Philip Hammond's closed-door diplomacy is not effective enough

If Mr Hammond wants credit for progress here it is not good enough to cite work that cannot be seen

(Getty Images)

Writing in the Independent, the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, lays out a defence of the Conservative Party’s record on human rights. He claims that the Government can be proud of its attempts to stand up for the weak and the persecuted of the world. To head off those who sense a certain apathy in this regard, Mr Hammond suggests that much of Britain’s most effective diplomacy is done “quietly”, behind closed doors, and that “shouting about an issue” can prove counterproductive.

That is sometimes the case, and Mr Hammond deserves credit for preventing the flogging of a British national in Saudi Arabia, through “quiet engagement”. The problem is that, taken in the round, Britain has become so quiet on human rights, one can hardly hear any sound at all.

Trade has taken precedence. A Chinese state newspaper even praised George Osborne for not “finding fault over the human rights issue” ahead of President Xi Jinping’s lucrative state visit. The leader of Egypt’s despotic regime was similarly indulged. And the release of one prisoner is scant compensation for the UK’s compromised stance on Saudi Arabia.

Mr Hammond previously admitted he wanted to sell “more” arms to the Saudis, despite knowing these weapons are being used in a cruel and much criticised war in Yemen. This is an immoral position to take, and citing Saudi denials of committing human rights abuses, as Mr Hammond did, does not wash. Sweden has withdrawn from its trade and security alliance with the Saudis – principled diplomacy in action – while Britain was instead instrumental in securing Saudi Arabia its baffling place on the UN Human Rights Council.

With human rights, actions speak louder than words. If Mr Hammond wants credit for progress here it is not good enough to cite work that cannot be seen. What we can see paints quite a different picture.