Thread by @alexhallhall

Amidst the row over the govt's perceived "One Rule for Us and One Rule for them" approach at home, I've been reflecting on the extent to which there's also a certain amount of "Do as I Say, Not as I do" in our international dealings as well..🧵

I thoroughly welcome focus in Govt's Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Dvlpmt and Foreign Policy on "championing human rights, democratic values, good governance, the rule of law, and open societies". I regard these as part and parcel of security: enlightened self interest.

In the FCDO's 2020 human rights report, Raab described "the mission of Global Britain as a force for good." Liz Truss's Chatham House speech last week, though heavy on trade, tech and security, also contained stirring words about supporting freedom loving countries and so forth;

And if you read the FCDO's latest human rights report (link here) it does contain many good examples of UK activities in support of human rights. gov.uk/government/pub…

However, Truss also said last week, "We won’t lecture others, instead we will lead by example." This is where I begin to part company and have some doubts.

I by no means intend any ludicrous extrapolation between the UK and the situation in countries like Myanmar, DPRK, Syria or Vzla. Reading their reports is a strong reminder of how lucky we are in the UK - where we perhaps have taken too many of our freedoms for granted.

But that of course doesn't mean the UK is perfect. And I believe a certain amount of humility and self awareness is necessary before we pitch ourselves too strongly to others as "the greatest country in the world" - as Truss also said.

Through my career I was posted in Thailand, India, Colombia, and Georgia. All democracies.

That did not stop us urging Thais to be more generous/compassionate to refugees/migrants from Burma, Vietnam and Cambodia...as we harden our stance towards refugees/migrants.

In India and Georgia, we constantly urged sensitive understanding/engagement with, respectively, the people in Kashmir, and the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, offering our experience negotiating the Good Friday Agreement, reforming police etc as best practice

In Georgia, we also lobbied the government to reform its electoral system to avoid one party having disproportionate advantage in elections (due to first past the post system amongst other features); and respect judicial independence;

In Colombia, we urged the government to adhere to the peace process it negotiated with the FARC (to acclaim), not to allow impunity for abuses committed by its own military, and to tackle collusion with paramilitaries...

Even as the govt, because of Brexit, put GFA under huge stress, ignored the views of the majority in Scotland and NI, who wanted to stay in the EU, and has considered ending prosecutions for killings in Northern Ireland during the Troubles

This year's report also notes a constitutional change in Russia asserting the primacy of the Constitution over international bodies. "This included the European Court of Human Rights, one of the few remaining routes of recourse for victims of human rights violations." (sic)

The same ECHR to which our Justice Secretary Raab recently referred, saying "an upcoming overhaul of the U.K.’s Human Rights Act would include a “mechanism” to “correct” rulings by the European Court of Human Rights."

I could go on with more examples. But you get the drift. Again, I am not asserting that we are anywhere near the dire erosion of civil liberties and violation of human rights that exist in the countries singled out in our human rights report

But the govt is seeking to amend the UK Human Rights Act. Is seeking to annul rulings it doesn't like. Is seeking to limit the powers of Judicial Review. Is seeking to limit public protests. Has introduced legislation to give powers to remove citizenship from certain UK nationals

Is seeking to toughen up our asylum laws. Did prorogue parliament. Has unilaterally gone against some elements of the NIP. Has threatened to invoke Art 16 and renege on an international agreement it voluntarily signed, despite risks to the GFA.

Moreover, our ability to support human rights overseas, however sincere and well intentioned, is less effective than it was, since we are less powerful by ourselves, than acting in concert with all 28 EU members.

Raab is justifiably proud of the new Magnitsky human rights sanctions legislation. But sanctions don't have much effect when only one country applies them. We now have to work twice as hard, to persuade others to join. Ditto our efforts on other human rights issues.

I was Head of FCO's Human Rights Dept during the worst of the Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, rendition, torture memo period. Human rights dialogues with countries like China, Iran and Russia were excruciating, when they would lob these examples back at us and claim we were hypocrites

Our ability to be an example to others, and for our words and diplomatic efforts to carry any moral authority, depend on us abiding by these values at home.

I always used to be able to say in response to Chinese/Russian/Iranian etc accusations of hypocrisy that democracy had the advantage of being self correcting: we were not perfect, but we had the ability to learn from our mistakes, and through elections, course correct.

Can we, and will we, do that now?