Human Rights and the War on Terror

The UN Dispatch blog has been reacting to the UN Human Rights Council's resolution praising the Sri Lankan government and condemning only the Tamil Tigers for conduct during the Sri Lankan civil war.

Mark Leon Goldberg is hopeful that American participation will improve the Human Rights Council's legitimacy. John Boonstra is skeptical though.

By perversely casting proponents of a commission of inquiry as "trying to undermine Sri Lanka's efforts in countering terrorism," Sri Lanka has created an utterly false dichotomy between combating terrorism and protecting human rights. Its unwillingness to have potential human rights violations investigated only casts doubt on its wartime conduct, rather than exonerating its actions at a stroke, as the government absurdly claims.

For the United States to make a difference in changing this dynamic on the Council, it goes without saying that it will have to accept and embrace what should be an uncontested truism: that effectively countering terrorism not only allows for, but in fact requires, wholehearted defense of human rights. This means, once again, fully renouncing torture and working to undo years of policy and rhetoric that make it little surprise where Sri Lanka's leaders incubated such a supreme self-confidence in their own war on terrorism.

UPDATE: The State Department held a roundtable discussion on strategies for US participation in the Human Rights Council. It was attended by representatives human rights NGOs and US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice. Vital Voices has a blog post about it; I'll post more information if I can find any.