What decides right and wrong in foreign policy?

Post Reply New Topic

True, they did occur before the formation of the state of Israel, but in the interests of forming the state, and by the people who formed the state. Menachem Begin was never brought up on charges of killing women and children. The Arabs also committed atrocities, and we are right to criticize them, even though there is no Palestinean state. Why was a blind eye turned? I'm going to do some more research on the period and situation. My interest has always been towards Africa, so I feel I may have been sloppy in my analysis of the situation. I'll get back to you in a bit.

The question is fundamentally flawed.

There is no right and wrong in foreign policy, and therefore no one need decide it.

Individual governments establish foreign policy in order to align a number of competing interests: domestic politics (what is the political will of the government's power base); balance of trade (where to we earn our money, and how do we keep doing it); domestic economy (what are the resources that we don't have, and where can we get them?); and security (who's trying to mess with our stuff?)

Why does Canada uncritically support Israel? Not because it is right or wrong, but because the Conservative Party of Canada is desperate to wrench the Jewish vote in Montréal and Toronto ridings away from the Liberal Party where it has resided for a century or more.

Why does the United States express no opinion regarding sovereignty over the Falkland Islands? Because she has nothing to gain from making such a statement.

Why does Venezuela align itself with Iran? Because Venezuelan prosperity depends, in no small part, on the maintenance of high petroleum prices through production controls.

Every foreign policy decision of every government can be analysed through the lens of competitive advantage with other interested nations.

I agree that it is complex, and I perhaps didn't articulate that as well as I should have. And yes, there is a bit of "what if" in there.

I was mostly trying to make the point that by ignoring morality completely in decision making, true "realpolitik", we oftentimes work against our best interests. I grew up in a culture that pretty much took the attitude that cynicism and realpolitik was the only way to run a nation. Yes, much of the time, realpolitik does, in fact, have more influence on policy, and often should. However, when we ignore ideals and morals completely, then we find ourselves in a situation like under Bush Jr., where all bets are off in pursuance of ours goals. War will always happen, but torture? Imprisonment without limitations? When we violate our own sense of right and wrong, then the people lose.

Morality does, in fact, play a role, and should, in a democracy. When the people of the United States stood up to the government on McCarthyism, or on Vietnam, or on the question of waterboarding, that was moral politics. It sure wasn't in anyone's interest to take on McCarthy and get blacklisted. But they did. When we read about something in the news, and we know that it is wrong, we are usually right. See, interests change. If we develop alternative energy to make oil obsolete, then it turns out that we have made a ton of enemies in the Middle East for nothing, looking at it long term. The right and wrong of it, that it is right to stick up for American interests, but wrong to torture, or to fund a coup against a democratically elected leader, that is fairly unchanging. By considering the human fallout of our actions, rather than the immediate payoff, then perhaps we'll look after our interests even more effectively.

So, yeah, maybe I am influenced by idealism. Thing is, the world isn't a perfectly objective, deterministic place. Nothing is a perfect if=then statement. People are unpredictable. However, one thing is usually right: If you deal squarely, people will be more likely to deal squarely with you. If you screw people, they'll be more likely to screw you. It's kinda like how if you're packing heat, statistically you're more likely to be murdered. One thing I'd like to see is the idea that human rights actually matter in policy-making, because I think that in the long term, it will make us a safer, more respected, and profitable country. Sure, carry a big stick. But walk softly.

This is good, this is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for.

I don't disagree with your conclusion. I have a pretty firm view that a country is better able to protect its interests through negotiation than through the use of force, for example.

But, in the context of the United States, absent the use of force, there is limited opportunity to use the federal spending power to stimulate the economy if there are no weapons to procure and soldiers to feed. The thing to remember about the United States is that the federal government represents a huge component of the economy, but it can only do so through a very narrow set of spending powers: direct transfers to individuals; transfers to subordinate levels of government; and program spending. And the one program on which the Executive Branch can spend with relative freedom is the armed forces. While still subject to Congressional appropriation, the President's power as Commander in Chief allows him very broad discretion in where and how to spend money. No other department of government provides anywhere close to this much flexibility. Why does the United States have a Military Industrial complex? Because constitutionally, that's the easiest way for a President to stimulate the economy.

But now we come to a much more interesting question. When decision makers come together, how much of their objective decision making is coloured by personal morality?

I would suggest to you that the answer is: very little indeed.

A Head of Government has time to focus on, perhaps, three or four major policy files. That's it. If we accept that one of them must be the economy, and that fiscal policy is embedded within that, then there is very little opportunity to spend time or political capital on much else. That means that other than those big ticket items, individual Ministers are going to be told: "Go forth and run your departments." So Ministers are free (within the scope of their mandate letters, of course) to allow their personal views to colour their decision making. But almost all of the areas in which Ministers can act with their own discretion are areas that are already defined by statute, and where decision making may have been circumscribed by jurisprudence.

