Introduction
Over centuries, there has been an ongoing debate about morality versus foreign policy.
The electorates give their leaders the power to protect and lead the state. In as much as public opinion or views is very relevant, in the actual execution of democracy it is difficult to always seek public opinions or take into consideration public sentiments.
Every nation is driven by its foreign policy and the actions carried out while seeking or pursing a vital interest should not be considered right or wrong based on the morality of that action, but on the relevance, importance or how prudent that interest is at the moment. The first goal of a government is self preservation. Saving the day and the securing the future for the future generation encompasses the essence of government’s decisions and present course of actions.
Sometimes the right or wrong of an action is not determined at the beginning, but the end justifies the means. Human rights and other advocacy groups are key players in attempting to enforce morality in the pursuit of foreign policy. Camillo Benso, who unified Italy, in the Count of Cavour, stated that “If we were to do for ourselves what we are doing for Italy, we should be great rogues."
Owen Harries once said in a lecture in Sydney on October 29, 2004, "there is something intrinsically nutty about using one's claimed moral superiority to justify one's adoption of lower ethical standards. To insist on the right to double standards - as American neo-conservatives like Robert Kagan are explicitly doing today - or to operate blatantly in terms of them, is to undermine one's own moral position and to store up trouble in the form of cumulating resentment and lack of credibility. Neo-conservatives often charge realists with exercising `moral equivalence'. `Moral equivalence' is a charge that has to be invoked with great care if it is not to become simply a device for deflecting criticism and stifling debate" ("Power, Morality, and Foreign Policy"; Orbis, Fall 2005).
Morality vs foreign policy
Morality is the rightness or wrongness of something as judged by accepted moral standards or a conduct that is in accord with accepted moral standards. (Microsoft Encarta 2009).
It is difficult to pursue a national interest on the basis of abstract moral principles. Professor Patrick James said in an article (For U.S. foreign policy, self interest is Morality) that “The path toward human freedom is best pursued by pragmatically making the most of the opportunities that come along, rather than trying to figure out the “right” thing to do”
There are some vital interest that are worth stealing, lying, confiscating properties and killing for, it will be morally wrong not to risk morality to achieve that national interest. An example of whether an action is morally wrong on not is that of Liberia liquidating properties of German nationals and waging war on Germany. At the outbreak of World War I, President Howard attempted to maintain the country's neutrality, though he tended to support the Allies, whose colonial territories in Africa surrounded Liberia.
World War I resulted in the trade between Liberia and Britain, France and the United States being reduced to almost zero due to the German submarine blockade. Income from customs revenue was disrupted, when Germany, Liberia's major trading partner, withdrew from Liberia. This situation forced Liberia to postpone payment on the $1.7 million loan, and led President Daniel E. Howard to seek a $5 million loan from the Woodrow Wilson Administration. This attempt had a quicksand effect. The United States Congress refused to approve the loan.
Despite German protests, Howard allowed the French to operate a wireless station in the capital, Monrovia. Realizing that their complaints were in vain, the Germans sent a submarine to attack the city in 1917, forcing the reluctant Howard to side with the Allies and declare war on Germany on January 12, 1918.
Liberia then liquidated the property of German nationals in Liberia. The money generated from this liquidation was deposited into the Liberian government bank account to compensate for loss of revenue from the blockade. The war ended in 1918, and Liberia's Legislature ratified the Treaty of Versailles. (Timelines.com, Liberia declares war on Germany, August 8, 1914)
The German American political scientist Hans J. Morgenthau in his book Politics Among Nations (1948) perhaps best summed up the ideal of modern diplomacy: (1) Diplomacy must be divested of its crusading spirit; (2) the objectives of foreign policy must be defined in terms of the national interest and must be supported with adequate power; (3) diplomacy must look at the situation from the point of view of other nations; (4) nations must be willing to compromise on all issues that are not vital to them; (5) the armed forces are the instrument of foreign policy, not its master; and (6) the government is the leader of public opinion, not its slave. Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009.)
Morgenthau waned in 1957: "No statesman could pursue indiscriminately a policy of protecting democratic governments everywhere in the world without courting certain disaster."
