Wednesday, March 22, 2023
 
 

Why morals matter in foreign policy

- Advertisement -

When I told a friend I had just written a book on morality and foreign policy, she quipped: “It must be a very short book.” Such scepticism is common. An Internet search shows surprisingly few books on how US presidents’ moral views affected their foreign policies. As the eminent political theorist Michael Walzer once described American graduate training in international relations after 1945, “Moral argument was against the rules of the discipline as it was commonly practiced.”
The reasons for scepticism seem obvious. While historians have written about American exceptionalism and moralism, realist diplomats like George F. Kennan – the father of the US “containment” doctrine in the Cold War – long warned about the downside of the American moralist-legalist tradition. International relations is an anarchic realm; no world government exists to provide order. States must provide for their own defence, and when survival is at stake, the ends justify the means. Where there is no meaningful choice, there can be no ethics. As philosophers say, “ought implies can.” No one can fault you for not doing the impossible.
By this logic, combining ethics and foreign policy is a category mistake, like asking if a knife sounds good rather than if it cuts well, or whether a broom dances better than one that costs more. So, in judging a president’s foreign policy, we should simply ask whether it worked, not whether it was moral.
While this view has some merit, it ducks hard questions by oversimplifying. The absence of a world government does not mean the absence of all international order. Some foreign policy issues relate to a nation-state’s survival, but most do not. Since World War II, the United States, for example, has been involved in several wars, but none were necessary for its survival. And many important foreign policy choices about human rights, climate change, or Internet freedom do not involve war at all.
Indeed, most foreign policy issues involve trade-offs among values that require choices, not application of a rigid formula of raison d’état. A cynical French official once told me, “I define good as what is good for the interests of France. Morals are irrelevant.” He seemed unaware that his statement itself was a moral judgment. It is tautological or at best trivial to say that all states try to act in their national interest. The important question is how leaders choose to define and pursue that national interest under different circumstances.
Moreover, whether we like it or not, Americans constantly make moral judgments about presidents and foreign policy. Even before his famous phone call asking the president of Ukraine for a favour, the behaviour of Donald Trump’s administration had raised the issue of morality and foreign policy from a theoretical question to front-page news. For example, after the 2018 killing of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in his country’s consulate in Istanbul, Trump was criticized for ignoring clear evidence of a brutal crime in order to maintain good relations with the Saudi Crown Prince.
The liberal New York Times labelled Trump’s statement about Khashoggi “remorselessly transactional, heedless of the facts,” while the conservative Wall Street Journal editorialized that “we are aware of no President, not even such ruthless pragmatists as Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson, who would have written a public statement like this without so much as a grace note about America’s abiding values and principles.” Oil, arms sales, and regional stability are national interests, but so are values and principles that are attractive to others. How can they be combined?
Unfortunately, many judgments about ethics and contemporary US foreign policy are haphazard or poorly thought through, and too much of the current debate focuses on Trump’s personality. My new book Do Morals Matter? attempts to correct this by showing that some of Trump’s actions are not unprecedented for US presidents since WWII. As a perceptive reporter once remarked to me, “Trump is not unique; he is extreme.”
Even more important, Americans are seldom clear about the criteria by which we judge a foreign policy. We praise a president like Ronald Reagan for the moral clarity of his statements, as though good intentions well expressed were sufficient in making ethical judgments. But Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush showed that good intentions without adequate means to achieve them can lead to ethically bad outcomes, such as the Treaty of Versailles after WWI or Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Or we judge a president simply on results. Some observers credit Richard Nixon for ending the Vietnam War, but he sacrificed 21,000 American lives to create a face-saving “decent interval” that turned out to be an ephemeral pause on the road to defeat.
Good moral reasoning should be three-dimensional, weighing and balancing intentions, consequences, and means. A foreign policy should be judged accordingly. Moreover, a moral foreign policy must consider consequences such as maintaining an institutional order that encourages moral interests, in addition to particular newsworthy actions such as helping a dissident or a persecuted group in another country. And it is important to include the ethical consequences of “non-actions,” such as President Harry S. Truman’s willingness to accept stalemate and domestic political punishment during the Korean War rather than follow General Douglas MacArthur’s recommendation to use nuclear weapons. As Sherlock Holmes famously noted, much can be learned from a dog that does not bark.
It is pointless to argue that ethics will play no role in the foreign policy debates that await this year. We should acknowledge that we always use moral reasoning to judge foreign policy, and we should learn to do it better.

- Advertisement -

Subscribe to our newsletter

Latest

EU-Turkey earthquake relief conference: Time to get serious

The European Union is hosting a reconstruction conference in...

Cambodia’s current government is the face of tropical Fascism

There is no hope that the authoritarianism that the world sees in places like Russia, China and Cambodia can ever be interpreted as a peaceful and benign phenomenon, or that it should be accepted by an implicit racist or discriminatory assumption that some cultures just don’t have a democratic tradition and aren’t quite capable of ever developing one.

Energy supply diversification out of Russia’s orbit is a top priority for Bulgaria

Bulgaria intends to diversify its energy resources, including supplying...

Recovery from the disaster of the century needs more than a few months of international assistance

Two devastating earthquakes hit the Turkish-Syrian border on February...

Don't miss

EU-Turkey earthquake relief conference: Time to get serious

The European Union is hosting a reconstruction conference in...

Cambodia’s current government is the face of tropical Fascism

There is no hope that the authoritarianism that the world sees in places like Russia, China and Cambodia can ever be interpreted as a peaceful and benign phenomenon, or that it should be accepted by an implicit racist or discriminatory assumption that some cultures just don’t have a democratic tradition and aren’t quite capable of ever developing one.

Energy supply diversification out of Russia’s orbit is a top priority for Bulgaria

Bulgaria intends to diversify its energy resources, including supplying...

Recovery from the disaster of the century needs more than a few months of international assistance

Two devastating earthquakes hit the Turkish-Syrian border on February...

Georgia has shown the world that a Kremlin project can be defeated

Over the past few days, the world’s attention was...

Cambodia’s current government is the face of tropical Fascism

There is no hope that the authoritarianism that the world sees in places like Russia, China and Cambodia can ever be interpreted as a peaceful and benign phenomenon, or that it should be accepted by an implicit racist or discriminatory assumption that some cultures just don’t have a democratic tradition and aren’t quite capable of ever developing one.

Georgia has shown the world that a Kremlin project can be defeated

Over the past few days, the world’s attention was on Georgia. We saw massive protests fueled by anger, concerns and fear, and eventually, we...

Putin’s New START withdrawal has broad implications

Vladimir Putin continues to persuade Russians that the West provoked his imperialist war of aggression against Ukraine. His announcement that he would no longer...

Free Trade: The magic potion against economic decline

Despite rising internal and external nationalistic pressure, leaders on both sides of the Atlantic should remember that in a time of increasing hostilities from bad actors, retaliatory protectionism toward our allies will do nothing but ensure mutual decline.

Turkey’s seismic shift

This breakthrough in normalization between Armenia and Turkey comes amid a much wider context, well beyond the simple validation of earthquake diplomacy to elevate crisis response over conflict retention. 

Voluntary prisoners of history

By now it should have been clear to everyone that we are contemporaries of another - I would say, 'revolutionary' - transformation of humanity....

Sudan’s progress towards reform

Sudan's Forces of Freedom and Change, a wide coalition of civilian and rebel parties that opposes military rule in the country, is working with...

NE Global interviews Iran’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi

Iranians have tried every other possible way to work for change, for many years. Those who thought they could reform the regime have continually been disappointed. Now they know that they have no other solution.