Morality in Foreign Policy?

[Sebastianlobo]

The conduct of diplomacy – and the formulation of foreign policies is the sole responsibility of governments, their primary obligation being the furthering of its interests, chiefly, national security, integrity of its political life and the well – being of its people. None of these have a moral quality. The realities of international life do not leave enough room for moral principles , without which morality is meaningless.

Despite past attempts to bring a certain degree of it to the relations between countries, from the “ ius gentium” of the Romans ( The Law of Nations) to Dante Aleghieri, almost 700 years ago with his De Monarchica, we have not yet arrived at set of universal codes forinternational behaviour to be complied with.

Most, if not all, agreements, treaties and the like are merely recommendatory and the vagueness of their terms leaves plenty of leeway for subscribing countries not to comply.

However the increasing use of terrorism as a weapon, its threat to the interests of countries, and the reactions to it, brings to the agenda the seminal questions: how are we deal with this paradigmatic change? How can morality be blended with foreign policies ? These are some of the questions which are at the heart of the matter.

[InfiniteNow]

Very carefully is the quick answer.

Your morality and my morality are not the same morality. This is why a set of clear rules which work have not yet been found. The rules themselves are dynamic and ever changing. The change of perspective also occurs within each observer, hence the difficulty.

[TheBigDog]

Looking at terrorism specifically...

When terrorism is launched from a country the government of that country has a duty to stop it from happening. This is a very basic thing that needs to be recognized. Lets examine the current situation in Lebanon.

Hezbolah, a legal political party in Lebanon begins launching rocket attacks against a neighboring country. And then they actually invade that country and kill and kidnap soldiers. The government of Lebanon is in one of two positions...

1. They are incapable of stopping it
2. They choose not to stop it

Their neighbor who is the victim of these attacks is quite capable of stopping them. But in order to do so they need to violate the sovrenty of Lebanon, and people who might otherwise be uninvolved end up getting killed. It is either that, or just let the rockets rain down indisciminatly. Lebanon is in a postion of moral disfunction. They cannot prevent their own people from attacking a neighbor, and they cannot even condemn their own people for doing it.

Frankly, they are not even a government. Living in Lebanon is like living in no man's land. The best they can do is blame Israel for stepping up and doing what the Lebonese government should be doing, stopping the source of the attacks. But in making the moral decision that politics and popularism is more important than being a good neighbor and preventing terrorism, they turn an internal matter into an international war.

So the point... If a government cannot stop its people from commiting acts of war and terrorism on its neighbors, then are they a legitimate governement capable of negotiating ANYTHING on good faith? And do they have any case for how their neighbors dictate terms to them when it effects their own people's safety?

Bill

[Boerseun]

Or how about having a neighbouring country have two of your soldiers hostage, and you have a few of theirs. Standard practice internationally, is to have a hostage exchange. In doing so, you will not be the first country. You will simply confirm to a practice that is ages old.

Instead, however, you choose to bomb the living daylights out of your neighbour in a hard-assed stance that does not include discussion, debate and/or concensus. You sit with the blood of civilians on your hands because of either bad intel or bad aim. You still don't engage in communication with your enemy.

Now you are seriously getting p****d off when your neighbouring country starts shooting back. Obviously you'll be p*****d off, but are you surprised?

Morality in International Affairs and Foreign Policy is very plastic. It is designed to suit the purpose of only the country in question. It's a one-sided thing that rarely keeps the neighbours in mind. And it's never black-and-white. I think that Foreign Policy is actually printed on special gray paper, with gray ink, and its in a gray folder in a gray filing cabinet in a gray government building.

[Shekhar]

Originally Posted by Sebastianlobo

However the increasing use of terrorism as a weapon, its threat to the interests of countries, and the reactions to it, brings to the agenda the seminal questions: how are we deal with this paradigmatic change? How can morality be blended with foreign policies ? These are some of the questions which are at the heart of the matter.

First do you consider terrorism only under immorality ?