He also stressed that "The realist recognises that a moral decision, especially in the political sphere, does not imply a simple choice between a moral principle and a standard of action which is morally irrelevant or even outright immoral. A moral decision implies always a choice among different moral principles, one of which is given precedence over others. To say that a political action has no moral purpose is absurd; for political action can be defined as an attempt to realize moral values through the medium of politics, that is, power. The relevant moral question concerns the choice among different moral values, and it is at this point that the realist and the utopian part company."
He also stated that "There is no escape from the evil of power, regardless of what one does. Whenever we act with reference to our fellow men, we must sin, and we must still sin when we refuse to act; for the refusal to be involved in the evil of action carries with it the breach of the obligation to do one's duty. No ivory tower is remote enough to offer protection against the guilt in which the actor and bystander... are inextricably enmeshed."
Conclusion
To conclude, not withstanding, morality must be encouraged in pursuit of foreign policy for it is relevant but should not be a decisive factor either. The world has become a global village and the idealism of isolationism will be difficult to pursue. America needs the rest of the world as much as it needs them. The myth that America will not buy into the idea of “pessimism and defeatism” sets them apart from other nations, but it also shows that their political expediency overrides morality. The diplomatic information released by Wikileaks exposed the courses of actions taken in diplomacy. The morality of some actions of the information release has been question by many. Asked if the WikiLeaks of 2010 would damage American relations with other countries, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted that "governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets." (Wikipedia) The advocacy for morality in the pursuit of foreign policy has led to less deadlier or brutal wars through technological advancement of precise weapons and casualty evacuation strategies. President Roosevelt in a famous Chicago speech of October 1937 said that "national morality is as vital as private morality." In the most famous work of Edward Hallett Carr, he quoted President Woodrow Wilson's argument in an address to the Congress of the United States on the declaration of war in 1917 that "We are at the beginning of an age in which it will be insisted that the same standards of conduct and responsibility for wrong shall be observed among nations and their governments that are observed among the individual citizens of civilized states.”
Over centuries, there has been an ongoing debate about morality versus foreign policy.
The electorates give their leaders the power to protect and lead the state. In as much as public opinion or views is very relevant, in the actual execution of democracy it is difficult to always seek public opinions or take into consideration public sentiments.
Every nation is driven by its foreign policy and the actions carried out while seeking or pursing a vital interest should not be considered right or wrong based on the morality of that action, but on the relevance, importance or how prudent that interest is at the moment. The first goal of a government is self preservation. Saving the day and the securing the future for the future generation encompasses the essence of government’s decisions and present course of actions.
Sometimes the right or wrong of an action is not determined at the beginning, but the end justifies the means. Human rights and other advocacy groups are key players in attempting to enforce morality in the pursuit of foreign policy. Camillo Benso, who unified Italy, in the Count of Cavour, stated that “If we were to do for ourselves what we are doing for Italy, we should be great rogues."
Owen Harries once said in a lecture in Sydney on October 29, 2004, "there is something intrinsically nutty about using one's claimed moral superiority to justify one's adoption of lower ethical standards. To insist on the right to double standards - as American neo-conservatives like Robert Kagan are explicitly doing today - or to operate blatantly in terms of them, is to undermine one's own moral position and to store up trouble in the form of cumulating resentment and lack of credibility. Neo-conservatives often charge realists with exercising `moral equivalence'. `Moral equivalence' is a charge that has to be invoked with great care if it is not to become simply a device for deflecting criticism and stifling debate" ("Power, Morality, and Foreign Policy"; Orbis, Fall 2005).
Morality vs foreign policy
Morality is the rightness or wrongness of something as judged by accepted moral standards or a conduct that is in accord with accepted moral standards. (Microsoft Encarta 2009).
