Morality in international relations

[Winner]

The question is fairly simply: do you believe that things like morality, ethics and good conscience have (or should have) their place in the world of global politics and international relations in their many forms?

In other words, should Western (and other) nations pursue a foreign policy which takes into account the moral dimension as well as the old-fashioned realist approach, in which only the "national interest" matters?

 

[amadeus]

If only the other side agrees to them first!

 

[Winner]

Let's say some garden variety African dictator wants to build something big, a reservoir for example. He is non-aligned, he does not care who builds it. He asks both the West and China to do that.

Should the West, in this case, cooperate with the dictator (whose record on human rights is more than appaling), or should it not and let China profit from the deal?

 

[amadeus]

I'm glad you've stated that the dictator is non-aligned; it makes my job responding much easier!

Ultimately, does the reservoir really benefit the dictator or the people he rules over? If the dictator isn't hostile to the U.S., I don't see why it would be wrong for us to bid on the project.

 

[Winner]

I'm glad you've stated that the dictator is non-aligned; it makes my job responding much easier!

Ultimately, does the reservoir really benefit the dictator or the people he rules over? If the dictator isn't hostile to the U.S., I don't see why it would be wrong for us to bid on the project.

That's the problem - he likes torturing people who disagree with him, he killed thousands of his political opponents and another thousands are in jail. He is, by our standards, a bloody dictator.

The reservoir will improve the country's economy and thus also help its people, but it will also help the dictator to stay in charge. So again, should the West cooperate with his regime, or should it opt out?

 

[amadeus]

That's the problem - he likes torturing people who disagree with him, he killed thousands of his political opponents and another thousands are in jail. He is, by our standards, a bloody dictator.

The reservoir will improve the country's economy and thus also help its people, but it will also help the dictator to stay in charge. So again, should the West cooperate with his regime, or should it opt out?

Well, just from experience, it seems like making a dictator's country even poorer never seemed to get them out. (Ceausescu, Kim, Mugabe...)

But if conditions improve, then it tends to go away; there are very few rich countries today that still have authoritarian leaders. But, there are still plenty of poor countries that do.

 

[Winner]

Well, just from experience, it seems like making a dictator's country even poorer never seemed to get them out. (Ceausescu, Kim, Mugabe...)

But if conditions improve, then it tends to go away; there are very few rich countries today that still have authoritarian leaders. But, there are still plenty of poor countries that do.

So, you believe that by cooperating with the dictator you would actually help to topple him and thus follow both your national interest and morality?

 

[QuoVadisNation]

I was always under the assumption that international relations is full of nothing but countries with self-serving interests. (This generalizations applies mostly to the UN) I believe they should have some because that might end a lot of the troubles we see in the world today, alebeit not necessarily a full-on hardcore liberal Martha Nausbaum mentality.

 

[CaptainF]

That's the problem - he likes torturing people who disagree with him, he killed thousands of his political opponents and another thousands are in jail. He is, by our standards, a bloody dictator.

The reservoir will improve the country's economy and thus also help its people, but it will also help the dictator to stay in charge. So again, should the West cooperate with his regime, or should it opt out?

I agree with Amadeus. It is not wise to avoid having a hand in projects that could actually benefit the people of a dictator. If you were to reject helping with the reservoir, the pissed off dictator would use you as propaganda to convince the people that the evil Americans sabotaged the project and should be punished.

Once the people get rich, they start to demand rights. Money has always been great leverage.

 

[Winner]

I agree with Amadeus. It is not wise to avoid having a hand in projects that could actually benefit the people of a dictator. If you were to reject helping with the reservoir, the pissed off dictator would use you as propaganda to convince the people that the evil Americans sabotaged the project and should be punished.

Once the people get rich, they start to demand rights. Money has always been great leverage.

What about China or Saudi Arabia - they're getting rich (or they already are), but it doesn't seem that democracy is to follow. What if this wealth -> democracy equation doesn't always work and is dependant on the cultural conditions?

But this thread is not only about trade, it is, in general, about what's more important - benefits or good conscience.

