Ethical Consideration in Foreign Policy - Essay Example

To what extent is there a place for ethical consideration in foreign policy It has always been debated that who is really making UK foreign policy? In fact there is no simple or singular answer since the government simultaneously pursues multiple foreign policies involving different combinations of institutions, actors and external pressures. Each foreign policy is discussed under the light of New Labour's impact upon the four interrelated phases of the foreign policy process: formulation, interpretation, implementation and presentation. For example in the current context, Blair's government has found it difficult to implement many of its foreign policy initiatives and has relied instead upon three 'big ideas', namely, multilateralism, Atlanticism and neo-liberalism. To date, it has failed to resolve the practical tensions between these three commitments. In a nutshell, the foreign policy of a country is a set of goals that seeks to outline how that particular country will interact with other countries of the world and, to a lesser extent, non-state actors. Foreign policies are meant to protect a country's national interests, ideological goals, national security, and economic prosperity. This can be accomplished when one country has a peaceful policy towards its neighbouring countries. Nominally, creating foreign policy is usually the job of the head of government and the foreign minister (or equivalent). In some countries, the legislature also has considerable oversight. Every country has a foreign policy to ensure that its needs are represented in the global community. However, in the past, especially during the Cold War, and throughout history, power has been used in the international scene to push forward national interests and agendas, sometimes without any regard to the nations and people they may directly or indirectly affect. This has sometimes resulted in a rise in resentment against some of these nations who are then seen as bullies, getting away with many acts of hypocrisy. In the increasingly smaller global community, "national interests" do not necessarily mean that they are good for the international community. It is sometimes difficult to decide when national interests and international concerns should be addressed in a balanced way. The United Nations, an international body to tackle various global concerns, as an example, has been constantly abused by those who have the power to act unilaterally when the international community's views and opinions do not agree with their own national interests. After a basic understanding of what foreign policy of a nation broadly means, let us dwell on the general meaning of “ethics.” Ethics deals with what we believe to be good or bad and with the moral obligations that these beliefs imply. Ethics involves the rules for deciding right and wrong and the code of conduct that is based on our decisions. While there are some things that not everybody sees eye-to-eye with in this area, there are a whole lot more that we do agree about. For example, to steal is wrong, for most of us. So too is physical assault. Most of us do not think it is right to cheat in school; many of us think it is injustice to punish someone who did not do anything wrong. As an idea, ethics is simple, but the consequences are profound!" ("Developing Ethical Leaders Through Action", 1990) At the same time, another opinion is that how demanding a definition of ‘ethical’ might we have in mind? The word itself means only ‘of or pertaining to morality or the science of ethics’ (OED). Should this mean doing all possible good, or rather avoiding gross wrong – or something in between? It can be argued that it is necessary to go beyond prohibiting the active perpetration of wrong against others. Referring to Galtung’s definition of violence as ‘avoidable insults to basic human needs’, I would suggest that our view of what is unethical should include ‘wanton neglect of’ the same. Yet what is avoidable or wanton will always be at issue. With the best will in the world, there will be limits to what can be done by any one nation at any one time and some disasters are not amenable to preventive or immediate effective intervention. Nonetheless, a policy of being proactive in helping to meet the needs of others would seem to be indicated by ‘ethical’ here. A primary glance at the topic would inspire any common person to suggest that ethical consideration is of utmost importance in foreign policy. However, a deeper thought on the topic suggests that an extremely generous foreign policy of any nation while choosing to always regard the interests of other nations can harm its own self-interests. An easier way of looking at the issue is to apply the topic to a more basic level, for example, our own family as a family is a basic unit of a society. In our dealings with our neighbours while we would like to allow Christian principles such as "Do unto others what you would that they should do unto you" and "Love thy neighbour as thyself, " to guide our every action, in reality the situations that we encounter in our day to day lives is not that simple. Human beings are complex and vary greatly