For the big shifts, Ministers generally have to come back for Cabinet authority. But when Ministers do that, it is a bargaining session, each looking for resources and policy cover, and each competing for time on the agenda. The Prime Minister (or President) is not going to allow anything that impedes one of the policy agendas that he has chosen to focus on. The Finance Minister (Treasury) is not going to allow anything that looks for new money without a source of funds. Within that significantly narrowed framework, when Ministers are presented with policy options, generally speaking they are pretty well limited to a small number of options that the public service has fleshed out, one of which may well be, "do nothing."

Governments are highly risk-averse. Disturbing established patterns of action, and established relationships is something that must be justified by a reasonable assurance of better outcomes than the status quo ante. There is very little room for morality in that calculus.

I think that's pretty much a correct analysis of the government and it's brief, but honestly, it seems more like a utopia than what we have, so how do we get there?

Personal morality can also be used to cover the lack thereof as well. By that I mean actions that stand both against decency and the national interests of the nation, but in the personal interest of the policymaker. The Tea Party displaced a great deal of the House in 2010. The Tea Party, as a movement, was largely founded and funded by big business seeking deregulation, which has not been shown by history to do anything but provide a temporary stimulus and ultimately bankruptcy, like economic heroin. Many of these candidates owe their seat to extremely wealthy people like the Koch brothers. Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission completely changed the way a political campaign was run, essentially allowing seats to be bought by allowing corporations to pay unlimited amounts of money for electioneering. In 2008, we were desperate for a more honest and open government. In 2010 we voted for a more corrupt one. Congressmen are permitted a rotating door, allowing corporations to promise them a cozy job for a corner office. So long as they don't ask the congressman to specifically push through certain measures, it's considered kosher. That congressman's gonna think twice about voting against that corporation's interest, yeah? Meanwhile, constituencies that are primary recipients of welfare programs will have congressmen who are primarily interested in raising welfare. It is not in the interest of our nation. It is not even in the interests of the people, since that money has to come from somewhere, risking massive inflation or massive taxes, or both. Or we could borrow it, raising the deficit.

Reasonable assurance of better outcomes seems to be irrelevant. The Houses of Congress are somewhere between deadlock and open war. Every few months we hear about a debt ceiling or sequestration or something that is completely invented out of thin air for purposes of what amounts to good television and has no basis in reality.

This is a perfect example of what I mean. Realpolitik is the orderly, coldly working for the national interest with no room for morality. Moral politics put, well, morality above all else. Taken to their extremes, the one leads to totalitarianism and the other turns us into a Bishopric. We seemed to have a healthy balance from WWII until 1990-something. So how do we get back there? So where do we go from here?

Your description of government was beautiful, an orderly, well-oiled machine. Yet it's not the way things are. Risk-averse? They risk it all for personal gain, and wonder why we're the losing. Is there no way to inject a bit of morality (or even sensibility) into this? Perhaps we must demand that they be a little more objective and a little more "big picture". Used to be it was the media that kept them honest, but they're not doing their job anymore either. So what can we do? How can we keep government objective.

Foreign policy has many variables that determine what is done and what is not done. However, there are a few variables of which may stand out as significant... at least, from what I've gathered. There's more, but I'd like to keep this short.

1a. Votes/Approval Ratings - Want votes, but can't seem to get them from home? Appeal to the immigrants, other nations, or any other significant source. Sell your nation to them, because you want their votes! You may no longer be popular with real Americans, but hey. Gotta get reelected.

1b. It seems your foreign partners have proven useless, but now you're starved of votes. What can you do? Racism! Xenophobia! Create an atmosphere of fear, present yourself as the solution. Surely everyone will vote for you then!

2. Money - Or corporate money, to be specific. Help out your company on foreign land, earn their money and resources. Not only that, but you spread your territory and influence! You might have to divide your armed forces just to keep these guys from getting mugged, but that's okay, because they'll get you money! Soldiers getting killed? Don't worry, because there's always some desperate sod in need of money that is willing to do anything to keep their families fed. In fact, thanks to the conditions in your country, there's PLENTY of potential recruits to go around!

3. Property - America not doing so well? Screw them. You got your own private land somewhere out in another country, with all the guards and services that you'll need. Not to mention, you've got money! Let everyone else suffer. You've got what you need right here. Thank your gullible buddies for providing you with SO MUCH MONEY. Also, thanks to the influence of America overseas, everyone you know SPEAKS ENGLISH.

It ain't so much about right or wrong, but how long you can fool the people into doing favors for you. :,D

Then of course there's the part with peer pressure and bullying that keeps to good guys from speaking up. And no one knows who's good, because they've been silenced.