 

[Steph]

The job of a government should be to protect the interests of its citizens.
But in the long terms interests, the fact your country is seen under a positive light is important (for instance, if you are known as fair and trustworthy, you are more likely to gain a contract, or your citizens are less likely to be assaulted if there is no hatred toward them).

So a government should always balance the cost of doing something vs the cost of not doing it, weighting factours such as reputation.

Take the Iraq war. Some may think I was opposed to that because of a moral issue that the US were doing the wrong thing. That's not true. I thought, and I still think, that the US intervention was done for wrong reason, based on wrong assumptions, and not in the most efficient way.

But on principle I have no objection with American soldiers killing Iraqis to protect American interests, if it's worth it. The question here is "what's the cost vs the gain?"



It's not a question of morality, it's a question of efficiency.

 

[Winner]

Therefore you don't believe in morality in IR.

I, on the other hand, believe that governments are not only supposed to protect the narrow self-interests of the nations they rule, but also cooperate with other governments in an attempt to create a better world order. This, in Western traditions, means all that pretty things like democracy and liberty being spread accross the world.

 

[Steph]

Therefore you don't believe in morality in IR.

I, on the other hand, believe that governments are not only supposed to protect the narrow self-interests of the nations they rule, but also cooperate with other governments in an attempt to create a better world order. This, in Western traditions, means all that pretty things like democracy and liberty being spread accross the world.

Creating a better world order and a global stability and prosperity is beneficial for your citizens interest on the long run, as the EU has demonstrated.

Is it better to go business with the Germans or to fight them every 20 years?
It is better to go to vacation in France knowing you are welcomed as fellow European, from a democracy, or to spend a years in a vacation camp on Eastern Siberia?

You cannot solve your problem alone. If you want to solve immigration, you cannot simply shut the border and kill everything trying to cross it, working in partnership with the country of origin is better.

But on the other hand, if you need to get harsh to protect your citizens interests, and the cost/gain is in your favour, then OK.

 

[Winner]

But on the other hand, if you need to get harsh to protect your citizens interests, and the cost/gain is in your favour, then OK.

So, if there was a mini-country of the size of, say, San Marino, sitting on a mountain full of gold and they refused to grant your national mining company permission to mine the gold, it would be OK for you to kill/forcibly relocate entire mini-country's population and do it anyway? For the sake of the argument, nobody would care about the mini-country's people, so you'd be free to do whatever you want with them.

 

[Steph]

So, if there was a mini-country of the size of, say, San Marino, sitting on a mountain full of gold and they refused to grant your national mining company permission to mine the gold, it would be OK for you to kill/forcibly relocate entire mini-country's population and do it anyway? For the sake of the argument, nobody would care about the mini-country's people, so you'd be free to do whatever you want with them.

If nobody cares... who cares? The problem is there is always someone who cares. And you can generally achieve similar results without resorting to killing/relocate.
It's a question of cost efficiency ratio.

 

[sourboy]

Do not help enemies, create friends by helping the neutral... any questions?

 

[Ecofarm]

Nice thread, thusfar.

Most people know my position. I find the spread of democracy to be a moral obligation and expect my government to actively engage in its promotion economically and militarily. I will never truely feel free and sleep in good conscience until all of my fellow men are free. No man is an island. Other men suffering tyranny lowers my standard of living because it bothers me. So let's not get all altruistic about this - I want them free because it will make me feel better.

Having an in-road to a dictatorship is a good idea. It provides opportunity for spying and supporting rebels. If we can stick it to the Chicoms in the process, all the better.

 

[RedRalph]

I will never truely feel free and sleep in good conscience until all of my fellow men are free. No man is an island. Other men suffering tyranny lowers my standard of living because it bothers me. [/I].

what if they are children who might grow up to be terrorists and criminals? Surely you dont want them to be free?

 

[Ecofarm]

Spare me the "Eco didn't cry for the dead Somali family" flames. I'm sure your pillow has enough tears for the both of us. Bunch of crybabies around here. Maybe you should write a song about them.

 

[RedRalph]

Spare me the "Eco didn't cry for the dead Somali family" flames. I'm sure your pillow has enough tears for the both of us. Bunch of crybabies around here. Maybe you should write a song about them.

Unlike you, the big tough man who dosent care about kids being killed in a missile strike. Some "man"