rickyp wrote:ray

Do you have any evidence that the U.S. approach to Israel and Palestine since the 1950's is based on securing energy sources?

One reason the US couldn't come out stronger for Israel, is that it can't piss off the KSA and others.
One reason that the US can't support Palestinian aspirations more aggressively is that support for Palestine must be filtered through the competing Arab factions. Some supported by KSA and other Sunni despots, some by Iran. And the notion of democracy not supported by any of the oil rich despots.
The point is that oil is one more factor in this mess. If the US were energy independent in the past, it may have been less difficult to navigate this mess...
Since the US is now largely independent of Middle East oil ... it may make things... less complicated.

So you are saying that the US would support both Israel and Palestinians even more if it weren't for oil? Do you recall that the Saudi led Arab oil embargo was partially because the US supported Israel in the Yom Kippur war?Of course, you still haven't provided any evidence which was my original request (although I do appreciate your 180 as it relates to Israel -- I thought you were going to say the opposite.).

I think you have to acknowledge that there are both ethical and practical reasons for the actions of nation states. And that includes US diplomacy towards Israel. Partially it is shared values as it relates to democracy and basic western freedoms. Partially it is about shared military and economic interests. And partially it is about US internal politics.

In any case, as it relates to KSA, I would have supported your view much more about 8 years ago. In fact, GWB was saying very similar things at that time (after he learned his lesson in Iraq, but couldn't directly admit that he made a whopper of a mistake). However, in the last few years the world has changed. We've seen the dissolution of Syria, Iraq, and Libya. We've seen ISIS which is even more radical/reactionary and violent than the existing order, which is also reactionary and violent. We've seen that the Arab spring went virtually nowhere and the people are caught between two undemocratic, violent, and reactionary movements that are incompatible with the western freedoms that we treasure. Sure we should be ethical where possible, but open your eyes at what is going on. It's a world of mess out there.

ray

So you are saying that the US would support both Israel and Palestinians even more if it weren't for oil?

Well, they would have the option to do so...
I'm not sure what would happen. Oil constrains support for Palestine, and complicates support for Israel.
I think the dynamic of how the US attempts to referee between the two might also change of the other actors in the Middle East weren't as influential.

Ray

Sure we should be ethical where possible, but open your eyes at what is going on. It's a world of mess out there.

I think that the world is a mess, because of decades of unethical foreign policy.(Too many accommodations, too much hypocrisy, too many attempts to manage events and orchestrate geopolitics.) )
I don't see any reason to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Ricky if you make one more crack about what you perceive to be my faulty reading comprehension....

...I'll continue to laugh myself silly. Please do not make me spill my drink.

here's what i said to RayJay earlier... I couldn't be clearer..

No, actually you could not be more cryptic, throughout this whole thread. Admit it Ricky: you're all over the road on this one. And then of course we get blamed for not understanding your thesis (if indeed you had one). You'd rather blame other people than yourself when they do not understand just what the hell you're talking about. Just because we do not have a clue what you're saying sometimes (or often...very often...) does not make us less intelligent than yourself.

I was going to enumerate my reasons why a truly ethical, or even a very ethical (if not perfectly so) foreign policy is a laudable goal, but impossible in practice. But I'm just making my hands tired; because no matter what anybody says, you'll try to insult their intelligence. My advice to you is to have more patience with us idiots since we are all clearly not smart enough to keep up with you.

These message boards are supposed to be for discussion, not random insults about other participants' intelligence. One of the worst things you can do to someone is not take them seriously. I think I'll have some intelligent debate with everybody else from now on. The rest of you have raised some decent points, certainly that do not deserve to be belittled (or dodged).

By the way Danivon, Robin Cook, was that the actual foreign secretary at the time? I remember a resignation from the government just before hostilities commenced in 2003 but I didn't think it was a member of the actual cabinet (like a junior minister instead, in other words). But memory fails me in this case.

JimHackerMP wrote:By the way Danivon, Robin Cook, was that the actual foreign secretary at the time? I remember a resignation from the government just before hostilities commenced in 2003 but I didn't think it was a member of the actual cabinet (like a junior minister instead, in other words). But memory fails me in this case.

He was Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, and then was moved to a less important position, but still a Cabinet post: Leader of the House (the job involves setting the government agenda in the Commons). Apparently this demotion was because he was pro-Euro and Blair wanted to head off any arguments over the single currency. It was before 9/11.