from one another. The same holds true regarding their outlooks, attitudes, and beliefs. One’s neighbour might not share the same views and principles as oneself. Hence, the actions, which we feel are ethical, might not be reciprocated by our neighbours. Moreover, every family’s actions will naturally consider the interests of the family before considering those of their neighbours and as can be understood quite simply, considering one’s own interests will not always involve selfless acts. In fact if we consider honestly, we cannot deny that while normally our actions do not harm others, at times we do commit actions keeping in mind our own good rather than our neighbour’s good. This suggests that one should have some degree of love for one’s neighbour, but that it need not be the same as for oneself or one’s immediate family. To elaborate just a little: there is nothing to be ashamed of if one gives the greatest weight to one’s own family circle; a good deal of weight, but not quite so much, to one’s friends or professional associates; some weight to fellow citizens of one’s own country, and lesser but by no means negligible weight to other people in distant areas. However, when we apply relations between a family and its neighbours at a higher level say, to a country’s dealings with its neighbours and other countries of the world at large, the concept of foreign policy comes in. At this point, the question arises as to whether the foreign policy of a nation should only be concerned with national interest. There are two very different justifications provided for suggesting that foreign policy should be based on hard-headed calculations of national self-interest and not at all on supporting human rights or preventing atrocities. One is simply to assert that foreign policy has no concern with such matters. That is the traditional view of many diplomats and political leaders such as the French Cardinal Richelieu, the Prussian Otto Bismarck, and even Disraeli. However, one need not go back to the 18th or 19th Centuries to find examples of this attitude. For instance, Lord Bridges had told the House of Lords that he drafted a speech for Lord Home in 1963 "which took a strong line that there should be no connection between ethics and foreign policy". It would be wrong to say that Lord Bridges stuck to this view always and even in 1963, the draft might not have been seriously intended. It is also said that Lord Home read the speech in the middle of a long air journey from Karachi to London and became so angry that he there and then produced the draft of an alternative speech. Another very different justification is to say that in practice the main results of trying to interfere in the affairs of other countries, when there is no serious reason for doing so, is to increase rather than diminish the sum of human misery. This was the view of the great 19th century Liberal, Richard Cobden; and the distinguished US diplomat and historian George F Kennan has forcefully restated it. Lord Dahrendorf had a similar opinion that governments cannot rectify everything that is morally unacceptable. He believed that non- governmental organisations, such as Amnesty, could do a great deal to assist the victims of oppressive regimes or to care for the victims of torture. Moreover, governments can help create an atmosphere that is friendly to such non-governmental activists. He also hoped that human rights could become civil rights guaranteed by law. The UK for instance is committed to enter into an agreement for an international criminal court. Another consideration is that how can a nation confidently suppose that it knows enough about the affairs of other nations to intervene successfully in them. Often, with the best of intentions, intervention in others affairs make matters worse. As Cobden once wrote: "In all my travels ... three reflections constantly occurred to me: how much unnecessary solicitude and alarm England devotes to the affairs of foreign countries; with how little knowledge we enter on the task of regulating the concerns of other people; and how much better we might employ our energies in improving matters at home". In other words, any nation should be extremely careful before acting as a moral police and embarking on righteous crusades concerning other nations. Perhaps the worst example of the moralistic approach is that it tends to deprive diplomacy of its normal function of attempting to ease disputes without recourse to war and of negotiating a settlement when war has broken out. For once a dispute is seen, not as a conflict of interest, but as a struggle between good and evil, then bargaining with the other side is seen as at best a convenient though maybe not fair option, and at worst a betrayal of all that is sacred. This process was at work during the 17th century wars of religion. In the 20th century, its most disastrous fruits have included the war guilt clauses of the Versailles Treaty and the doctrine of unconditional surrender employed by the Allies in World War II. There will always be exceptional cases when the evil being done is clear and obvious and the dangers of countering the evil action much smaller. An example of the moral absurdity of the conventional diplomatic view is the alleged reluctance of the British Foreign Office to take action to save the Jews in Europe at the time of the Holocaust and the tendency of Britain to play down about what was happening. Coming to more recent history, it is unrealistic to criticise the American public for not giving the same weight to the life of an American soldier as to a Serbian civilian or a Kosovo victim of Serb atrocity. However, American policy can be criticised for behaving as if the lives of these non-Americans had zero weight by comparison with those in their own armed forces.  