The travails of the new Human Rights Council seem like the difficulties faced by Nero when Rome was burning. Each session of the Council is invariably faced with a grave crisis of human rights in one part or the other of the world. The fifth session which ended on Friday is no exception.

Myanmar is in a cauldron as its people rose up against its discredited regime demanding democratic rights and an end to the junta’s rule. The protests which were started by students first snowballed into an unmitigated crisis when 400,000 Buddhist monks joined the biggest democratic and human rights movement. An unprecedented challenge is now posed to the international community and how it deals with the junta.

What is the answer?
The HRC, which is the repository and a watchdog for human rights, had to provide an immediate answer. Even though it acts under the direction of the United Nations (UN) in New York, the Council’s members had to take a decision one way or the other to tell the world where they stood on the Myanmar-issue. Already, the junta had barred the Council from sending one of its rapporteurs to study the human rights situation in the country. Given the opposition from China and Russia to take immediate action at the Security Council, it is understandable that the Council will face problems in adopting a common stand.

After considerable deliberations throughout the week, its members decided to hold an urgent session regarding the situation in Myanmar. Human rights analysts argue that the Council’s decision is not a small step. Since all 53 members supported the decision to hold a special session on Myanmar, it augured well for the Council, argued Peggy Hicks, Global Advocacy Director of the Human Rights Watch. The decision to hold a special session on Burma came at the close of an otherwise relatively uneventful session for the HRC, which is now in its second year of operation.

China and India will be under close watch during the Council meeting as their stand will determine largely whether the Council could adopt a unified stand on Myanmar next week. India informed the Council last week it is awaiting instructions from its capital, which, in diplomatic terms, implies the government is silent on the issue.

When real politick determines a country’s position on human rights, it is difficult to expect a bold stand in support of human rights from a country. In the past, India took a principled stand against outright violation of human rights as it happened in East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Myanmar is an immediate neighbour with whom India enjoyed centuries of trade and movement of people. In fact, India awarded the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru award to Aung San Suu Kyi, who is the icon of the current anti-military movement.

Unfortunately, the Nehruvian foreign policy is an anathema these days. Almost all foreign policy responses – whether in West Asia or Myanmar now – are guided by the country’s strategic or commercial interests.

Economic ties
It is little wonder that the government remained somewhat muted until now in its response to the worsening crisis in Myanmar. Other than calling the Generals in Myanmar for some reconciliation, New Delhi is nearly silent on the brutal suppression of protests by the junta. “In terms of political policy, India has abandoned Aung San Suu Kyi, who was given the highest Jawaharlal Nehru award for her courage to stand up against the military regime,” said Soe Mynt, Editor, Mizzima News.

Ultimately, economic and military ties for India and China are more important than the suppression of human rights in Myanmar. With the emerging countries in the world more preoccupied with their immediate dollar-driven-interests, it might be naïve to expect the Human Rights Council to deliver when parts of the world are burning.