Editor’s Note
This article serves as the third installment in our Values in Foreign Policy symposium. It responds to the first article in the series, which can be accessed here.
Ethical Foreign Policy: A Call for Introspection
How can states engage in more ethical, value-driven foreign policy amidst the complex competing priorities and strategic realities they face? This fundamental question lies at the heart of the proposal presented by Amb. Peter Mulrean and Dr. William Hawk in their suggested “ethical checklist” for U.S. foreign policy.
The authors emphasize the importance of checklists, remarking that they are invaluable tools in ensuring the integrity and quality of various processes, even among seasoned professionals like surgeons and pilots. Their eight-question framework attempts to instill a level of ethical consideration that has, at times, been eclipsed in the tumult of foreign policy decision-making. However, while the checklist poses essential inquiries, utilizing it is not a panacea for achieving ethical outcomes. Policymakers must confront the inherent moral dilemmas and the underlying assumptions related to the values they profess to uphold.
The Quest for Moral Choices in a Unequal World
Developing an ethical framework for foreign policy extends beyond merely framing the right questions; it necessitates acting in accordance with a set of moral assumptions that are foundational to the decision-making process. For instance, consider the principle of respecting the sovereignty of other states as cherished in the United Nations Charter. This principle calls for adherence to international law, including the jus ad bellum and jus in bello doctrines, which govern the legitimacy of going to war and conducting warfare. Respecting human rights is also vital, allowing individuals to lead lives free from oppression and injustice.
However, inherent in these values is a complex hierarchy within the international system, making ethical action challenging. The much-quoted 2022 Biden Administration’s National Defense Strategy reflects this hierarchy implicitly:
“Now, and over the next two decades, we face strategic challenges stemming from complex interactions between a rapidly changing global balance of military capabilities … Our combination of diversity, free minds, and free enterprise drives extraordinary innovation and adaptability.”
While the statement underscores the remarkable qualities of the U.S. in terms of national security and alliances, it inherently privileges U.S. interests, encapsulating a worldview that can skew ethical considerations.
The Challenges of Ethical Decision-Making
At its core, the mission of navigating ethical foreign policy is riddled with inherent contradictions. Essential to this endeavor is the recognition of the stark reality of these hierarchies. The overarching division between liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes places U.S. interests at the forefront, often at the expense of other ethical considerations. The stark reality is revealing: in the quest for preserving democracy and countering “malign” activities, moral compromises are frequently made.
The ethical checklist seeks to provide an equitable approach, but equity in foreign affairs remains elusive when starting from a legacy intertwined with severe inequality. Ethical standards, designed to promote the greater good, run afoul of the complex notion of proportionality, especially in wartime scenarios. Historical evidence indicates that civilians often bear the brunt of military actions, raising substantial moral concerns about whose lives are valued more within ethical frameworks.
Deepening the Ethical Checklist
To further refine the ethical framework, key questions must be contemplated:
- What constitutes legitimate versus illegitimate interests?
- To whom does empathy extend?
- Given decision X, which parties are poised to benefit, and which are likely to suffer?
When military force is employed, the consequences are not limited to intended targets—often, innocent civilians find themselves caught in the crossfire. Arguably, these decisions shouldn’t be simplified into checklist items; they demand profound moral consideration and debate.
The Consequences of Military Force
Taking a closer look at the use of drone strikes highlights the ethical quandaries in military decision-making. A notable incident occurred during the withdrawal from Afghanistan, when a drone strike killed ten civilians, purportedly targetting a legitimate threat. Critics argue the moral calculus leans towards protecting U.S. interests, sidelining collateral damage to foreign civilians as a lesser concern.
This intricacy is emblematic of larger ethical challenges. Just war theory and its application often clash with the procedural attitudes epitomized by the proposed checklist. Should deterrent actions be justified at a moral cost, like civilian casualties?
Reassessing Empathy in Ethical Deliberations
Empathy emerges as a crucial element in ethical discussions, counteracting destructive instincts that often accompany wartime decisions. Fostering empathy not only encourages compassion but also holds policymakers accountable to the human costs of their actions. It invites a shift in how foreign policy is conceptualized, moving away from the punitive attitudes associated with counterterrorism.
However, the reality of military engagement means that empathy cannot always eliminate moral conflicts. Policies, such as the Biden administration’s reiterated near-certainty standard for civilian safety, illustrate the tension between ethical considerations and operational realities. Civilians, often collateral damage in drone warfare, are reduced to numbers, complicating claims of empathy.
Addressing the Ethical Complexities
The checklist invites discussions about rights and the duties owed to foreign civilians in conflict-ridden areas. Yet, categorizing decisions within a procedural chart invites ethical perils. Can one ethically navigate decisions that may prioritize the well-being of one party over another, implying a moral hierarchy that undermines the very principles undergirding the checklist?
In other words, while empathy and accountability are ideals worth striving for in foreign policy, a mere procedural approach may over-simplify the profound, often messy, ethical dilemmas involved.
Navigating Ethical Frameworks in Foreign Policy
The pursuit of an ethical foreign policy underscores the complexities inherent in decision-making, especially concerning military engagement. The checklist proposed by Mulrean and Hawk is a step towards fostering accountability, but it also risks reducing the multifaceted nature of ethical considerations to a series of tick-box criteria.
Ultimately, the conversation about ethical foreign policy is far richer and more intricate than any checklist can capture. The stakes involve human lives, international relationships, and the moral fabric that underpins states’ actions on the global stage. Emphasizing introspection and dialogue over procedural rigidity may lead to more genuine ethical engagement in the challenging realm of foreign policy.