Ethiopia's election this week to the 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for the 2025-2027 term during the 79th UN General Assemblyis certain tostirdebate both at home and abroad, revealing a series of paradoxes that highlight the complex interplay between global governance, human rights standards, and national realities. This will be Ethiopia's third stint on the Council, following its previous memberships from 2013-2015 and 2016-2018. The election, on the one hand, signifies an acknowledgment of its potential role in promoting human rights at the international level; on the other hand, it raises questions about the implications of such a choice for Ethiopia and the global human rights landscape given the country's ongoing human rights challenges and internal conflicts.
At the core of the paradox surrounding Ethiopia's election to the UNHRC lies the stark disjunction between its membership in a body dedicated to promoting and protecting human rights and its actual human rights record, which has been checkered for decades now. In recent years, especially during the deadly conflict in Tigray that erupted in late 2020 as well as the insurgencies racking the Amhara and Oromia regions, the Ethiopian government has faced accusations of severe human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, indiscriminate imprisonments, and mass displacements. Reports from the state-appointed Ethiopian Human Rights Commission and several other human rights organizations have chronicled atrocities committed by both government forces and the groups which are waging an armed struggle. This juxtaposition raises an essential question: how can a country with documented human rights abuses assume a role in a council devoted to advocating for human rights? Critics contend that Ethiopia's election undermines the credibility of the UNHRC, suggesting that the body is prioritizing political considerations over the mandates of human rights protection. This paradox reflects a broader issue within the UN system, where geopolitical interests often overshadow genuine commitments to human rights.
Ethiopia's election to on the UNHRC can also be interpreted through the lens of agency and national image. For the Ethiopian government, obtaining a seat on the council can enhance its international standing and image. Consistent with its desire to portray itself as a responsible and progressive nation that is committed to upholding global human rights standards, the government has wasted no time in trying to leverage Ethiopia's membership of the Council, saying it highlights the nation's enduring commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights. This is particularly important for the government as it seeks to reshape its narrative following several years of political upheaval.However, this agency does not readily translate into positive changes on the ground. The paradox is apparent in the fact that while Ethiopia is intent on projecting a more favorable image, its ongoing human rights violations threaten to erode any gains made through its UNHRC membership. Furthermore, its ability to influence human rights discussions and strategies within the Council may be hindered by its lack of legitimacy stemming from the dissonance between its self-representation and its human rights situation.
The election of Ethiopia to the UNHRC gives riseas well to crucial questions pertaining to the concepts of responsibility vis-à-vis accountability. As a member state, Ethiopia bears the responsibility to uphold and promote human rights, not only domestically but also as part of its engagement with other nations. The expectations tied to its UNHRC membership include fostering respect for human rights norms, advancing accountability for violations, and supporting international efforts to alleviate human suffering. Yet, accountability remains a significant challenge. Despite international calls for investigations into human rights violations in Ethiopia, the government's response has often been dismissive or obstructive. The conundrum here is manifested in the fact that as Ethiopia pledges to promote human rights on an international platform, its failure to hold perpetrators accountable domestically undermines its credibility as a committed member of the council. The lack of robust mechanisms for accountability risks entrenching impunity and weakening trust in international human rights institutions.
Ethiopia's election to the UNHRC furtherlays barethedilemma between engagement with the international community and potential isolation resulting from its human rights practices. Joining the UNHRC avails Ethiopia with the opportunity to engage with other nations, participate in important discussions about human rights issues, and contribute positively to international discourse. Although such level of engagement can help address some of the country's pressing challenges and potentially garner support for reforms, theprevalence of human rights violations and internal conflicts are liable to provoke backlash from the international community, leading to increased scrutiny and criticism. The paradox emerges when Ethiopia's desire for international legitimacy conflicts with the reality of its actions at home. If the Ethiopian government fails to address the criticisms and abuses highlighted by human rights groups, it risks alienating itself from key partners and undermining the legitimacy needed to fulfill its roles on the UNHRC effectively.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Ethiopia's election to the UN Human Rights Council embodies a complex array of paradoxes that reflect the challenges inherent in the global human rights framework. The contradictions described above illustrate the difficulties faced by the international community in promoting human rights effectively. As Ethiopia navigates its responsibilities as a UNHRC member, it faces pressure to demonstrate a genuine commitment to human rights improvement within its borders. Its election serves as a valuable reminder that politics and human rights often intersect in complicated ways, necessitating continuous discussions about the true meaning of human rights advocacy in an increasingly interconnected world.
