The first is that debating human rights in the abstract can never be an excuse for inaction on the ground. Dialogue cannot substitute for deeds. A signature should be an expression of unambiguous intent to implement them fully as soon as possible, and to respect their spirit immediately. It should certainty not be acceptable as a tool for diplomatic delay rather a commitment to action.
Dialogue can be a legitimate alternative to one-sided criticism.
There is room for both in our foreign policy. And if it shows results, public opinion will accept dialogue as a valid, even a better, alternative. But if the public continues to read about closed churches and political arrests, about continuing capital punishment and censorship, they will rightly wonder what is being achieved by all those allegedly 'full and frank' exchanges of views. Dialogue is not an end in itself. It is the means to an end.