The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has suggested five considerations, which should govern intervention in favour of human rights (Speech at the Economic Club of Chicago, April 22, 1999). - We must be sure of our case. - We must have exhausted all diplomatic options. - There must be military operations, which "we can sensibly and prudently undertake". - We have to be prepared for the long term, so as not to have to return for a repeat performance. - The case for intervention is strengthened if national interests are involved. These considerations suggest an attempt to justify some military intervention without going to the extreme of "trying to right every wrong that we see in the modern world, in which case we would do little else than interfere in the affairs of other countries." The first four considerations appear broadly acceptable by political experts. The fifth, about the existence of national interest, is an attempt to balance the first four by more emotional considerations, which could limit the degree of intervention. The most basic objection is that governments should not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. However, it is not an absolute principle and can have exceptions. In the words of the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, nothing in the UN charter precludes recognition that there are rights beyond borders. If a nation is very confident that the suffering resulting from turning aside is greater than that of involvement - even when putting a higher value on its own fellow nationals - then the rule of non-interference should be suspended. A convincing principle is that a nation should not attempt to impose by force its own systems or views on countries that reject them or are not ready for them. For instance, western countries should not enforce their systems of democracy on communist nations. With regard to recent British foreign policy, ‘the national interest’ is (and always has been) taken-for-granted base line for foreign policy within all the major parties. Robin Cook, often seen as the initiating champion of ethical foreign policy, in fact promised only ‘an ethical dimension’ to it. Does that mean that he would have ruled out all unethical policies that national interest might entail, or was national interest still to trump ethics? For much of his time as Foreign Secretary it was hard to avoid the conclusion that ethical considerations would be applied only if they were cost free. He permitted all kinds of lucrative arms deals to go ahead – for instance the sale of BAe’s Hunter Hawk jets to Indonesia – that breached any possible notion of ethical exports. He did, eventually, resign over Iraq, but he never pointed to the ethical contradiction inherent in being prepared to attack another country on the pretext that it had acquired ‘weapons of mass destruction’ while his own country had them in abundance and was not honouring its NPT treaty obligations to get rid of them. In conclusion, the principle that we should love our neighbour as ourselves is more easily said than abided by when we speak of relations between two or more nations. Most attempts to follow it in practice lead to a very narrow definition of “Who is my neighbour?” which only reinforces group conflicts and the terrible crimes committed in their name. It would be just as immoral to say that a nation should have only some regard for the interests of other nations although naturally it should be concerned about its own interests first. Probably, an important principle in foreign policy, as in many other matters, is “Do not do harm." An attitude of aggression should be consciously avoided by all nations. Considering national interests is the prime responsibility of a nation’s leaders and without putting them at stake, every nation should maintain a relationship of concern and mutual respect with other nations of the world. References: Anup Shaw, Foreign Policy—National Interests, www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ForeignPolicy.asp, Accessed November 29 2007 Anup Shwaw, The Middle East, http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast.asp, Accessed November 29 2007 British PM Outlines UK Foreign Policy Priorities, www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0711/S00467.htm, Accessed November 29 2007 Kanwal Sibal, Indian Foreign Policy: Challenges and Prospects’ Presentation at Geneva Forum by hei.unige.ch/conf/files/FS_Speech_230103.pdf , Accessed November 29 2007 Definition of Ethics and Values, www.ethicscommittee.ca/definition-of-ethics.php< Accessed November 29 2007 Read More