I did not say you had less outrage. I said that if you were not willing to make it effectual, so what?
Anyway, I don't see what is hard to follow. You shifted to a pragmatic argument, that hectoring was ineffective and likely to fray relations between states, and make those we hector more truculent.
If you want to argue that there are superior players, as it were, and that "Treating others, whether individuals or states, with respect, allowing them their dignity, and according them the latitude to make their choices makes them more, not less, likely to honor human rights", that is a step in the right direction. However, making an argument that would support either point would be desirable.
Personally, I do not think we let tyrannical regimes off the hook out of respect, but because we are deeply patronizing. We think they are too backward to understand civil liberties or the rule of law, or that their people are happier oppressed, because they are concerned with subsistence. You have already said that it is presumptuous to think that slaves want to be free. I wonder if dissidents want to be imprisoned, or adulteresses want to be stoned to death. Maybe, who knows, surely we would not be so arrogant as to suppose otherwise.
As for the collaborative climate: there is some reason to have prudent regard for long term interests, which might involve being reticent about some abuses sometimes. However, I do not see why we should pretend that every regime is equal. No one will believe us, anyway. We are not neutral, as a people or as a country.
But I would be interested in hearing your rationale for asserting that states that oppress their people with impunity will more likely stop if we say nothing....... |
