The Realist(ic) Promises of Globalization for a Moral World

In my view, the realist notion that states are the most important actors on the global playing field fails to correctly characterize current affairs, as it does not account for multinational corporations, intergovernmental organizations and NGO’s, all of which have become formidable players due to the process of globalization. Globalization, in my opinion, threatens other realist premises such as the belief that societies are contained units and that domestic affairs are generally not as important to the global scene. (We need only look at the global economic recession/crisis of 2008).Furthermore, globalization in one form or another has given rise to or exacerbated global problems such as the pollution and environmental health as well as terrorism, which signifies that future survival will likely necessitate interdependence and cooperation between various and innumerable actors and not solely states, perhaps rendering the realist view somewhat arbitrary.  

Some of the aforementioned points were discussed by Beitz as he argued that morality should not be absent from the international realm and that national interest and power are not the only motivators in foreign policy. However, I find that our world is presently void of morality in international politics despite the globalizing agents I described above, though globalization presents possibilities for changes in the future. Globalization has created economic incentives for countries to behave in certain manner towards one another as they are becoming increasingly dependent on agents outside their borders for economic well being. However, economic well being does not necessarily imply countries will behave morally or ethically, and countries may arrive at this economic well being within the globalized framework utilizing different means which may or may not be moral. Furthermore, it is important to question how much control states have over their economic well being with the rise of multinational corporations. It is also often argued that IGO’s such as the United Nations or the IMF actually serve national interests and perpetuate power and strength relations among the already developed and westernized nations, thus their presence on the international scene may not positively affect morality or ethical codes but only reinforce national agendas. Globalization does, however, present us with transparency which, in my opinion, may be its most promising feature in terms of ethics or morality of states in the future. And of course, as previously stated, the seeming ‘globalization of problems’ might also bring about moral or ethical behavior, especially if our very existence is being jeopardized.

A Backdoor Solution to an Absence of Morality in the International Community

A Backdoor Solution to an Absence of Morality in the International Community

I believe that the international realm in its current state is void of morality, even despite the fact that there are numerous international institutions set up with their main goal being moral consideration throughout the international community.  Some of these institutions even hand out punishments for not cooperating, or going against a “code of conduct”, such as the United Nations.  However, these institutions are not “effective” in the way that Beitz uses the term “effective”.  So the question arises, can there be a system that is “effective” in creating a moral code in the international community?  The answer to this I am not sure of, however I do believe that there is a way to establish a moral code using what we know about human nature and how we as social creatures develop our interests.  So what is the first step to creating this moral code?

            Globalization is a process in which national economies, societies and cultures become more integrated.  One of the issues with cooperation at the international level is that different states have different interests.  These differing interests often result in an absence of cooperation.  However, there are also particular factors that often lead to cooperation.  These factors include: an expectation of repeated interaction, economic interdependency, and transparent information sharing.  If you expect to have multiple future interactions with another actor, it seems to be in your best interest to cooperate so that the actor will continue to cooperate with you.  If two countries are economically interdependent they will be less willing to defect towards one another for fear of affecting their economy.  If information is shared easily and accurately between two states, preemptive or unnecessary war can be avoided.  Globalization positively affects these three factors which help lead to cooperation at the international level by solving the main issue: different states have different interests.  Through globalization, the people of each state begin to want the same thing.  I believe this to be the most important step in creating an effective means of moral obligation in the international community, which skeptics believe has not been established. 

            The idea of globalization is similar to Morgenthau’s reasoning for why during the 18^th and 19^th century, international politics was governed by a moral code; there existed similar norms, values and interests between the state actors.

            I find the idea of globalization leading to moral code in the international realm to be similar to the concept used in the popular movie, Inception.  When you give someone an idea that they know didn’t come from their own thoughts or mind but rather from yours, it is often difficult to get that person to agree or accept that idea.  However, if you can plant the idea in their mind in such a way so that they believe to have come up with the idea themselves, it becomes very simple to get them to accept or agree on it. 

             This is how I believe a moral code can be established in the International Community.  In order to begin establishing one we, the human race, need to have the same interests in mind, whether that be ending poverty, slavery, famine, etc.  Once we have this building block we can begin to establish a code to be used by future generations.

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.

Is the International Ethical?

            Determining whether the international realm is ethical or not comes down to an evaluation of human morality on the individual level. Pogge’s piece on Cosmopolitanism derives a global responsibility of every citizen to one another. He speaks in very absolute terms; the individual is the ultimate level of consideration, rights are applied universally, and humans are not limited to concern for those only in their ethnic or cultural groups. Thomas Hobbes’ way of thinking, on the other hand, almost absolves responsibility for one another and takes the mentality that the world is inherently dangerous and unpredictable, and if we are to have any hope of surviving then we must engage in a civil contract under the state.

            I found this dichotomy interesting. Both ways of thinking seem to have absolutes that dictate how governments should behave. Pogge says there are certain fundamental principles of justice on the institutional level that cannot be ignored when considering human rights. I respect this idea and find sense in its idea of absolute rights, but I have trouble seeing how this could be applied on an institutional or international level. There are veritable differences between cultures and their values. Analyzing morality on an individual level like Pogge does is a Western ideal. I understand that there are simple human rights that should apply to any culture, but I think that having an overarching morality would cause a great deal of strife. There would be subtle differences in culture’s interpretations of economic ground rules that I don’t believe could be resolved in simple, agreeable terms. I am not denying a sense of ethics in the international realm, but I find it difficult to subscribe to universal norms and expect others to do the same. 

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. 

Comments

It is great to see the comments coming, nice to see some discussion going!

However, in the interest of keeping the blog to a manageable length for each week, try to put your responses in the comment section that is linked after each post.  This way, only the posts themselves are visible on the front page.

Thanks and keep up the good work!

Response to Stephen 

Stephen,

I most definitely agree with your point that due to agents of globalization such as the Internet and technology, transparency is becoming more prevalent and people are becoming more aware of the actions of their governments both at home and abroad. (We have only to think about the viral videos of KONY2012 or the recent revolutions in the Middle East). This might make ideas of foreign policy examined by Machiavelli a bit outdated. Taking this idea of globalizing forces a step further, it is interesting to think about how international borders might slowly become obsolete in the future, or will simply not serve the same functions they do today. The unification of most European countries (E.U.), the multinational corporation giants that operate in all corners of the world but answer to no one, and the quick and efficient modes of transportation which allow for easy movement and diffusion of peoples are just some examples of how this is occurring. In my comment paper, I discussed how Machiavelli bases a lot of his leadership advice for a Prince on what he deems an uninterested, uneducated and naive populace. He believes a Prince can easily manipulate his citizens, and this notion underlies the majority of the actions he recommends for successful political leadership. I am doubtful that false appearances,  the idea that the "prince IS the state" and an "interior versus exterior" approach will work in today's globalized world characterized by increasing transparency, technology, the Internet, multinationals, and a changing political structure. Have we come full circle since The Prince was written?