There were a few other resignations - John Denham and Lord Hunt were junior ministers. Claire Short stayed on in March 2003 despite obvious misgivings, but later stood down from her Cabinet role as international Development Secretary because of the lack of post-invasion planning.

hacker

I was going to enumerate my reasons why a truly ethical, or even a very ethical (if not perfectly so) foreign policy is a laudable goal, but impossible in practice

George Bushes foreign policy in Africa was an example of ethical foreign policy. Therefore ethical foreign policy is not impossible.
You never bothered to respond to that, so I'll repeat it and ask why not?

How is that an example of an ethical foreign policy, Ricky? George Bush spent money to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa and he has been rightly praised for that. But there were no counter-vailing interests involved there--like trade, oil, strategic interests, etc. You cannot look at a portion of a president'a foreign policy like that. You want to make an argument that his overall foreign policy was ethical/moral?

Doesn't that rather depend on your definition of ethical ?

Sassenach wrote:Doesn't that rather depend on your definition of ethical ?

Exactly. When we know what the ethics are that are used to frame an "ethical policy", we can judge it on that basis, or on our own ethics - which may and probably do differ.

And another thing: it may be ethical to push hard for full freedoms in Saudi Arabia, but if we push too hard that society can blow up and the entire region can become even more unstable. (10 years ago I thought that wasn't possible, but apparently there are many degrees of violence and anarchy.) Do we really want ISIS and Iran to be even stronger? We can then talk about how wonderful we are as even more people are left homeless and dead.

I tend to think there's a degree of narcissism in viewing all of the events in the Middle East through a prism of our own foreign policy. The reality of the situation is that we have limited influence on Saudi domestic policies and our capacity to effect change is a lot less than we might like to think. Granted, we do sell them most of their arms and to a certain extent Saudi independence is underwritten by the US military, but that only buys so much. If they don't want to liberalise their society then no amount of moral posturing on our part is going to force them to do it.

I'd also question whether a consistent policy of always pushing democracy in all cases would really have bought America any greater respect in the region. An unwavering commitment to liberal values didn't really do Denmark any favours when the farago over the Jyllands Posten cartoons was in full swing.

Exactly. When we know what the ethics are that are used to frame an "ethical policy", we can judge it on that basis, or on our own ethics - which may and probably do differ.

I am so glad someone said that. I was framing a reply before which I cut short, but did I say already "one man's ethics are another's....lack thereof"?

What should a nation's foreign policy be like? It boils down to the following:

The best foreign policy is one which best protects its people. First duty of government. No more, no less. Period, Amen. Q.E.D.

Yes, it's great to be nice to other countries, and generous, and helpful. We've written off billions of dollars in loans to allies...hey, what's a few trillion francs nouveux between friends, right? We respond to natural disasters abroad (better, it seems, than at home!) But the first duty of government is to protect its OWN citizens, both at home and abroad. Foreign policy is an instrument of that protection, and that's the only way to judge it as "good" or "bad". Perhaps one day there will be peace on Earth, and a sort of federal-global government (a democratic one!) that will maintain the permanent peace. One day. But that day is not today!

And until that day, I fail to see why the United States is held to a higher standard by the kind of people who go about formulating a foreign policy for the United States that is all about playing nice with others. Our servicemen have fought and died in wars delivered to our doorsteps by such "peace-loving" men and women. It's when the United States Government forgets this very simple truth that we get ourselves (and others) into trouble. So in a sense, our most ethical foreign policy is not to have such a thing. As a nation, we've been "nicest" at the times we've been most selfish in our foreign policy planning. A group of well-armed and well-trained soldiers firing off millions of rounds of ammunition defeated Adolph Hitler; not missionaries who believe "violence doesn't solve anything". Foreign policy planners at State are not just silly to forget this: they're guilty of gross negligence.

I need no links to academic papers, the Huffington Post, or this or that piece of Googled-up B.S. to tell me any differently. If that offends anybody I'm very sorry, but my finger is on the button of a cruise missile, so don't piss me off too much.

Does that answer your question Ricky? Good. Because it's pretty hilarious when you accuse any of us of dodging your "questions".

