In the lecture the professor posed the
question of if the international realm is devoid of morality. Throughout the
readings for this section I found myself think along the same lines as Hans
Morgenthau in that at one point in time the international realm was not devoid of
morality, but in today’s world it is in fact devoid of morality. In Hans
Morgenthau’s The Twilight of International Morality he states “ The democratic
selection and the responsibility of government officals destroyed international
morality as an effective system of restraints, nationalism destroyed the
international society itself within which that morality had operated”( Morgenthau,
pg 93). Democratic selection and Nationalism has made it that government
officals care less about other countries and their citizens, and more about
what is best for their country and citizens. In a Hobbesian view point this way
of thinking can be referred to as the right of nature. In Thomas Hobbs writing the Leviathan he
states " THE RIGHT OF NATURE … is the liberty each man hath to use his own
power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature, that is to
say, of his own life, and consequently of doing anything which, in his own
judgment and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.
(Leviathan, XIV, 1). Hobbs states that it is natural that people will use their
own power to ensure the preservation of their own life or way of life, doing
anything in which his own judgment and reason he feels is the best way to do
so. Hobbs himself states that it is natural law that people will do whatever it
takes to ensure that their life is preserved. It is this view point that has in
my opinion destroyed morality in the international realm
To this point I present the example
of Israel's preemptive strike on Egypt during the six day war. Israel faced
with possible annihilation by their neighbors who they believed was preparing
to strike, reasoned that attacking first would help ensure that they would not
be destroyed. Egypt who had been
attacked by Israel felt that reasoned that in order to ensure that they would
not be destroyed felt that retaliation was to only option. A second example presented
is the nuclear bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In both
examples the aggressors did what they felt was in the best interest of their
own nations without regard to other nations, these are clear examples of the
loss of morality in the international realm.
TITLE IS LOSS OF INTERNATIONAL MORALITY
ReplyDeleteI think that a question that I could pose to you and the rest of this blog is this:
ReplyDeleteDoes the loss of morality that Morgenthau claims happened inthe 20th century mean that the international is not a moral realm or does it mean that people are no longer acting morally. There is a key difference there.
In response to Professor Shirk's question: If I had to choose between the two, I would say that it means the international is not a moral realm. If anything, people are acting more morally. Often we hear about how society is eternally going to hell in a handbasket, but the incidence of interstate war has been decreasing. Norms against war are propagating at a rate unseen in recorded history. I don't think the dynamics of international relations have changed in the past century; what motivates people has always been the same-power.
DeleteThe loss of morality came about with the loss of restraint during the wars of the 20th century; injuries and death suffered by victims during the incidents were no longer punishable by the law. Although the past wars were heavily curtailed by The Hague as it leveled sanctions to curb aggressive wars among nations. Modern times have seen states reach a new low in acquiring resources for the national interest. The advent of modern technology gave way to a new way to launch an attack; an example is the use of drones to spy on suspected states or to singularly attack an enemy. The loss of morality was inevitable as states could not be controlled for a short period by The Hague or the United Nations. States as we know are sovereign and independent, their primarily anarchist and their key motivation is the pursuit of the national interest. This code of conduct means that in the pursuant of the national interest, conflict is bound to arise. The 20th century gave way to a new economic system that is globally intertwined. States now had no choice but to create allies that will favor their interest.
DeleteThe U.S is known for its role as a police state that seeks freedom for all and equal human rights in every nation, but the country also has its interest to fulfill. They sought to trade with states that are powerful and enriched in natural resources; other weaker states often take a back door. An example is that of the genocide war in Rwanda, between the Tutsis and the Hutus. The United States ignored the plea of the people and only sent in the UN soldiers at the end for peace keeping. Some might say the U.S decided not to intervene due to a lack of interest, or because the state had no primary resource to exchange for their help. There have an unprecedented number of wars in the 21st century. These wars are often for economic and security reasons. The economic ones often when declared see a strengthening in the attacking country’s currency. Also has technological innovation continues, strong states like the U.S, German, and Russia who have nuclear weapons command the respect and fear of states who do not possess it. It also means during an attack the country with the upper hand would be the nuclear power. Attack can be launched with the fear of retaliation.