A shameful resolution

The UN Human Rights Council hasn't previously covered itself in glory, but on the basis of what is reported in today's Times - 20,000 civilian deaths in the closing stages of the Sri Lankan civil war - that body has really hit a new low with its latest decision. Far from thinking to censure the Sri Lankan government, the HRC has passed a resolution praising it. The Sri Lankan Ambassador to the UN concluded from this that 'The vast mass of humanity are in support of Sri Lanka'. The decision has duly been condemned by spokesmen for both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. I was in favour of the US move to obtain a seat on the HRC. It remains to be seen whether US membership will in due course make a difference. For the time being, however, those who really care about human rights, whether members of the UN's misnamed council or just people at large, need to be clear that the HRC has no moral authority. If this situation can be changed, well and good; but until it is, no one should treat the HRC as something which it isn't - for example, by citing its decisions as if they had persuasive significance. It is a body so subject to political jockeying as to be very poorly suited to making authoritative judgements on the matters it is supposed to oversee.