Everyone has his own philosophy and definition of morality.
For intstance take the dress code: I have an friend following Islamic culture who says that he lives in a society where women wear "Burqa" you can only see their eyes.

For him wearing jeans is awkward .........For someone jeans is casual but sleeveless is objectionable..........for another guy it's ok but shorts are immoral.............So it just depends on our mind setup (society is a dominant factor in it)or rather our frame of reference.

I just ask you to go around the world (but not in 80 days ) to have maturity in your views.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Or how about having a neighbouring country have two of your soldiers hostage, and you have a few of theirs. Standard practice internationally, is to have a hostage exchange. In doing so, you will not be the first country. You will simply confirm to a practice that is ages old.

I see your point. But it is not a neighboring country that took the hostages. It is an element acting independantly of the country they launch from. They want to be treated as a country. They want to exchange prisoners for hostages. They want the benefits of a nation state (recognition and negotiations) without the burden of having to act with the responsibility of a nation state (random rocket launches, terrorism, geneva conventions). Very plastic indeed.

Bill

[infamous]

Ultimately, a lasting morality only comes when victory is won. Not only do the spoils go to the victor but also their personal version of morality. The real question facing the west is; "Are we prepared to fight for victory or settle for a temporary peace". I'm persuaded that our adversary is intent on victory, likewise so should we be..........Infy

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

1. They are incapable of stopping it
2. They choose not to stop it

Lebanon is in a postion of moral disfunction. They cannot prevent their own people from attacking a neighbor, and they cannot even condemn their own people for doing it.

Frankly, they are not even a government. Living in Lebanon is like living in no man's land. The best they can do is blame Israel for stepping up and doing what the Lebonese government should be doing, stopping the source of the attacks. But in making the moral decision that politics and popularism is more important than being a good neighbor and preventing terrorism, they turn an internal matter into an international war.

So the point... If a government cannot stop its people from commiting acts of war and terrorism on its neighbors, then are they a legitimate governement capable of negotiating ANYTHING on good faith? And do they have any case for how their neighbors dictate terms to them when it effects their own people's safety?

Bill

I couldn't agree more but from the reports I've heard in the British media, the Lebanese Government don't have the support and the resources necessary to overcome Hezbollah. I'm afraid it is like Britain with youth crime and America with its gun laws, the violence goes on because nobody knows how to stop it. True political strength doesn't lie in violence but control and that requires co-operation and courage from all involved and we don't have it in the Middle East or within the populations of our two countries. The real problem is as always pouting, pretentious youth trying to prove its manhood, hurting and killing everyone around them (including themselves) in an effort to make a name for themselves - which they can proudly put on their headstones. The rest of us want to get on with our ordinary, day-to-day lives but these criminals, whether domestic or foreign, are determined to get our attention by whatever violent means they can and in their fear and anger we all suffer ("No man is an island..." John Donne): You add to life or you subtract from it - it's not morals but basic arithmetic.

[Sebastianlobo]

Originally Posted by Shekhar

First do you consider terrorism only under immorality ?

Everyone has his own philosophy and definition of morality.
For intstance take the dress code: I have an friend following Islamic culture who says that he lives in a society where women wear "Burqa" you can only see their eyes.

For him wearing jeans is awkward .........For someone jeans is casual but sleeveless is objectionable..........for another guy it's ok but shorts are immoral.............So it just depends on our mind setup (society is a dominant factor in it)or rather our frame of reference.

I just ask you to go around the world (but not in 80 days ) to have maturity in your views.

I have trevelled quite extensively and am no stranger to Islamic and other cultural values and mores. I think you have misunderstood me.I suggest you read my original post again and then comment on the " maturity" of my views.

[HydrogenBond]

Wars have have two types of warriors, the men in the field up to their eyeballs in blood and guts and the knurds with words. I think the diplomatic knurds should be required to spend a few days at the front lines before being able to state a position. This way they would find solutions that would work once and for all.