Britain rightly took credit for persuading Libya to give up its weapons programme. As a result, and not least because of its reserves of oil and gas, we forged a closer relationship to create opportunities for business. America did the same: Exxon’s interests played a part in removing sanctions on the regime. Now such actions look unfortunate, and there is a strong case for the west supping with a much longer spoon with regimes that deny their peoples freedom and individual rights.

Most advanced democracies are trading nations and have hit a period when their economies need all the help they can get. This explains why David Cameron, the UK prime minister, has given a high priority to business in foreign policy. Even so the corpus of norms and standards in international law and human rights must be upheld as a fortress against greed, abuse and self-interest. So while remaining hard-headed about our push for competitiveness, we must be clear about its limits – and reframe policy with a greater focus on the long-term consequences of equivocal relationships.

So which dictators should we deal with? Those that blatantly deny rights are not only morally unacceptable but will eventually generate a political explosion. North Korea is therefore manifestly out of bounds, as were Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Liberia under Charles Taylor. Iran, Burma and Zimbabwe have all rightly earned pariah status.