The Morality of a Foreign Policy - Essay Example

Morality of a foreign policy How might one judge the ethics or morality of foreign policy On the basis of criteria you have selected provide an evaluation of the foreign policy of either Bill Clinton, George W. Bush (the second term only) or Barack Obama. Ethics and morality have always left a question mark because of their controversial elements on the international political platform. Conflict, violence, warfare - have dominated the scene, whereas, justice and rules have always been overshadowed by the acts of the rulers and diplomats of the super powers mostly. There are two schools of thought viz. Universal Moralism, which is governed by good behavior always and another extreme of foreign policy is concern with National Interest i.e. securing the good of the community and not benefitting the individual member of the society. Morality is derived from a Latin word "mores", that means custom, habit or a way of life. For an act to be moral, there are three fundamental characteristics - foremost, universal allegiance, secondly, impartiality in all the acts and lastly, the act in itself should be self-enforcing. The implication of these elements is that moral values bind everyone to these norms, and irrespective of any one, it is applied to all perspectives and interests. Lastly, it should be through voluntary actions of the persons and not forced upon by any other. Ethics is doing what is right and refrain from doing what is wrong. And the good is determined by the norms that are applicable to that particular situation. The political issues involve complex public affairs, and competing moral values and dilemmas and not simple moral verdicts. Ethical reasoning and judgments in foreign policy making involves use of relevant morals and illuminations in managing foreign relations with other states. The issues such as fairness of the international economic order, justice of the global institutions, and international regimes etc. should be guided by rules, and institutions in light of moral norms (Amstutz, 2005). The politics among nations is governed by political Realism, the phenomenon that says that the society is governed by objective laws have its roots from the human nature. Since the political systems comprises of people, therefore, the societal laws of human beings are to always prevail in these systems. Any statesman should apply rational alternatives in meeting problems under all circumstances. Morality has multiple facets to a foreign policy. Foremost, morality helps in defining goals and purposes of states and other players. No specific policy directives are given, but direction and general vision to highlight the nation's vital interests is given by the moral rules governing the foreign policy. It establishes the limits for any policy measure to be taken and acted upon. Moreover, any policy is also judged on the basis of these pre specified norms for judging the acts of the nations. A moral foreign policy should address three instruments - the conscience of decision makers, the influence of domestic opinion, and the influence of international reputation. The domestic opinion is formed by the freedom of expression of the people - as judged by the media, interest groups, and nongovernmental and professional associations; whereas, global opinion influences the international reputation of the country by labeling it as a reliable and moral actor or not. Kantian Ethics is the deontological approach talks about seeking happiness and that everyone will try to achieve pleasure and gratification to lead to the happiness, but, achieving happiness does not always fall in the purview of our powers, and it is a matter of luck. Thus, under this philosophy, evaluation of international politics actions taken might deem to be right or wrong, and not depending on the consequences. Thus, rationality is based on how a certain action is performed and not what does it result. Therefore, under this theory acts of terrorism can be favored by saying that these are the law enforcement acts, irrespective of the results and are justified. On the other hand, acts of violence or terrorism can also be seen as violation of rights for others. In consequentionalist approach to morality, moral rightness is judged on the consequences of the action. It is like saying that ends justify the means. Amongst the consequentionalist approaches fall the Utilitarianism theory, in which the best action is the one that results in moral good for majority of the people. Under this theory, terrorism can be defended by showing the imperativeness of the act by emphasizing that it is needed to bring the broader societal and political change in the nations; to discipline the acts of the nations involved in wrong acts (Held, 2008). Another fundamental principle is the Social Contract - under the social contract people are treated as ends and not just means and irrespective of the consequences - the government's decisions are governed by the consent of the people and the power exerted by the government is only moral if it has the acceptance of the people. The implications from the social contract says the each government should serve the national interest of the people and defending the country should be for the survival of the people, any foreign aid and charity should be rejected; but the purposes of the government cannot serve the rights of all the people at a time, even though the government does its best. In making a foreign policy, it is necessary to promote the own country's values and therefore, it is important to determine at earlier stages - what are the components of the values of the country. It is foremost to determine a vision to give a direction the policy to be undertaken. The neorealist school of international relations regards moral considerations as those emerging from the epiphenomenal behavior of the states. The neorealist assumption states that irrespective of the internal characteristic of the state, it cannot be stated the rules of the statecraft. Each state wants an anarchical international system where, no authority is higher than the state itself. In these circumstances, each state has the preemptive rights to make own judgments for the internal affairs of the country. This creates and complicates the events in the state's territory in the uncontested authority. All states have the right to preserve the state's supreme vital interests. There are inherent characteristics of the states and their preferences for the peace and stability in the country and the region. The foreign policy of George