David Hannay (now Baron Hannay of Chiswick) is one of the most brilliant diplomats of my long FCO years.

When he was British Ambassador at the UN his telegrams were extraordinary. Any international issue you could think of, summarised in two terse pages, a written combination of analytical insight and operational wisdom which I did not see equalled.

He is still in business. Here is a punchy article by him about the UN Human Rights Council and its approach to the end of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

It gets off to a brisk start:

The decision by the United Nations’ Human Rights Council to resist setting up an inquiry into the conduct of both the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan military in the recent hostilities is shocking and indefensible. Its rejection too of the advice of the UN’s own High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, that such an inquiry was needed, is even more aberrant.

And points out that:

Unfortunately, the present instance is only the latest in a series of actions and inactions that have led even the most stalwart supporters of the UN to question the Human Rights Council as it is constituted and currently operating. It seems to be becoming even more highly politicised than its much criticised predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. Facts, evidence and human rights law often seem to be disregarded in what has become a game of diplomatic manoeuvre.

What to do about such farcical phenomena?

Should we simply wash our hands of the council and look elsewhere for remedies? I do not believe so. The mere fact that governments that come under the council’s spotlight struggle so desperately to avoid an inquiry being set up demonstrates its potential for influence.

No one would be happier if the West walked away from the council than those states that perpetrate human rights abuses. Now that the United States is coming back on to the council, we need to think about how best to move away from the polarised debates of recent times.

We must also convince the silent majority of developing countries that the council can be evenhanded in its treatment of abusers, and that the worldwide strengthening of respect for human rights is every bit as much in their interests as it is in ours.

Our current UN Ambassador Sir John Sawers put it nicely in a speech last year in Boston:

"… the UN is that mirror, into which the world gazes at its own collected imperfections."

And nothing is more imperfect if not grotesque than the fact that the UN Human Rights Council has on it all sorts of countries whose commitment to human rights is … how might one put it? Ah yes, I have found the word … nil.

The evident ghastliness of this arrangement prompted the USA under President Bush to stay away. Now President Obama has reversed this and secured a place for the USA, much to the displeasure of former US Ambassador Bolton:

"This is like getting on board the Titanic after it’s hit the iceberg," he said. "This is the theology of engagement at work. There is no concrete American interest served by this, and it legitimizes something that doesn’t deserve legitimacy."

There is a real problem here.

Working in a grouping which talks about human rights but which includes brazenly undemocratic regimes like Cuba means that any debate there is skewed towards dishonesty. Simply by being there Western countries end up giving respectability to corruption of purpose, and to hypocrisy of the worst order.

The classic ‘engagement theology’ argument for holding our noses and pressing on anyway is that articulated by Lord Hannay: our opponents would be delighted if we gave up, plus our participation helps persuade the mass of UN members that the Council can be ‘evenhanded in its treatment of abusers’.

I am not convinced.

What’s the point of studious evenhandedness between Truth and Lies? Or between Honesty and Dishonesty?

Alas the internationalist UK Labour Government here went along with the creation in 2006 of the new Council to replace the utterly discredited UN HUMan Rights Commission. The argument went:

"OK OK, that Commission was a disgrace – but make no mistake, this time round the outcomes will be much better".

Wrong call, as this Sri Lanka outcome shows?

Here’s my plan.

No country can be elected to any UN Human Rights Council if that country does not have regular and plausibly free elections, ie a chance for its own citizens to vote out a government which abuses human rights (as, some might say, the Americans did in electing Obama/Democrats to replace Bush/Republicans).

If the UN insists on setting up a Human Rights council containing countries which can not pass that simple test, Western democracies (a) should not sit on it, and (b) should withold from their UN subscription an element for the cost of paying for it – perhaps donating those funds to a good human rights cause or two.

Even if Bad Behaviour can not be stopped, at least one should not reward it – by subsidising it?