OF THE PATTERN OF RELATIONS

BETWEEN NATIONS

It is still inadequate to argue that in some cases, commitment to ethical or legal principles may cause disaster or unethical consequences. We must also qualify the relationship of ethics to foreign policy by emphasizing that they combine in different ways depending upon the situation abroad or the nature of relations between any two states. We do not hear much criticism about the lack of morality in Swedish-Norwegian, Costa Rican-Panamanian, or British-American relations. In these types of relationships—which comprise a majority of all international relations—governments and their diplomatic representatives commonly observe the accepted forms of diplomatic etiquette, frankness, hon­esty, good faith, and tolerance. The techniques used to influence each other usually fall within the bounds of international law and the United Nations Char­ter. Unfortunately, since these relationships seldom make headlines, we are sel­dom aware of the high standards to which they conform.

But when serious conflicts develop, when the objectives of two or more states are fundamentally incompatible, and where there is no tradition of respon­siveness, characteristically any government will be likely to use threats and mili­tary force. Observation of treaties, diplomatic niceties, and rules against interfer­ence give way to other forms of behavior. But does one instance of the use of violent power, even for unworthy objectives, mean that that state's policy makers are immoral in all their relationships? Or does it warrant the cynicism of some

393 Ethics in Explanations of Foreign Policy

observers, who claim that in any case, power is always the final arbiter in interna­tional politics and that might makes right?

We should not conclude that violations of some ethical standards in coercive and violent relationships mean that "power politics" have replaced all decency as the basis for a country's foreign policies. Even in violent relation­ships, as many examples illustrate, ethical norms still limit the vision of policy makers and exclude some policy alternatives that might, in view of the circum­stances, be the most expedient. In the most frigid periods of the cold war, the major antagonists refrained from taking certain actions that might have achieved key objectives at a minimum of risk or cost. There are at least tacit agreements, for instance, that neither side would assassinate the leaders of the other, give nuclear weapons to allies, or sabotage each other's economies. These agreements, as well as others, seem to involve modes of conduct where both sides see a common correspondence of self-interest and ethical principles.

During the American-Soviet crisis of 1962 over Cuba, when the Soviet government had secretly shipped missiles to the island to protect Castro's regime from an expected American invasion, several high officials of the American gov­ernment, including President Kennedy, had to decide among several alternative courses of action in attempting to remove the missiles; two eventually remained for serious consideration. The most practical action would have been to destroy the missiles and bases by a rapid series of bombing raids. Such action would have demonstrated dramatically to the Soviet government that introduction of more missiles would only end in their destruction. Nevertheless, President Ken­nedy asked his intelligence advisors how many persons would be killed if the United States conducted the bombing raids. The answer was 25,000, including many civilians. The president chose the second alternative—a quarantine of the island by naval forces—partly on the ground that the United States could not be the perpetrator of a Pearl Harbor-type attack on Cuba.¹⁰ He chose a course of action that was less certain of accomplishing the stated objective, but that would cost less lives, even in the territory of a hostile nation. Ethical considerations were operating here, as in many other cases, as criteria upon which to base policies.

SUMMARY

Explanations of various types of foreign-policy outputs are inadequate if they fail to locate the explicit and implicit value judgments and ethical standards that go into choices. They are also deficient if they characterize policy making as a simple choice between good and evil or adherence to mere hard-headed realism where national-interest goals are established and the actions that will

achieve them the quickest are outlined. The cases cited above show that the ot

¹⁰ The president's brother, Robert Kennedy, revealed this aspect of the Cuban missile crises in a speech in New York on October 13, 1964, reported in the New York Times, October 14, 1964, p. 1.

394 Ethics in Explanations of Foreign Policy

policy actions ultimately chosen usually reflect moral considerations; but by no means are the choices made only on those considerations. In fact, the ethical content of orientations, roles, objectives, and actions may be imbedded in consid­erations of other types. President Kennedy's decision on Cuba in 1962 reflected some aspects of "conscience," yet more "realistic" calculations were also in­volved. For example, he anticipated an unfavorable response around the world to a Pearl harbor-type attack. In other cases, considerations of the responses of a political party, legislative body, pressure group, or the public at large may support what resides in the policy makers' consciences, so that it is difficult to separate the various components in any given decision.

