EDIT: It is official: [link]
I should note that the HRC has been criticized in the past. It has been said that it has spent too much time on Israel and that it passed a resolution concerning the defamation of Islam.
With all of this criticism in hand, leaving the council altogether does nothing to fix it. Human Rights are certainly important and I hope that the council improves on its record, but this says little for our administration. Rather, it says things we already know.
UPDATE: Allow me to clarify that I do not fully agree with the HRC myself. Its ignoring of Darfur is particularly offensive. Nevertheless, I do not think that abandoning misguided programs will help unless an alternative is introduced. I doubt that the meaning of the withdrawal was meant to signify the creation of an improved council. Thus, I think it is fair to be angry at the act.
Carole Vann/Juan Gasparini/Human Rights Tribune - The news that the US has completely withdrawn from the Human Rights Council spread like wildfire Friday afternoon (June 6) through the corridors of the Palais des Nations in Geneva. There was general consternation amongst diplomats and NGOS. Reached by phone, the American mission in Geneva neither confirmed nor denied the report. Although unofficial, the news comes at a time of long opposition by the Bush administration to the reforms which created the Human Rights Council in June 2006. Washington announced from the beginning that the US would not be an active member but its observer status would mean that it could intervene during the sessions. To date even this has rarely happened.
“We don’t understand the reasons nor the timing of the decision”, said Sebastien Gillioz of Human Rights Watch. “There have even been some positive signs during this Council. For example Belarus was not re-elected as a member in 2007 nor Sri Lanka this year”.
-[link]