W. Bush focused on strengthening the economic and political relationships amongst various states, especially the Latin American countries including Mexico and also the African States. With Soviets, the Bush Administration withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, to bring stability during the era of the cold war. There have been many occasions when President George W Bush's policy had to be judged as impeachment or unjust. One of the events was firing of the eight US attorneys. The question mark still remains in the circumstances these attorneys were fired. Crime, abuse of power, impeachment any possibility might arise in the situation that occurred. In the Watergate precedent, Mr. Bush, as president refused the approval of the court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Journalists and staff of the White House were wire trapped, which is obviously illegal and the court might take it under impeachment. The President of the US must have obeyed the lay and faithfully executed and not considered himself above the law in any case. Since President is not the Commander in Chief of the Army but that of the country, he had no rights to drive into Iraq. The President should not have been lying or deceiving the citizens of his country to engage in an endless war. This is the negative and abuse of his constitutional role. President Bush's policy throughout blamed Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks and thus invaded Iraq and then to his credence, the then counterterrorism expert, Richard Clarke informed the White House and the President that Saddam Hussein had no involvement in the 9/11 incident that took place and neither Iraq, nor Saddam Hussein had any indulgence in the provision of the arms, ammunitions and the so-called weapons of mass destruction to the Al Qaeda men. More bogus claims were made by the US Presidency about Saddam Hussein buying uranium from Africa and the reconstitution of nuclear weapons portfolio of the Iraqis. Even though the US Intelligence was aware and made the President Bush aware of the prevailing situation, Mr. Bush deliberately deceived the Congress and his countrymen about engaging in the war. President Bush's presidency mistreated the detainees by violating the Geneva Convention and US War Crimes Act of 1996; all Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees were abused literally at the Abu Gharib prison and not following his constitutional obligations in executing the law. The case of Israel has been very nicely captured by Mearsheimer and Walt; in their script they clearly mention that it is better for Israel to keep distance from US because of the policies it has been following in the Middle East and Africa. George W. Bush has been highly criticized of the insecurities that it has developed over time in the country, Israel. Though, there had been strong bilateral terms between both US and Israel, but the deterioration of Israel's external environment is mainly because of President Bush's Foreign Policy. Evaluating George W. Bush's policy on grounds of morality in relations between the states has been a biggest casualty of the foreign policies. Morality has been misused by the administration and what is visible is the return or realism; where national interests are kept above all irrespective of any moralities taken into account in developing the relationships, good or bad. President George W. Bush has been reckless in promoting peace and democracy all over the world. But, the intervention into Iraq by the US cannot be called realist in any way. The motives behind the Iraq's intervention were driven by the next target Afghanistan and to tell the world that US Administration's spree towards Saddam Hussein was justified. Since there were more political interests of US at stake in Iraq than in any other place. The proximity to the Iraqi oil, and establishment of military bases in Iraq had put doubts on the credibility of the President Bush. But, with countries like Russia and China, that are likely to be the next superpowers after US and can be of potential benefit to US because of the geostrategic advantages that these countries can provide, the relationship is based on achieving cooperation and collaboration on economic front and also on the security line. All democratic play has been downplayed with countries like Pakistan to involve these non democratic governments also in the War on Terror that the US has been fighting. Fighting this war has lead to march into Afghanistan. Not only the war on terror, other motives of the President Bush's foreign policy are driven by rising oil and gas prices and thus the administration's focus on international energy policy - so the focus advanced from Middle East towards the Central Asia. President George W. Bush's approach towards promotion of democratic efforts in all nations has remained an irony - it has worsened lives of many people across the world and has also compromised on the so called democracy prevailing in the US itself. To conclude, it cannot be defended on purviews of either consequentionalist or the non consequentionalist approaches. It was neither the use of right means to protect the national interest, nor these actions resulted in the right and justified actions. There will always remain an open chapter about what is right or what is wrong. There are always costs, trade-offs and compromises involved in what policy will be implemented or which will emerge at the outset. Even when the three major instruments earlier mentioned are present, the major goals set and values defined the question that how to achieve those goals will remains unattended. To follow the means or to focus on the end is the question. US Foreign Policy has never taken a cosmopolitan approach - that is behaving in ways that you think others should behave. It has never initiated negotiating international laws, and follow once negotiated; and has never done the right thing even no law exists. Though it does not always require obeying rules that the nation has its consent, but still it is in benefit for the overall good of the global people and not just a particular state. References Astute, M.R. (2005), International Ethics. Rowman & Littlefield Ari, B. (2008), A friend like this: re-evaluating Bush and Israel. Middle East Policy Carothers, T. (2006), Confronting the weakest link: Aiding Political Parties in New Democracies Held, V. (2008), How terrorism is wrong. Oxford University Press, US Lepgold, J. & McKeown, T. (1995), Is American Foreign Policy Exceptional An empirical analysis. Political Science Quarterly Read More