Part of the oversimplification of the relationship between ethics and foreign-policy outputs arises from actions of government officials themselves, for their public pronouncements often refer to foreign policy in terms of ultimate ends or transaction doctrines rather than as practical problems to be resolved. Slogans and principles are useful for mobilizing foreign and domestic opinion, but they are neither substitutes for policy nor necessarily the frames of reference in which actual decisions are made. In their day-to-day positions, policy makers do not approach their problems from the point of view of ethics any more than most business organizations resolve issues by deducing rules of action from ethical or legal principles. Nevertheless, ethics, morals, and values are constantly brought to bear on a government's behavior toward other states. Sometimes the relationship may be explicit: For example, a policy-making body may be aware of, and act to implement, a rule of international law or a prior commitment to an ally despite national disadvantages in so doing. More often, the relationship is more subtle; ethics and values unconsciously block out consid­eration "of policy alternatives.

For reasons of conscience, prestige, and self-interest, governments in most cases conduct their relations with each other in accordance with the com­monly accepted "rules of the game." But in many instances, policy makers are confronted with situations in which they have to choose between courses of action that help to secure national values and interests (or minimize sacrifices) and those that are consistent with legal and moral obligations and ethical pre­cepts. When the two courses of action conflict, it is not unusual for governments to choose the path that attains or defends national values and interests. More often, policy represents some sort of compromise between the demands of ethical considerations and rules and the demands of effective action.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acheson, Dean, "Morality, Moralism, and Diplomacy," Yale Review, 47 (1958),

481-93. Butterfield, Herbert, International Conflict in the Twentieth Century: A Christian

View. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.

395 Ethics in Explanations of Foreign Policy

---------, "The Scientific versus the Moralistic Approach in International Affairs,"

International Affairs, 27 (1951), 411-42. Cohen, Marshall, Thomas Nagel, and Thomas Scanlon, eds., War and Moral

Responsibility. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1974. Eayrs, James, Right and Wrong in Foreign Policy. Toronto: Toronto University

Press, 1966. George, Alexander L., and Richard Smoke, Deterrence in American Foreign Policy:

Theory and Practice, Appendix, entitled, "Theory for Policy in International

Relations." New York: Columbia University Press, 1974. Halle, Louise J., "Morality and Contemporary Diplomacy," in Diplomacy in a

Changing World, eds. Stephen Kertesz and M.A. Fitzsimmons. Notre Dame,

Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1959. Kaplan, Morton A., ed., Strategic Thinking and Its Moral Implications. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1973. Lefever, Ernest S., Ethics and World Politics: Four Perspectives. Baltimore, Md.:

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972. Morgenthau, Hans J., "The Twilight of International Morality," Ethics, 58

(1948), 77-99. Niebuhr, Reinhold, Christian Realism and Political Problems. New York: Scribner's,

1953.

Pettmann, Ralph, ed., Moral Claims in World Affairs. London: Croom Helm, 1979. Ramsey, Paul, The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility. New York: Scribner's,

1968. Thompson, Kenneth W., Christian Ethics and the Dilemmas of Foreign Policy. Durham,

N.C.: Duke University Press, 1959. ---------, Political Realism and the Crisis of World Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton

University Press, 1960.

-, "New Reflections on Ethics and Foreign Policy: The Problem of Human

Rights," The Journal of Politics, 40 (1978), 984-1010. Wolfers, Arnold, "Statesmanship and Moral Choice," World Politics, 1 (1949), 175-95.

The Interaction

of States:

Conflict and Conflict

Resolution

Our attention now draws away from the actions of states to the interactions of two or more states—to relationships, not foreign policy. Interactions between states in the contemporary system are numerous and diverse. We often classify them according to issue areas, such as trade, international security, tourism, technical cooperation, cultural exchanges, control of nuclear weapons, and the like. Another method of classification focuses on types of interaction that predomi­nate in the relations between any given pair of states, no matter what issues are involved. Sociologists similarly classify relationships within, let us say, fami­lies. They can be characterized as harmonious, dominant-dependent, or conflic-tual, regardless of the issues. In this and the next chapter, we will outline the basic conditions and behavioral characteristics of two common types of relation­ship between states: conflict and collaboration.

This chapter examines conflict relationships in which there is the likeli­hood of violence or its organized use. The reasons for concentrating on this type of conflict will be outlined later. Here, it should be pointed out that virtually all relationships contain characteristics of conflict. Even in the most collaborative enterprise between governments, some areas of disagreement will arise. In the next chapter, we will examine specifically how conflict is handled in these collabo­rative relationships. What concerns us here is the type of conflict that can lead to organized violence.

Поиск по сайту: