Shifting Role of Morality in International Politics

The most interesting reading in this week’s lecture in my opinion was Morgenthau’s “The Twilight of International Morality”, particularly his argument that morality disappeared after the Age of Nations. Morgenthau argues that during the age of statesmen, the period of post-thirty years war until post-World War I, morality existed in international politics, due to the fact that diplomats felt more commonality with one another than their people. But, the shift to democracy and voting caused morality to inevitably disappear since statesmen’s loyalty shifted to the people, and they no longer “felt themselves to be personally responsible for compliance with those moral rules of conduct”. Statesmen would then justify their immoral actions as for the benefit of the national state or common good. I agree that there was definitely a stronger sense of moral obligation prior to World War One, but I do not believe that morality has completely disappeared; rather it has a significantly reduced role in international politics.

Before World War I, there were massive political and social changes throughout the Western world. Statesmen believed that with new science and technology, and the modern arms race would result in “armed peace” would supplement the common interest of stability and harmony. As Morgenthau stated, the statesmen were tied together by a common goal of keeping peace in Europe, and honoring alliances that resulted from the Berlin Congress. However, during World War I, Western leaders had problems controlling public opinion and demonstrating that their efforts were in the best interest for the nation. The leaders then had to appease their peoples’ voices as opposed their fellow statesmen and allies. The leaders now no longer had moral obligations to their statesmen and allies, and were part of a government, as opposed to individual statesmen, giving them the opportunity to have anonymity when making decisions for the national interest that seemed to breach society’s moral codes.

An example of this was the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. In the eyes of many people, the atomic bombing of these two cities was unethical due to the many deaths of Japanese civilians. As mentioned in the text “war is considered to be a contest between the armed forces of the belligerent states, and since the civilian populations do not participate actively in the armed contest, they are not to be made its object”. Based on this moral code, the United States was wrong in killing the civilians to win the war. The United States and allies however believed that using nuclear weapons was in the best interest for them, because it would end the war and save lives of soldiers that would be killed if the war continued. At this point in history, morality no longer existed in international politics.

Although morality seemingly did not exist during the attack on Japan during World War Two, I wouldn’t go as far to say that morality completely disappeared from international politics. For example, recently with the attention brought on the LRA, particularly its leader Joseph Kony, the United States sent US troops to assist the regional forces with capturing the leader.  This action by the US leaders is not necessarily out of self-interest, but out of moral obligation.