It is difficult to pursue a national interest on the basis of abstract moral principles. Professor Patrick James said in an article (For U.S. foreign policy, self interest is Morality) that “The path toward human freedom is best pursued by pragmatically making the most of the opportunities that come along, rather than trying to figure out the “right” thing to do”
There are some vital interest that are worth stealing, lying, confiscating properties and killing for, it will be morally wrong not to risk morality to achieve that national interest. An example of whether an action is morally wrong on not is that of Liberia liquidating properties of German nationals and waging war on Germany. At the outbreak of World War I, President Howard attempted to maintain the country's neutrality, though he tended to support the Allies, whose colonial territories in Africa surrounded Liberia.
World War I resulted in the trade between Liberia and Britain, France and the United States being reduced to almost zero due to the German submarine blockade. Income from customs revenue was disrupted, when Germany, Liberia's major trading partner, withdrew from Liberia. This situation forced Liberia to postpone payment on the $1.7 million loan, and led President Daniel E. Howard to seek a $5 million loan from the Woodrow Wilson Administration. This attempt had a quicksand effect. The United States Congress refused to approve the loan.
Despite German protests, Howard allowed the French to operate a wireless station in the capital, Monrovia. Realizing that their complaints were in vain, the Germans sent a submarine to attack the city in 1917, forcing the reluctant Howard to side with the Allies and declare war on Germany on January 12, 1918.
Liberia then liquidated the property of German nationals in Liberia. The money generated from this liquidation was deposited into the Liberian government bank account to compensate for loss of revenue from the blockade. The war ended in 1918, and Liberia's Legislature ratified the Treaty of Versailles. (Timelines.com, Liberia declares war on Germany, August 8, 1914)
The German American political scientist Hans J. Morgenthau in his book Politics Among Nations (1948) perhaps best summed up the ideal of modern diplomacy: (1) Diplomacy must be divested of its crusading spirit; (2) the objectives of foreign policy must be defined in terms of the national interest and must be supported with adequate power; (3) diplomacy must look at the situation from the point of view of other nations; (4) nations must be willing to compromise on all issues that are not vital to them; (5) the armed forces are the instrument of foreign policy, not its master; and (6) the government is the leader of public opinion, not its slave. Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009.)
Morgenthau waned in 1957: "No statesman could pursue indiscriminately a policy of protecting democratic governments everywhere in the world without courting certain disaster."
He also stressed that "The realist recognises that a moral decision, especially in the political sphere, does not imply a simple choice between a moral principle and a standard of action which is morally irrelevant or even outright immoral. A moral decision implies always a choice among different moral principles, one of which is given precedence over others. To say that a political action has no moral purpose is absurd; for political action can be defined as an attempt to realize moral values through the medium of politics, that is, power. The relevant moral question concerns the choice among different moral values, and it is at this point that the realist and the utopian part company."
He also stated that "There is no escape from the evil of power, regardless of what one does. Whenever we act with reference to our fellow men, we must sin, and we must still sin when we refuse to act; for the refusal to be involved in the evil of action carries with it the breach of the obligation to do one's duty. No ivory tower is remote enough to offer protection against the guilt in which the actor and bystander... are inextricably enmeshed."
Conclusion
To conclude, not withstanding, morality must be encouraged in pursuit of foreign policy for it is relevant but should not be a decisive factor either. The world has become a global village and the idealism of isolationism will be difficult to pursue. America needs the rest of the world as much as it needs them. The myth that America will not buy into the idea of “pessimism and defeatism” sets them apart from other nations, but it also shows that their political expediency overrides morality. The diplomatic information released by Wikileaks exposed the courses of actions taken in diplomacy. The morality of some actions of the information release has been question by many. Asked if the WikiLeaks of 2010 would damage American relations with other countries, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted that "governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets." (Wikipedia) The advocacy for morality in the pursuit of foreign policy has led to less deadlier or brutal wars through technological advancement of precise weapons and casualty evacuation strategies. President Roosevelt in a famous Chicago speech of October 1937 said that "national morality is as vital as private morality." In the most famous work of Edward Hallett Carr, he quoted President Woodrow Wilson's argument in an address to the Congress of the United States on the declaration of war in 1917 that "We are at the beginning of an age in which it will be insisted that the same standards of conduct and responsibility for wrong shall be observed among nations and their governments that are observed among the individual citizens of civilized states.”