YES! Claire Short. I couldn't think of the name, I just remembered a women who very vocally resigned from the Blair Ministry over the War in Iraq, or its repercussions.

freeman3

How is that an example of an ethical foreign policy, Ricky?

It was policy enacted with the sole purpose of assisting the development of Africa, most specifically helping many nations deal with overwhelming health issues and agricultural problems.
The policies were opposed by pharmaceutical internationals and China. It created some tension with the Chinese government because it cut into both their exports into the region and their influence in the region.
It was ethical because "it was the right thing to do" even though it didn't benefit the US other than its reputation.

And yes this is true.
Sass

Doesn't that rather depend on your definition of ethical ?

Each decision will be analyzed under the question "Is this ethical" a little differently.
But that's the point. If the discussion about what foreign policy initiatives to undertake is viewed through the ethical lens, rather than just the terms of expediency, strategic or commercial advantage ... then long term decisions will be different.

Many nations made the choice not to join the US and UK in the Iraq fiasco. Many based that decision on the ethics of invading and occupying a foreign nation under the terms offered. They made the right decision based on ethics, even though joining the US might have been strategically beneficial.
We can examine a lot of historical interventions and ask if they had been examined ethically, instead of just strategically, and ask if there might have been a different outcome.
If the CIA had not been involved in ending the Syria democracy in 47?
The Iranian democracy of 49?
If the US or UK had fought to ensure a balanced and fair creation of Palestine and Israel...
Instead strategic interests or expediency took over...

Please remember that when you argue for exclusively strategic, or commercial interests shaping a nations foreign policy ... then you are arguing for the way foreign polciy by the US (and UK and France etc) has been conducted in the Middle East for the last 70 years. And where we are today in the chaos that is the Middle East is a result of that supposedly wise and effective approach. (I'm not claiming that the results are exclusively due to foreign involvement, just that foreign involvement sure hasn't been effective.)

We've tried strategic, expedient foreign policy largely driven by self interest. Its been a disaster in the Middle East. (Anyone care to argue this point?) Why keep doing it the same way?

In a connected world, where even the youth of the Middle East are connected and exposed constantly, the notion that we can espouse certain principles openly (democracy, liberty, economic justice, self determination, etc) and then fail to back that up and expect that these ideas will still be seen as alternatives for those we have spurned due to "strategic reasons"... is folly.
In the end, the Middle East's future will be determined by its own citizens. If they are disillusioned by the West hypocrisy their other choices are often extreme or a status qua of dictatorships and theocracy.

Ricky, I agree with your larger point that shared values (what you call ethics) should be part of the equation, although we are sure to argue over how much.

Ricky:

If the US or UK had fought to ensure a balanced and fair creation of Palestine and Israel...

What time period are you in now ... the UK tried to form 2 states up through 1948, but the Arab countries rejected it ... are you saying that the UK should have attacked Jordan which annexed what we now call the West Bank (in relation to Jordan)? How else would they have gotten Jordan to relinquish their claim?

ray

What time period are you in now ... the UK tried to form 2 states up through 1948, but the Arab countries rejected it ... are you saying that the UK should have attacked Jordan which annexed what we now call the West Bank (in relation to Jordan)? How else would they have gotten Jordan to relinquish their claim?

Let reference this to post WWII.
I think that had a western power sought to enforce the UN resolution concerning the creation of two States that would have been an ethical use of power.
First, the UK abstained from voting on the UN resolution setting up two nations. Then basically bugged out leaving a vacuum filled by a Civil War and then regional war.
The UN resolution had no one enforce it....
Other than the US and UK (with allies) this left the Palestinians without anyone, as their Arab brothers had no interest in the creation of a democratic Palestine... .

In a British cabinet meeting at 4 December 1947, it was decided that the Mandate would end at midnight 14 May 1948, the complete withdrawal by 1 August 1948, and Britain would not enforce the UN partition plan.[111] On 11 December 1947, Britain announced the Mandate would end at midnight 14 May 1948 and its sole task would be to complete withdrawal by 1 August 1948.[112] During the period in which the British withdrawal was completed, Britain refused to share the administration of Palestine with a proposed UN transition regime, to allow the UN Palestine Commission to establish a presence in Palestine earlier than a fortnight before the end of the Mandate, to allow the creation of official Jewish and Arab militias or to assist in smoothly handing over territory or authority to any successo