In a public comment submitted on July 24, JBI called on the "Commission on Unalienable Rights" to substantially amend its draft report. The comment expresses alarm that the report will be used to support radical changes to the traditional U.S. approach to promoting human rights in its foreign policy, and particularly to encourage U.S. diplomats to provide tacit support and encouragement to governments that violate the human rights of members of certain historically marginalized groups, including women, LGBTQ people, and racial minorities.
The Commission, an independent advisory body established by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in 2019, published its draft report on July 16. Among other shortcomings, the Commission's report subtly but clearly encourages the U.S. to reverse its longstanding position on the universality of human rights, as set out in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (VDPA). It justifies this by claiming that countries’ “particularities” and “backgrounds” allow them some “leeway” in the implementation of their human rights commitments and suggests that human rights claims lacking a “clear consensus across a broad plurality of different traditions and cultures” might be illegitimate.
JBI's Comment draws particular attention to the Commission's very troubling treatment of the second sentence of paragraph 5 of the VDPA, which reads:
“While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
The first part of this sentence is a legacy of what is known as the “Bangkok Declaration,” the Final Declaration of the Regional Meeting for Asia that preceded the 1993 Vienna World Conference, which was reportedly particularly influenced by the governments of Malaysia and China. These words of the VDPA, and the Bangkok Declaration as a whole, are generally interpreted as aimed at repudiating the universality of human rights in favor of "cultural relativism." The U.S. strongly opposed this language at Vienna and insisted successfully on the inclusion of other language in the VDPA that reaffirms that “the universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question.” The U.S. also insisted that the sentence be read together with the sentence of paragraph 5 that precedes it, which proclaims that “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated.”
Yet rather than stressing these latter aspects of the VDPA, the Commission's report instead places great weight on the first part of the sentence as evidence of the existence and importance of the principle of "subsidiarity" - the notion that States must be given a degree of "leeway" in upholding their human rights commitments. As often done by States that seek to justify departures from universal rights standards, the draft report then suggests that the U.S. should generally refrain from endorsing or supporting “new” human rights claims made by “competing groups in society over political priorities,” and should leave such issues to be resolved through “ordinary democratic processes.” An earlier reference in the report to “abortion, affirmative action, [and] same-sex marriage” as examples of “divisive social and political controversies” in the U.S. in which “both sides couch their claims in terms of basic rights” suggests that the report is intended to be read as recommending that U.S. should not engage on these or similar human rights issues – particularly claims about laws and policies that discriminate against women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ people – in its foreign policy.
Since 1993 the U.S. has repeatedly invoked the VDPA to reject attempts by governments – including but not limited to Iran – to cite religious or cultural traditions of the majority of their citizens as a justification for denying equal treatment to individuals belonging to marginalized groups. The Commission's report, on the other hand, would seem to urge U.S. officials to exercise caution and be silent in the face of human rights violations justified by their perpetrators with reference to their cultural or religious background, and to expressly rely on the VDPA in support of such a position. As JBI's comment points out, the Commission's report thus urges the U.S. to completely reverse the approach that it traditionally has taken with respect to the principle of universality, and its precise articulation in the VDPA.
JBI's comment urges the Commission to amend the text of its draft report to more accurately describe the principle of universality of human rights, reaffirm the approach that the U.S. traditionally has taken with respect to the principle of universality, acknowledge more fully the significance of international human rights treaty obligations the U.S. has voluntarily assumed, and refrain from encouraging the U.S. to reverse its longstanding foreign policy position on the fundamental importance of the universality of rights. It urges the Commission to instead encourage the U.S. to conduct its foreign policy in a manner that promotes equal respect for the human rights of all persons.
The full text of the comment is available here: https://www.jbi-humanrights.org/JBI%20Comment%20on%20Commission%20on%20Unalienable%20Rights%207-24.pdf