This Monday, the United Nations Human Rights Council decided to renew the mandate of the independent expert on the protection of the human rights of LGTBIQ+ people. With 29 votes in favor, 15 against and 3 abstentions, it is thus guaranteed that, for at least three more years, there will be a figure dedicated to documenting abuses and promoting dialogue with States on issues of sexual and gender diversity.
The continuity of this mandate, currently in the hands of the South African academic Graeme Reid, was received with relief by activists and organizations who see this figure as a key tool in the face of global setbacks in human rights. In his role, Reid not only collects complaints, but acts as a bridge between civil society and governments, in contexts where dissident voices are often silenced.
Who supported and who opposed?
The result of the vote reflects an unequal geopolitics around LGTBIQ+ rights. Countries such as Chile, Germany, Kenya and South Africa supported the measure. However, several African nations, along with Qatar and other members of the Muslim OIC bloc, spoke out against it. The reason? They consider that the mandate promotes “controversial visions.”
This divergence is not new, but it is worrying. The growing weight of conservative voices in international forums has generated tension between universal human rights and cultural or religious positions that call them into question.
The absence of the United States: a worrying turn?
One of the great absentees in this process was United States, a country that in recent years had been a key ally for the LGTBIQ+ cause at the UN. Washington’s withdrawal from the Council during Donald Trump’s presidency, citing alleged anti-Semitic bias, marked a turning point.
Although the government of Joe Biden resumed a more inclusive agenda in its first term, Trump’s return to power in January has represented a radical change. Since then, executive orders have been signed that limit the rights of trans people and dismantle inclusion and diversity policies in the public and private sectors.
- Publicidad-
Their administration assures that these measures seek to “restore equity.” However, both civil organizations and activists see it as a setback that leaves historically marginalized groups even more exposed.
Voices from the community: a respite in the midst of the storm
“The renewal of this mandate is a spark of hope at a time when reactionary forces around the world are trying to dismantle advances that our communities have fought so hard for,” said Julia Ehrt, executive director of ILGA World. His words summarize the feeling of a large part of the international movement for LGTBIQ+ rights: the feeling of being under threat, but without giving up.
But… to what extent is this mandate effective?
Although the renewal is, without a doubt, good news, not all voices are optimistic. Some organizations criticize the limited real capacity of the mandate to generate concrete changes in the countries that most violate LGTBIQ+ rights. Furthermore, there are those who question the political use that some powers make of these causes, using them as a diplomatic weapon while maintaining alliances with oppressive regimes. Is it really progress or just a symbolic gesture? How long can these commitments be maintained without stronger global support?
- Advertisement -The decision of the Human Rights Council is, on the surface, a victory. But it is also a wake-up call: rights are not maintained by inertia. They defend themselves every day, in the face of setbacks, hate speech and complicit silences. Today more than ever, it is key that the international community—and each one of us—remains vigilant, informed and actively engaged.
Publicidad
