Amb. Sophia Tesfamariam @AmbStesfamariam
This outcome offers a clear and compelling indication that the resolution lacks a strong, credible, or unified mandate. Eritrea has once again been vindicated as the voting pattern reveals a politically motivated agenda rather than an objective assessment.
The fact that nearly as many Member States abstained as those who supported the resolution underscores growing discomfort with the politicization of country-specific mandates and the continued targeting of Eritrea through selective and one-sided narratives. The 13-year-long harassment of Eritrea is a vivid example of how the @UN_HRC is being used to advance ulterior political agendas.
Credible reports reveal behind-the-scenes pressure and coercive diplomacy applied to African ahead of the vote by the European Union delegation @EU_UNGeneva, and others. Such conduct is deeply troubling, as it undermines the principles of sovereign equality, voluntary decision-making, and genuine multilateralism that should underpin the Council’s work. This continued instrumentalization of human rights to serve narrow political interests must end.
The ongoing existence of the Special Rapporteur’s politically motivated mandate on Eritrea at the UN Human Rights Council is not driven by objective human rights concerns, but rather reflects the geopolitical power imbalance characterizing the Council’s operations.
A small group of Western states exerts outsized influence over mandate renewals, using human rights mechanisms as instruments of foreign policy rather than tools for genuine dialogue or reform. These states have shielded politically aligned “regime change” activists, dubbed "human rights defenders", cherry-picked narratives produced by echo chambers of funded NGOs and groups, and has ignored systemic improvements and sovereign realities in Eritrea, all to sustain a crisis narrative that justifies external interference.
This politicized mandate gravely undermines the credibility of the UNHRC. It has transformed the Council into a space where sovereign decision-making is penalized, and political conformity with dominant narratives is rewarded. The persistence of this mandate is less about principled human rights concerns and more about advancing the strategic interests of a handful of powerful states, many historically implicated in maintaining global asymmetries.
For over 13 years, Eritrea has been unfairly targeted for choosing an independent and self-reliant development path, one that deliberately diverges from externally imposed models of governance and development. Rather than respecting Eritrea’s sovereign right to chart its own course, this approach has faced sustained criticism and harassment. Instead of fostering constructive dialogue and cooperation, the mandate has been exploited repeatedly to isolate, stigmatize, and delegitimize a sovereign African state committed to self-determination and genuine development.
This issue lies at the heart of the growing global call for genuine UN reform. Today, the Human Rights Council targets Eritrea with a politicized mandate; tomorrow, it could be another sovereign state choosing an independent path. The question is no longer about Eritrea alone, it is about the credibility, impartiality, and future of the Council itself.
This misuse of human rights mechanisms erodes the Council’s legitimacy. It exposes a double standard: some nations are shielded from scrutiny regardless of their records, while others face politicized mandates shaped by geopolitical calculations. To retain the trust of all Member States, especially those from the Global South, the Council must uphold impartiality, reject selective targeting, and embrace a genuinely cooperative approach to human rights.
There is an urgent need for comprehensive reform of the
UNHRC, reforms that uphold sovereign equality, reject politicization, and ensure human rights mechanisms serve all Member States fairly and constructively. The way forward requires true solidarity among States, especially those in the Global South, to safeguard the integrity and legitimacy of multilateralism, lest the Council devolve into a tool of selective punishment rather than universal protection.
If multilateral institutions can be weaponized against one nation for asserting its sovereignty, then no nation is truly immune. This selective approach does not strengthen human rights; it weakens the legitimacy of the system and alienates Member States, particularly from the Global South, who increasingly see these mechanisms as tools of control rather than cooperation.
Member States must ask themselves: Do we want a
UNHRC that serves all nations equitably, or one that punishes political independence and self-determination, rights enshrined in the UN Charter? The answer will define the future of international cooperation.
Today it is Eritrea; tomorrow, it could be you.
Abstain = fear to speak the truth
Growing abstentions = rising discomfort with politicized UN mandates
Sovereignty should not be punished
Global South waking up to selective targeting
Multilateralism must mean fairness, not coercion
Today it’s Eritrea… tomorrow, it could be you!
