Digging back through my pile of unread articles over the weekend I came across one from earlier this year entitled The Troubled History of the Foreskin [long read].
Common in the US, rare in Europe and now championed in Africa, male circumcision is hotly debated. Author Jessica Wapner looks at the prevalence of male circumcision in America, the way circumcision is being forced onto developing nations (especially in Africa) and the evidence for whether it is actually effective.

Would you buy a banana like this?
And her conclusion is much the same as mine: It is unnecessary and an abuse just as FGM is. As the article is a long read, here are Jessica Wapner’s concluding paragraphs:

After reading the literature, I’m unconvinced by the evidence used to justify circumcision for health reasons. I’ll explain why by means of a thought experiment. Imagine that infant male circumcision had never been a part of American medical practice, but was common in, say, Spain or Senegal or Japan. Based on what we know about the health benefits of the procedure, would American doctors recommend introducing the procedure? And would that evidence be enough for American parents to permanently remove a part of their child’s body without his agreement?
Remember what the evidence tells us. Either the benefits can be obtained by a milder intervention (antibiotics and condoms in the case of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases), or the risk is low and open to other preventive measures (penile cancer), or the concern is rarely justified (HIV in the United States). Remember also that Western countries where circumcision is rare do not see higher rates of the problems that foreskin removal purports to prevent: not STDs, not penile cancer, not cervical cancer, not HIV. It’s hard to imagine circumcision being introduced on this basis. It’s equally difficult to picture studies on the benefits of the procedure being done.
The main reason we have circumcision in the US today is not the health benefits. It’s because we’re used to it. After all, if circumcision is not definitively preventing a life-threatening issue that cannot be prevented by other means, can removal of a body part without the agreement of the child be justified? We are so accustomed to the practice that operating on an infant so that he resembles his father seems acceptable. I’ve heard many people give this as their reason. It isn’t a good one.
It’s disconcerting to think that circumcising infant boys may be a violation of their human rights. We castigate cultures that practise female genital mutilation (FGM). Rightfully so … removal of the clitoral hood … is anatomically analogous to removal of the foreskin. Some forms of FGM, such as nicking or scratching the female genitalia, are unequivocally deemed a human rights violation but are even milder than the foreskin removal …
Thinking about male circumcision as an unnecessary and irreversible surgery forced on infants, I can’t but hope that the troubled history of the foreskin will come to an end, and that the foreskin will be known for its presence rather than its absence.

Yes, male circumcision should be a human rights abuse just as is FGM.
Footnote: Before anyone wants to ask, no I’m not circumcised. I’m very glad my parents thought as I do that the procedure is unnecessary and thus an abuse. Indeed from memory a majority (maybe 60-70%) of the guys at school and with whom I’ve shared cricket etc. changing rooms were also entire.