US boycotts own human rights review at UN, sparking 'American Apartheid' warning

Anyone remotely aware of the history of African colonization, particularly the brutal form of governance first implemented by the Dutch and later reinforced by the British, would recognise where the American President’s proclivities seem to lie. To identify with oppressors in South Africa, Israel, and other racist regimes seems repugnant.

This is the direction in which extreme right-wing regimes seem hellbent on nudging the world—toward the proverbial Leviathan: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Also read: Trump says US to boycott G20 in South Africa

Ironically, on the same day Trump issued his boycott call, his officials also boycotted their own human rights examination at the United Nations’ Human Rights Council in Geneva on Friday (November 7).

American apartheid

That move prompted officials from several US states and advocates to stage an alternative hearing and issue a stark warning: the nation is facing a “moral and ethical crisis” and sliding toward a system of “American apartheid”.

The scene was one of profound dissonance. In the halls of the UN, where the United States was scheduled to undergo its Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the American seat remained empty. But the room was filled with American voices—local elected leaders, civil rights attorneys, and human rights advocates who had travelled to Switzerland to testify in their government’s absence.

“On behalf of Human Rights First, I must underscore our deep disappointment and concern that the United States did not appear today,” said a former US diplomat. Uzra Zeya, who had worked with the State Department, framed the boycott as a direct assault on a core UN principle. The UPR's effectiveness is driven by its universality; all countries are reviewed, and to date, all have ultimately come forward.

“This unprecedented US boycott threatens the core principle of the process," said Zeya.

The absence marked a first for the United States and followed only Nicaragua’s similar non-appearance earlier this year.

Notwithstanding the US absence, a coalition of state and local leaders declared that while the federal government was absent, “Americans showed up”.

At a press conference held at the office of the UN correspondents, various officials and civil rights groups launched a broadside against the administration for its sustained assault on fundamental freedoms.

Crisis of morality

The most blistering condemnation came from the elected district attorney of Philadelphia. “We all know why the 34-time convicted felon, who is President of the United States, does not want to be here,” he stated. “He does not want a report card on his unceasing violations of human rights.”

Also read: Trump talks of G2, but dual global hegemony is whimsy for now

Larry Krasner, the DA of Philadelphia, argued that the President’s absence was a moral abdication. “His job is guided by a fundamental sense of morality. The immorality of the President is no reflection on Americans… The president did not (appear) because he does not want to be subject to American or international law.”

Invoking the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., he concluded with a defiant prediction: “This president is baring his claws so that everyone can see… then, his fundamental weakness is conveyed, and he and his circle of immoral, unlawful sycophants will lose their power.”

No justice for all

The panel outlined a sweeping list of human rights concerns the US government had avoided confronting. The representative from Human Rights First cited “massive, escalating, and severe abuses of refugee and immigrant rights”, including denial of asylum, inhumane detention practices, and the sanctioning of International Criminal Court prosecutors.

For other speakers, the crisis was not confined to any single policy. Robert Selim Holbrook from Philadelphia drew a direct parallel to apartheid-era South Africa. “The administration is running from accountability. It could no more defend its positions at home than apartheid South Africa could in the 80s,” he said.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly Mitchell described the federal government as “failing the American people,” citing a recent headline where a Border Patrol director promised “new levels of terror” in deportations. “In 2026, the United States will celebrate its 250th birthday, founded on freedom and justice for all. Apparently, that is no longer true.”

Watershed moment

When asked by this writer if the nation was at a “watershed moment”, the panel’s response was unified and grim.

“It’s a moral and ethical crisis of a magnitude I’ve not seen in my lifetime,” said Mitchell, pointing to the willful starvation of 42 million Americans through cuts to food support programmes and the use of military force against residents.

Holbrook went further, declaring the end of US moral leadership. “The United States is now on the stage as an international rogue… I found it telling that China lectured the United States on human rights.” He argued that the US is now defined by “starving people, disappearing children from their families, and suppressing our civil liberties”.

Also read: Over 2000 Indian nationals deported from US this year

The Human Rights First representative warned that the US abdication was creating an opening for rights-abusing governments like China and Russia, severely setting back American national security.

American apartheid

The discussion also turned to drastic cuts in US foreign aid, which one questioner noted are expected to cause millions of deaths. The panel framed this as a conscious choice, not a financial necessity.

“When you look at who's getting cut, it's children,” said Holbrook. “The US gives billions to corporations and regimes committing genocide, showing a complete disregard for the most marginalised.”

Supervisor Mitchell agreed, stating, “These are willful choices… We've seen a $1 trillion cut to Medicaid… because of a political choice to give tax breaks to the top 1 per cent. Winners and losers are being chosen.”

The Philadelphia DA connected these policies to what he described as a legacy of racism. “Donald Trump comes from a multi-generational family of racists… He has decided that after decades of supporting generic AIDS drugs in Africa, that's got to go. USAID largely serves black and brown people around the world, so it has to go.”

Call for global solidarity

This theme culminated in a powerful call for a global movement. Holbrook stated, “We are considering a global fight against the American apartheid that the Trump administration is trying to run.”

Holbrook solidified the historical analogy saying, “The United States was an apartheid state. We had segregation. Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany looked at our laws. When Trump talks about making America great, he's talking about going back to apartheid. We need global advocates to stand with us."

As the alternative hearing concluded, the empty US seat served as a silent testament to a nation deeply divided, its international reputation, according to those who showed up in its place, in tatters.

The message from Geneva was clear: a growing coalition within America views its own federal government as a human rights violator that must be held to account from the outside, and they are pleading for the world’s help.