Duties beyond borders: Ethics & morals in foreign policy

Duties beyond borders:Ethics & morals in foreign policy February 27, 2014

Overview • Duties beyond borders • Theories of foreign policy and duties beyond borders • Are foreign policies becoming kinder and gentler? • The tragedy of Rwanda • Libya: case of interests or responsibilities? • Other cases

Duties beyond borders Conventional view: • States make and implement policies based on own their interests, typically defined by power or wealth. • States have obligations only to their own citizens • The duties of states stop at their territorial boundaries

However, in practice states do integrate ethics into their foreign policies: • Attempting to improve the welfare of distant strangers • Acting to save the lives of strangers

States increasingly expressing a commitment to aiding those outside their borders (debt relief, human rights, increased access, humanitarian intervention) • Role of activitst organisations, transnational connections, information flow etc

Two key question when considering ethical obligations • Who do we owe obligations to? • How do we decide right action?

To whom do we owe obligations? Communitarianism • Your own group/community, in IR this usually means your state • Social contract & sovereignty Cosmopolitanism • Territorial borders don’t impact our obligations to others • All people have equal moral worth

How do we decide right action? Principles • Deontological - judge actions based on pre-established principles Consequences • Consequentialist - judge actions based on their results- amount of benefit/harm they create

Humanitarianism • The provision emergency relief to those whose lives are in danger • Have seen significant expansion of the humanitarian system of states, non-states, IGOs, NGOs, civil society actors, etc. • All based on a growing awareness of others and a greater sense of personal obligation

Theories of foreign policy and duty beyond borders Realist theories - states do not exhibit humanitarian duty to others • In a self-help world, states must help themselves. • States are most likely to help others when it furthers their own interests. • Rarely sacrifice for others and use high-minded ideals to camouflage their true motives.

Realist normative argument: • States role is protect the national interest, not deplete their own resources and manpower to help others. • States may provide aid and food but are rarely willing to sacrifice their citizens.

Liberalism suggests that states do and should have duties beyond borders. Domestic mobilization: • the key influence of domestic politics and interest groups in shaping a state’s foreign policy (anti-slavery movement)

Interdependence: • visual – awareness of the plight of others (internet/media coverage). • causal, our beliefs causing us to act because we believe it is the moral thing to do Obligation: • Stemming from belief in human reason, liberty, autonomy and freedom

Intervention & controversy • Colonization: • Misplaced notions of humanitarianism helped support the belief that colonialism was justified because the West could and should help “civilize” the rest of the world. • Continue to see disagreement around intervention and humanitarianism and idea that that liberal states have right to interfere. • Coalitions have formed in favour of humanitarian intervention, but still see various critics (imperial project, etc.).

Constructivist theories: • State’s identity & interests influenced by international society • States’ interests not defined just by security and wealth but also various principles (commitment to human rights and the spread of democracy)

The populace wants to believe their foreign policy is driven by ethical principles, not just the pursuit of power (E.H. Carr). • States want their foreign policies to appear legitimate to others (be seen to be willing to defend universal principles). • So see a desire to at least appear to be following principles

Are foreign policies becoming kinder and gentler? Increasingly states are motivated to help others - why? Realists: motivations are rooted in a state’s pursuit of security, power, and wealth. Liberals: globalization and communications revolution enable greater awareness. Constructivists: interconnections among states renders humanitarianism tied to each state’s security interest.

The tragedy of Rwanda Beginning in April 1994 and over 100 days, roughly 800,000 casualties of genocide: • What did the United Nations do? • The UN reduced its presence. • The UN Security Council decided not to intervene. • States unwilling to contribute troops.

The international community’s indifference to Rwanda brought tremendous shame to the UN Security Council and the UN itself. In 2005 the UN General Assembly adopted core features of “responsibility to protect” document at the 2005 world summit. Proposed document stated that when states fail in their obligations to protect their citizens, the international community inherits that responsibility.

Responsibility to Protect, R2P • Commitment made by world leaders at 2005 UN World Summit • Developed out of recognition of failure of international community to act • An effort to lay out conditions and responsibilities for states and the international community in cases of the most serious humanitarian crimes: • genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes

R2P Sets out 3 key principles: • The state has primary responsibility to protect its people • International community has responsibility to assist and encourage states in fulfilling this responsibility • International community should use appropriate means to protect populations if states fail to do so

Libya: case of interests or responsibilities? • March 2011 Security Council authorizes intervention in Libya • Suggests how a combination of interests and values can push even lukewarm powerful states into a supporting role. • Washington initially reluctant to get involved eventually supports intervention • Role of veterans of Rwanda in administration and supporters of the responsibility to protect, who were unwilling to see genocide occur when they could do something about it.

Other interventions…or not Côte d’Ivoire • March 2011, Security Council mandates sanctions and limited intervention in response to post-election violence Central African Republic • Ongoing tensions escalated in all out crisis – 400,000 displaced • International community criticized for not doing enough

Conclusion • Humanitarian concerns have become a regular part of foreign policy discussions • How we respond to these duties, and in what situations, remains a matter of debate • See examples of intervention, but also many of inaction

Duties beyond borders: Ethics & morals in foreign policy