Europeans recoiled in horror at the mass killing of hundreds of unarmed protesters in Andijan, Uzbekistan, on the orders of the authoritarian government of President Islam Karimov in May 2005. The European Union imposed sanctions, including a visa ban and an arms embargo, and demanded an independent inquiry. But six years is a long time in politics. Memories fade, attention shifts elsewhere.

All the same, the feting in Brussels this week of the defiantly unrepentant Karimov, a serial rights abuser, represented a disturbing EU volte-face and an undeserved success for the Uzbek dictator. The sanctions, which never had much effect, were quietly dropped in 2009. An independent inquiry was never held. Nobody was held to account for the murders. Instead, hard-nosed EU and Nato interest in maintaining supply routes to Afghanistan, and in Uzbek energy reserves, now takes precedence.

José Manuel Barroso, the commission president, defended his meeting with Karimov, saying he had pressed his visitor hard on human rights and political prisoners during talks that focused primarily on security and energy.

"The EU follows a policy of critical, conditional and comprehensive engagement with Uzbekistan," Barroso said. "I have raised all key concerns of Europe, notably regarding human rights and fundamental freedoms which stand at the heart of EU foreign policy. I believe it is through such a robust, eye-to-eye dialogue, and not an empty-chair policy, that we can further the EU's unanimously agreed policy of engagement most effectively."

It's hard to believe EU leaders, particularly the experienced Barroso, truly think a limited demarche of this sort, unsupported by tangible incentives or penalties, will have any significant impact. Why expect the formidably tough Karimov, who began life in an orphanage in Samarkand and rose to become post-Soviet Uzbekistan's first president in 1990, to take any notice of half-hearted whimpering from the Brussels bureaucracy?

It is more likely, suggested Andrew Stroehlein of the International Crisis Group, that Karimov will give himself a pat on the back for shrugging off international pariah status. "You have outfoxed and outlasted everyone, and the international community now bends to your will just as your own countrymen do. You are truly a master of this game and a model for others," Stroehlein wrote in a sardonic commentary published by European Voice.

The Karimov embarrassment, while grave, is a familiar one for Brussels. Similar contradictions in EU policy, and those of its members, have recently become apparent in the cases of Belarus, Tunisia and Hungary.

The problem is clear. The EU must decide whether it is first and foremost a champion of universal values and human rights, which Barroso claims stand "at the heart" of its foreign policy – or if its collective strategic security, political, economic and commercial interests are paramount and will primarily dictate its foreign policy actions. Either the EU believes in its founding principles, and takes strong political and legal action to uphold them, or it does not. It cannot have it both ways.

The EU's attempts to mollycoddle Belarus ended in spectacular failure when President Alexander Lukashenko's regime launched a brutal crackdown on opposition leaders and their supporters after last month's election charade. Their engagement policy in ruins, EU policy-makers are now fiddling about with a set of limited, Uzbek-style sanctions, which may or may not be imposed, and which Lukashenko has in any case dismissed in advance.

This month's Tunisian uprising highlighted the way Brussels and leading EU states that backed the regime, such as France, deliberately ignored or culpably failed to appreciate the seriousness of the human rights abuses, corruption and hardship endured by the Tunisian people over many years.

This myopia extends, too, to the poverty and repression suffered by the peoples of other Arab regimes such as Algeria, Egypt and Jordan which, however, are judged to be EU-friendly and therefore seem not to be too harshly scrutinised. Little wonder, then, that when it comes to more powerfully abusive states such as China and Russia, the EU's record on advancing the human rights agenda is even more lamentable.

In Hungary, meanwhile, the EU is facing a member government that, to all intents and purposes, has "gone rogue," ignoring its charter obligations and EU law to push through a populist rightwing agenda. Stern written reprimands from information commissioner Neelie Kroes about Hungary's new media law are unlikely to be enough. Substantive action may be required.

Human Rights Watch's annual report, published this week, ruthlessly dissects the prevarications that parade as principle in EU policy. "The ritualistic support of 'dialogue' and 'co-operation' with repressive governments is too often an excuse for doing nothing about human rights," said Kenneth Roth, the HRW executive director. "The EU's 'constructive dialogues' are among the most egregious examples of this global trend." The credibility of the EU around the world also rested on its willingness to address human rights abuses by member states, he added.

Dialogue and co-operation were important, HRW said. But when there was a lack of political will to end abuses, practical measures such as limits on military aid and budgetary support, punitive economic sanctions, and calls for the prosecution and punishment of responsible individuals must be pursued and enacted. "Even when the EU issues a statement of concern on human rights, it is often not backed by a comprehensive strategy," it said.

A good example of how to drop the human rights double-speak is being provided by Poland which, informed by its own repressive communist past, has taken a number of specific measures to assist the oppressed citizenry of neighbouring Belarus, without waiting for collective EU action.

These unilateral steps include a doubling of financial assistance for civil society organisations, abolition of the visa fee for Belarus citizens, a bar on visits by Lukashenko and senior officials, support for two independent radio stations and a satellite television station broadcasting uncensored news into Belarus, and an energetic diplomatic drive for tough EU-wide sanctions.

There is no reason, in principle, why the Karimovs and Lukashenkos of this world should get away with their crimes. But if the EU is serious about reining in these and other abusers, it must stop looking both ways. It should muster some moral courage and ready itself for a little altruistic self-sacrifice.