HOW HAS AMERICA honored its avowed commitment to human rights over the last four years? Fellow nations will consider that question later this year during the Universal Periodic Review, a quadrennial evaluation by the U.N. Human Rights Council to which all member states are subject.
The review, scheduled for this spring before postponement due to the COVID-19 pandemic, promises a thorough accounting of U.S. progress and failings on human rights at home. Given the Trump administration’s withdrawal from global processes designed to safeguard human rights and its dubious moves to redefine the scope of human rights protections, this review is vital.
Central to human rights and our modern conception of justice is the idea of equality. No one is above the law. All should be treated fairly, without bias or favor—a value reflected in the biblical juridical instruction to not “be partial to the poor or defer to the rich” (Leviticus 19:15).
This principle of equality animates the review, a uniquely democratic process in which every nation can speak truth to every other and none is exempt. “Universality, impartiality, objectivity, and non-selectivity” are guiding principles. With no regard for American “exceptionalism,” the UPR’s egalitarian structure aims to blunt the politicized use of human rights, in the U.S. and elsewhere, against adversaries alone.
The periodic review relies chiefly on standards the U.S. has explicitly accepted: human rights treaties it has ratified and other voluntary pledges. It also draws on widely endorsed principles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Dozens of civil society groups weighed in last October with evidence of the rollback of human rights under the Trump administration, documenting threats to the right to vote and to free speech, excesses of the criminal justice system, and intractable sexual violence, to name a few. Violations of migrants’ rights occupy a central focus of the stakeholder reports. U.S. transgressions include family separation, child detention, and other inhumane treatment, which violated the country’s binding human rights commitments to respect family unity, protect children, and eschew degrading treatment.
The family separation scandal reminds us how human rights provides a vital safeguard that all nations should heed, the U.S. included. It calls into question why the U.S. doesn’t embrace more such protections—such as the widely ratified treaty on children’s rights, which would have barred the family separation debacle.
In February, the administration missed the deadline to submit a national self-assessment. While the State Department’s website calls the U.S. “a strong supporter of the UPR process,” at this writing it had no substantive comment on the 2020 review. Nevertheless, the U.N. Human Rights Council will proffer recommendations to the U.S. government, which can serve as a useful blueprint for advocacy in years ahead.
The UPR is an imperfect process seeking to enforce noble ideals. Still, if Americans care about human rights, we should welcome accountability and urge forthright self-evaluation by our government. Stable, mutually affirmed global norms that foster peace and security aren’t just idealistic goals; they serve U.S. national interest as well. Such standards matter even more right now, in the wake of State Department efforts to reshape “human rights” through a narrow religious lens.
The U.N. review reaffirms principles of fairness and equality, shines light on the truth of U.S. violations, and provides a blueprint for future advocacy—an opportunity all Christians of conscience can welcome in our striving for greater justice.
Allyson McKinney Timm, a human rights lawyer, is founder and executive director of Justice Revival.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!
