The world's liberal democracies all pay lip service to human rights, but there is precious little consistency in addressing violations. Whatever principles we say we apply in foreign policy, human rights rank well down the list when it comes to meaningful action. And the targets are so selective it is impossible to discern any principles at all when the record is looked at objectively. Sins that are so glaring in the case of Cuba, are hardly noticed in Israel or Saudi Arabia.
The West simply doesn't have the resources to police all the world's human rights violations. But couldn't we set priorities for action based on clear, consistent, moral principles? Shouldn't the number one priority be intervention to prevent genocide? The Nuremburg trials of the immediate Post-War period relied for their legitimacy on this fundamental principle. That the world has a right to intervene in the affairs of individual nations when it comes to genocide. Indeed, it is more than a right. It is a moral obligation.
Isn't this the answer to China every time it trots out it's "internal affairs" slogan? Genocide is more than an internal affair. To deny the Holocaust is a crime in many countries. In France it is also a crime to deny that Turkey was guilty of genocide against the Armenians 90 years ago. The Democratic controlled US Congress now agrees. Which is all very well and good, except that America still denies its own genocide against the American Indians. America, and the rest of the world, also refused to acknowledge the genocide in Rwanda until well after it was obvious from the intelligence. Just as today governments stop short of acknowledging the glaringly obvious in Darfur. Because if it is genocide, there is an international obligation to act.
Look at all the excuses for inaction governments come up with. "We need to give diplomacy time to work." "The situation is complex. We need to tread carefully." "There is no point intervening without the full support of the UN Security Council." But those things never stopped us going into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Surely in the case of genocide, individual countries do have an obligation to act, with or without a Security Council resolution. It is true those countries who oppose intervention can undermine the efforts of those who act. But that is no excuse for not doing everything reasonably possible.
Which brings us back to China. Any country that does not subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't belong in the United Nations, let alone be entitled to a seat on its Board. Look at China's record, in Tibet, Cambodia, North Korea, Burma, and Sudan. China, in its search for business opportunities, has been quite transparent in its policies. "What you do to your own people is none of our business." China not only refuses to place economic sanctions on other countries for human rights abuses, it usually profits from sanctions busting.
When China does bring pressure to bear on nasty regimes, it is usually only where things are so bad Chinese interests are threatened as well. These interests now include a desire for an international leadership role. It's this, not an awakening conscience, that now guides China's diplomacy.
By all means do business with China, but that does not mean we defer to them when it comes to genocide. China needs the West as much as the West needs China. China not only wants our trade, it wants our acceptance as well. That's why it is pinning so much on the success of the Beijing Olympics.
And there lies our historic opportunity. A boycott of the Beijing Olympics can help drive the message home, without running a serious risk of economic retaliation. I would not stop the athletes from attending, but spectators should stay away. And so should George Bush.
