"U.S. participation in the HRC has been a contentious issue since the HRC replaced the much-scorned U.N. Commission on Human Rights in 2006. The Bush administration declined to join the HRC doubtful of its 'effectiveness' in promoting human rights...
The HRC is an intergovernmental body with a membership of 47 states distributed among the U.N.'s regional groups. The HRC was established to strengthen and promote global human rights protections and make remedial recommendations. HRC members must uphold 'the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights during their term of membership.' A member may be suspended for engaging in 'gross and systematic violations of human rights'.
HRC has indeed become a 'haven for dictators' and a den of gross human-rights violators. Haley correctly argues the 'presence of multiple human rights-violating countries on the Human Rights Council has damaged both the reputation of the council and the cause of human rights: a human dignity is discredited.' It is ludicrous to expect the foxes to safeguard the henhouse...
U.S. proposals to reform the HRC by denying membership to the worst human rights abusers; even-handed criticism of all violators; use of competitive voting instead of assignment by regional blocs; and increased accountability are steps in the right direction, but will ultimately prove futile as they have with the discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
Continued U.S. membership in the HRC merely legitimizes HRC's global human rights grandstanding and window-dressing in promoting and defending human rights. HRC is broken beyond repair.
President Obama talked about the U.S. being on the right side of history on human rights. Continuing membership in the HRC is being on the wrong side of history... America can try to reinvent the HRC, but neither the U.N nor the U.S. can put the HRC Humpty Dumpty back together."