Many of those who resent the failure to renew the mandate of the International and Regional Experts Committee to investigate human rights violations in Yemen write their discontent in a language of revenge that deviates from a professional discourse concerned with human rights in Yemen, the region and the world.
It contains a lot of threats to the defeated in the fight, although their work requires them to put themselves at the same distance emotionally from the accused and the victim. Being biased towards truth and justice does not mean falling into the traps of polarization.
All of them are professionals or experienced in human rights work and its outputs, and they know well that the outcomes of human rights work are political par excellence, either through the Human Rights Council, which is run by voting and polling mechanisms for political entities that are states.
Or through unilateral channels, such as the one that America practices in terms of sanctions against entities and countries in order to defend human rights, which in their entirety translate a political desire and do not deviate from the logic of hegemony and the practice of the world’s policeman.
It is very natural for things to take a political alignment in a completely politicized body, such as the United Nations and its agencies, and the Human Rights Council is one of them.
We are not deceived, but we are working to exploit the tools of the current international system to serve national issues, no less or more.
The idea of global governance is still far-fetched, and the current international system is exposed to setbacks, paradoxes, and great hypocrisy to the extent that transitional justice and the advancement of human rights are manifested as a national issue before any consideration and not in the agendas of global political blackmail.
Why the grief of this result?
Is it because Saudi Arabia was able to form an alliance of small countries in the eyes of some, while according to the regulations of the current international system, they are legal units with equal rights, led by Russia and China, to face other alliances headed by Britain, the Netherlands and Canada.
None of these jurists is ignorant of the corridors of human rights work at the level of the Human Rights Council or the higher level in the General Assembly. However, they feel the bitterness of personal loss more than the bitterness of the human rights situation in Yemen for the possibility of victory for the oppressed and victims.
This artificial or sincere anger deprives them of the integrity of the person dealing in the judicial/legal affairs, as his emotions lead him to involve himself in a small matter of the great justice.
The Council is still at a minimum guarantee of monitoring the human rights situation, as it did not drop the issue of monitoring violations completely, but it returned to what it should have done from the beginning, which is the exhaustion of national mechanisms.
The Human Rights Council threw the ball into the court of the National Committee, and it bears a great responsibility at this moment. It must align itself with the victims first and foremost, whoever the perpetrator is, and it must prove its professionalism by raising the technical efficiency of its workers, expanding the circle of local and international partnership, and reaching the victims throughout the country.
It is not possible to advance human rights without activating the judicial track, as the matter does not end with submitting reports full of details only.
I expected greater prudence from human rights activists locally, regionally and internationally than those who lamented the decision of the Human Rights Council by supporting the national track and ensuring its professionalism and siding with the victims. But they were keen to raise the political voice within them.