Human rights on Q&A

The promotion of human rights is a noble cause, one not to be cynically dismissed. But acting on it – if one is concerned to be effective and not merely feel virtuous – is more complicated than many human rights activists recognise.

As former CIS senior fellow Owen Harries and I have argued, individuals and special interests are free to give absolute and unqualified priority, but governments are not. “For the activist, human rights are a cause. But when they are incorporated into a government’s foreign policy, they become an interest among many,” we argued in 2011. “Their claims have to be balanced against other interests, many of which have a compelling practical as well as moral importance: for example, peace, security, order, prosperity. The place human rights will place in the hierarchy of interests will vary according to the circumstances.”

I once again made these banal points on the ABC’s Q&A this week in response to a question about the Chinese Communist regime’s brutal treatment of the Uyghur population in north-west China. My panel colleagues – Labor Senator Penny Wong, Liberal Senator Scott Ryan and ANU defence intellectual Hugh White – agreed. However, Diana Sayed, formerly of Amnesty International, charged we were indifferent to the fate of Muslims. See video (54m 45s).

Never mind the many occasions in recent decades when the US and its allies put their men and women in harm’s way – from Kuwait and Somalia to Bosnia and Kosovo to Iraq and Afghanistan – to help people suffering from tyranny or famine who happened to be Muslims.

Moreover, what complicates human rights policy — what makes it not a simple act of consistency, but a complicated one of judgement and discrimination — is the variability of circumstance. It’s easier for Canberra, for instance, to take a more moralistic approach to Zimbabwe or Syria, states with which Australia has few trade links, than it is for us to be hard on China, our most important trade partner.

If we sacrificed our relationship with Beijing on behalf of the Uyghurs, we’d destroy our economy without having any positive impact on China.