U.S. right to quit "Human Rights" Council. Wrong to use U.S. democratic credentials to legitimize U.N.'s lack of democratic credentials.

"The UN Human Rights Council is a disgrace. No democracy should listen to the council, much less participate in it. The Trump administration's decision to quit this rotten body was not merely right. It embodies the way we should treat failed international institutions.

Criticism of the council often begins with its record on Israel. There is a good reason for this: the council spends a wildly disproportionate share of its time on Israel...

But this is not just about Israel. The council's membership is terrible. Freedom House deems 14 of its 47 members be "not free." Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Cuba should not be sitting in judgment on the human rights records of other nations.

Predictably, the council also focuses disproportionately on the United States. The council has never condemned China. The country that has received the most recommendations for improvement is - of course - the United States.

It is not easy to find anyone who defends the council as it is. The most common criticism of the administration's decision, as Rob Berschinski at Human Rights First puts it, is: 'Countries like China, Russia and Venezuela will applaud this decision because we are freely giving up leverage over them that we previously had.'

The obvious response to this argument is that, given the council's membership and record, U.S. leverage through the council has not been worth much...

Defenders of failed international organizations do those organizations an enormous disservice by refusing to hold them to real standards. If you have real standards, you will find that, on occasion, the only way to uphold them is to walk out, which is what the United States has done..."