluctuated, reflecting Washington’s broader efforts to influence the existing international system.
Introduction: Defining the International Order and the Human Rights Council
The international order refers to the set of rules and institutions that regulate relations between states to achieve global stability and peace. Established in 2006, the Human Rights Council is an international body responsible for promoting and protecting human rights worldwide. Comprising 47 member states elected by the United Nations General Assembly, the Council convenes three times a year to address human rights issues.
U.S. Policy Toward International Institutions: A History of Selectivity
The United States’ stance toward international institutions has historically been selective, dictated by its national interests. For instance, the administration of President George W. Bush decided to boycott the Human Rights Council upon its establishment in 2006, citing concerns over bias and inefficiency. In contrast, President Barack Obama’s administration rejoined the Council in 2009, aiming to exert influence from within. However, in 2018, President Donald Trump’s administration withdrew from the Council, accusing it of bias against Israel and a failure to implement fundamental reforms. These shifts underscore a broader pattern in U.S. foreign policy: engagement with international institutions when they serve American interests and withdrawal when they do not.
The Ruling Elite and the Agenda of Global Hegemony
The ruling elite in the United States seeks to maintain the country’s position as a dominant superpower. This ambition manifests through multiple strategies, including military intervention, economic sanctions, and political interference in other nations’ affairs. Recent decades have witnessed U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as economic sanctions against countries such as Iran and North Korea. While these policies are often justified under the pretext of national security or the promotion of democracy, they ultimately reflect a broader effort to impose American hegemony and reshape the international order to fit Washington’s vision.
The Human Rights Council as a Political Battleground
The Human Rights Council has become a battleground for political maneuvering, with member states leveraging it to advance their own agendas. For the United States, the Council’s stance on Israel has been a key point of contention. Washington has repeatedly criticized the Council for what it perceives as a disproportionate focus on Israeli violations while allegedly overlooking those of other countries. This perceived bias has led to multiple U.S. withdrawals from the Council, citing inefficiency and partiality. Conversely, critics argue that the U.S. withdrawal weakens the Council and hinders its ability to address global human rights violations effectively.
Double Standards in Human Rights Advocacy
The United States is often accused of applying double standards in its approach to human rights. While it vocally condemns abuses in rival or adversarial states, it tends to overlook similar violations committed by its allies. For example, Washington seldom publicly criticizes allied states with questionable human rights records, raising doubts about the sincerity of its commitment to human rights principles. This selective approach undermines U.S. credibility as a human rights advocate and highlights the dominance of political and strategic interests over universal human rights values.
The Impact of U.S. Policies on the International System and the Human Rights Council
U.S. policies—especially those involving withdrawal from or criticism of international institutions—have weakened these bodies and eroded their credibility. The withdrawal from the Human Rights Council, for example, deprived it of the support of one of the world’s most powerful nations, limiting its ability to effectively address human rights concerns. Additionally, such actions signal to other states that adherence to international institutions is optional, potentially encouraging further disengagement and threatening the integrity of the multilateral system.
Conclusion: The Future of the International System Under U.S. Hegemony
The international system faces growing challenges due to American policies aimed at reshaping it in accordance with U.S. interests. This approach risks exacerbating tensions, fostering conflicts, and diminishing the effectiveness of international institutions. Ensuring the stability of the international order requires genuine multilateral cooperation, mutual respect for international laws, and a departure from selective engagement and double standards. Only through such collaboration can a more just and sustainable international system be achieved.
