Chapter 48 Section 5 Afterthoughts

As I read these pages, I note with some disquiet that I seem to have developed friendly relations with several rulers whose human rights records do not withstand scrutiny.Indeed, had I been the leader of the opposition in one of these countries, I would have lost my life, let alone my liberty.So how do I manage to build a reasonable relationship with them? There are many explanations that come to my mind.First and most obviously, I am visiting as a statesman who, within a few years, is expected to wield political power in my country.So they got busy dealing with me and even had a good time about it.I have no illusions about this.Likewise, I think it is my duty to establish relationships that will protect and advance British interests then and thereafter.Since they are the rulers of their country, they are the ones I have to deal with.At the same time, I also think that certain distinctions can and should be maintained: rulers who have blood on their hands should be treated rightly, but nothing more; From honorary knighthoods to official Downing Street banquets.These are gifts from Great Britain.Even so, I wouldn't be so naive as to think that this would significantly change what authoritarian regimes do.

My second consideration was that I was able on some occasions to obtain the release or emigration of some political prisoners as a condition of my visits.There have never been as many releases as I would have liked; but even a few releases are better than no releases.And every release means hope for another 10.Indeed, it tells those who remain that we have not forgotten them. Third, we must remember that vice, like virtue, comes in various forms.It is a strange reflection of human nature that a ruler may order the killing of a political opponent in the morning, but carry out a promise he made in a treaty in the afternoon.Some of the people I dealt with with vigilance kept their promises to the UK and, in some cases, helped another country materially in its struggle against invasion and occupation.

In the end, international relations always choose the best among the best, not the ideal choice.Even when I have the power to replace one ruler by another—which has never been the case—I can seldom replace a bad ruler with a better one, and often with a better one. Bad one to replace him.For example, those who rejoiced in the fall of the Shah of Iran must today reconcile themselves to the sad reality that the mullah regime has become even more repressive of its own citizens and has fostered terrorism and subversion abroad.In this country, the Shah of Iran is a pillar of stability, if it is said to be nothing more than a rickety pillar.

Countries tend to act in their own interests rather than those of other peoples.This all the more reason for people in democracies to exert pressure not only on foreign governments that suppress human rights, but also on their own governments to make improving human rights a goal of Western diplomacy.I may have sometimes resented this second criticism of my conduct while in power; however, after a while, I was usually pleased if someone reminded me.