On February 28, the 49th session of the UN Human Rights Council will take place. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is expected to speak. The general context of the current Ukrainian events has undoubtedly attracted special attention; under other conditions, talk of the conflict would hardly have gone beyond the diplomatic routine of little interest to anyone.
In its current form, this council has existed since 2006, and before that, since the founding of the UN, there was a Commission on Human Rights. Its first significant step was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. However, in all subsequent years, like many other UN bodies, this council and commission were often accused of indecision and an inability to seriously affect anything, as well as the politicisation of their activity. At the same time, it should be noted that it was one of the few international structures that dared to directly criticise the United States on the issue of human rights violations. There is a well-known case when in 2001 the United States, by decision of the other member countries, was excluded from the commission. However, since the composition of the commission regularly changed on a rotational basis, there was no talk of a complete expulsion of the United States.
At the same time, this principle of rotation and the absence of the right of veto, unlike the UN Security Council, led to the fact that in discussions at this human rights council, the United States and its Western allies did not have a dominant influence. The wide geographical representation of different countries in its meetings made the non-Western voice more audible there than in many other forums. As a result, discussions at this council often went far beyond pleasing the ears of American neoliberals, whose slogans determined the style and tone in the mainstream global media. The United States and its allies therefore often found themselves under attack, they had to make excuses and scold. This position of the defenders of the world hegemon sometimes looked extremely uncomfortable.
To an even greater extent than the Americans, Israel had to experience this "inconvenience" during the meetings of the Human Rights Council. The firm and well-coordinated position of the Arab countries has led to the fact that from year to year, it was Israel that turned out to be the main target for criticism. And, frankly, it was the main outcast there, and by no means North Korea. It is clear that there was also politicisation. But who is ready to throw a stone at Islamic countries for the fact that they only effectively used the global international platform to promote their point of view on the conflict? In fact, this is precisely what the art of diplomacy consists of.
But this time, it seems unlikely that Israel will be in the spotlight. The specifics of the extremely tense international situation and the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis and the decision of the Russian leadership to launch a special military operation with the stated goals of demilitarising and denazifying Ukraine, I think, may well have an impact on the course of the council’s meeting. Russia will obviously have to face new serious allegations of human rights violations, already in relation to Ukraine. And this will be a significant addition to the well-known accusations of the Russian authorities of violating human rights in internal affairs, in relation to political opponents, to prisoners, to sexual minorities, etc.
Thus, it is quite possible that it is Russia that will be at the centre of the discussion at this council, despite its previous agenda. On the one hand, this presents an opportunity to more clearly communicate to other countries the official Russian position on this conflict. Taking into account the representation of not only Western countries at this forum, this may not be useful. In any case, there is a chance that there will not be a “conversation between the blind and the deaf”, using the words of Sergey Lavrov himself. On the other hand, it is clear that this is also a new platform for criticism against the Russian authorities. Now the council includes 47 states. Among them are Russia and Ukraine. In addition, there are also the USA, Great Britain, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, India, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, etc. In this regard, the council does not include not only the opponents of the Russian Federation, but also its friends and allies. How will they behave there? Will anyone defend Russia? Or would they prefer to remain silent?
The key question is, what can this council do, other than launch another batch of verbal accusations, to which the Russian diplomats are already quite accustomed One of the tools at its disposal is the launch of the so-called “special procedure” for human rights violations in a given case. During its implementation, a UN special rapporteur is appointed, who collects information on the spot and prepares reports on violations and makes special statements. If such a decision is made, the UN representatives will be able to appear in the conflict zone. And there is no doubt that the Ukrainian side will present them with the most "colourful" arguments in favour of their point of view. After all, hostilities are taking place on the territory of Ukraine, and therefore Ukraine will have special access to the speaker. Therefore, such a report will quite possibly express negative opinions regarding the Russian Federation.
On the other hand, this kind of “special procedure” was launched by this council in response to the violation of human rights in Belarus back in 2012. And let’s be honest, the authorities of this country are neither cold nor hot toward the UN rapporteur. Perhaps, in the context of the shrinking space of diplomatic opportunities for Russia, our authorities can follow the same path: try to argue their point of view, and if they don’t hear, then ignore criticism at all.
