Meaning: This quote by Richard Perle, a former public servant and political advisor, highlights the paradoxical behavior of governments when it comes to human rights and their support for oppressive regimes. The quote implies that there is often a stark contrast between the public rhetoric espoused by governments, particularly in the realm of human rights, and their actual actions in supporting authoritarian leaders and human rights violators. In this case, Perle specifically calls out the French government for its fervent advocacy of human rights while simultaneously engaging in alliances and support for oppressive regimes.

The statement draws attention to the discrepancy between a government's professed commitment to human rights and its actions on the international stage. It suggests that while governments may publicly champion human rights as a universal value, their foreign policy decisions often prioritize strategic interests over human rights concerns, leading to support for authoritarian regimes and a disregard for the rights and freedoms of individuals.

France, as a prominent Western democracy and a vocal advocate for human rights, is singled out in the quote to illustrate this paradox. The French government has historically positioned itself as a defender of human rights and has been vocal in condemning human rights abuses around the world. However, Perle's assertion challenges this image by pointing to instances where France has supported or maintained relationships with repressive regimes, thereby undermining its proclaimed commitment to human rights.

One interpretation of the quote is that it serves as a critique of the dual nature of foreign policy, where governments often prioritize geopolitical interests and realpolitik over the promotion of human rights and democratic values. It suggests that the pursuit of national interests can lead to alliances with authoritarian leaders and human rights violators, despite the government's public declarations in support of human rights.

Furthermore, the quote may also reflect a broader skepticism about the genuineness of governments' commitment to human rights, highlighting the prevalence of hypocrisy and double standards in international relations. It implies that the rhetoric of human rights advocacy can sometimes be used as a tool for political posturing, while the actual conduct of governments may contradict their stated principles.

In conclusion, Richard Perle's quote encapsulates a critical perspective on the complex relationship between governments, human rights, and foreign policy. It sheds light on the contradictions and complexities inherent in the way states navigate their commitment to human rights alongside their strategic interests. The quote challenges the notion of genuine commitment to human rights by pointing to the incongruity between public rhetoric and actual behavior, and it invites reflection on the ethical dilemmas and trade-offs that underpin international relations.