The US withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council last week has caused concern for rights groups and was described as a “complete disregard for the fundamental rights and freedoms the US claims to uphold” by Salil Shetty, Secretary-General of Amnesty International.

Declaring the withdrawal of her country from the UNHRC on June 19, Nikki Haley, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, called the council “a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias”. She also claimed the council exerts “disproportionate focus and unending hostility toward Israel”.

The move came one day after the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights slammed Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy, which separated children from their parents at the US-Mexico border. The move is the latest US withdrawal from multinational organizations and treaties under Donald Trump: it pulled out of the Paris climate accord, the UN global compact on migration, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the Iran nuclear deal.

Since the UN body was established in 2006, with the aim of protecting and promoting human rights around the globe, Israel received the greatest level of condemnation for violations of the International Humanitarian Law by spilling the blood of Palestinian non-combatants, including children.

Israel’s abysmal record on human rights has never been a problem for Washington, however. For instance, the US opposed the UN’s decision to send an international war crimes probe to Gaza after Israeli soldiers had reportedly killed 60 Palestinians and wounded thousands in a single day — the day the US relocated its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It is apparent Israel’s excessive use of force towards largely unarmed demonstrators is against the Geneva Convention, which prohibits the “murder, torture or brutality” of civilians and outlaws “indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations.” However, the US turned a blind eye to the Israel’s “eye for an eyelash” policy, as Michael Lynk put it.

Human rights groups and political pundits fear the US will not uphold human rights with its exit from the council, and will continue its “zero tolerance” policy in conflict with international principles.

Contrary to his predecessor, Trump will isolate the US through undiplomatic and impassioned moves. In other words, he has undone Obama’s multilateral commitments: The nuclear deal with Iran – which was agreed in 2015 with the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany – his entry to the Human Rights Council in 2009, his entry into the Paris Agreement as well as his pledge on UN’s New York Declaration on Migration in 2016. Exiting all these puts the US in disagreement with its European allies and raises concern for the UN family.

It is self-explanatory that withdrawal from all these UN bodies means the US will no longer deem itself restricted to the rule of the UN agencies.

Washington’s unilateral moves will necessarily lead to two horrible consequences: First, the US allies will lose trust in Trump’s administration and view it as a volatile partner whose commitment lacks reliability. Second, they will pave they way for unilateral practices and a lack of respect for international instruments.

All nations are members of the human family and live in the global village. Therefore, they have to treat one another with a spirit of partnership rather than alliance. If the blood of a civilian is spilled in any part of the world, it should outrage the collective conscience and must be condemned, no matter the perpetrator.

Withdrawing from UN organizations will create more challenges rather than mitigating them. All states will have to remain committed to their deals, follow international principles and play their role constructively in all domestic and international issues, and must take concrete steps in protecting and promoting human rights and humanitarian law — or else their unilateral moves will be self-destructive and counterproductive.

The author is an Afghan journalist and freelance writer based in Beijing.