Fine, fine...we can sit here and argue this or that decision wasn't "ethical" but then we'd be going on a case-by-case basis. And who exactly has the power to determine if a particular foreign policy is indeed ethical? Do we put it to a vote of the whole world? Obviously that would be absurdly impossible. Or just a majority vote of everybody who works for State? Which would of course leave out the rest of the world (and the rest of the American Government, the President included).

Speaking of ethical, how ethical was Jordan's response to their downed pilot being burned alive? As long as people like that (not the pilot, but those who burned him alive) exist and act like that, governments around the world have no choice but to respond in an unethical manner. King Abdullah ordered airstrikes on ISIS. Possibly innocents were killed. Ethical? No, but it is in the name of protecting not just his crown but his own people. Jordanians are out for ISIS blood and who can blame them?

And saying that it's good enough to be ethical *when possible* but if it isn't then you must judge it by a case-by-case basis is ridiculously unethical in itself. Because you are still at some point admitting to yourself that you must, at times abandon ethics. What's wrong with that is that it's almost always tempting to justify one's foreign policy (or military policy) when others may think you're acting entirely unethical.

So who gets to decide what the standard of ethics are? Should the UN hire a think tank to come up with a definition? And what if that definition hurt the security of our citizens?

Ray Jay:

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.

Again, let's be clear here: unless we're going to judge ethical behavior on a case-by-case basis (which is the exact opposite of a "standard" per se), then who gets to decide what's ethical, and by what criteria? Can anybody answer me that?

Objectively, no. This much is obvious. Ethical values are inherently subjective. Some values are widely shared among the nation at large though, and politicians ought to have an instinctive understanding of these so it's not impossible to try and act in a broadly ethical manner.

JimHackerMP wrote: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!

Sorry, but that is not enough. Protecting the people is of course important, but there is a lot more to foreign policy than that, and even without a world government there are ways to act ethically without impacting the ability to protect your own nation's citizens. And it's not just about aid and loans, it's about who you deal with and what those deals are. The USA is far from being the least ethical nation out there, but the overwhelming power does come with it a measure of responsibility.

Who know, being thought of as an ethical country may well help your citizens abroad?

hacker

Fine, fine...we can sit here and argue this or that decision wasn't "ethical" but then we'd be going on a case-by-case basis

all of our actions, against any law or standard are judged on a case by case basis.
We do everything on a case by case basis... making decisions as we go. Ethics are our touchstone, our guide, our litmus test. Every single religioun and humanist philosophy shares at its base a common ethic, by the way.

The question is, once a set of values and ethics have been espoused are they to be abandoned for reasons of expediency or practicality at every turn? If so, then the values and ethics are worthless.
It is the constant abandonment of the espoused values of self determination, democratic expression and liberty in favor of strategic imperatives or commercial imperatives that have created the problems for US (and other western nations) in foreign policy in the Middle East. (And for the US in other [parts of the world like Latin America).
Since the practical approach in the Middle East has been such a failure I can't understand why a move to a more ethical approach would meet with incredulity.
The incredible approach, is a continuation of the same old practical approach which has failed so utterly.

JimHackerMP wrote:Ray Jay:

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.

Again, let's be clear here: unless we're going to judge ethical behavior on a case-by-case basis (which is the exact opposite of a "standard" per se), then who gets to decide what's ethical, and by what criteria? Can anybody answer me that?

I did say shared values and not ethics. Shared values include democracy, freedom of the press, respect for law and minorities, etc.

So, I wouldn't abandon the Kurdish people because our strategic interests with Turkey are more important. Nor would I abandon the Taiwanese because of China's heft. However, in both cases I think we are right to be cautious in our support.

Some allegations that the Saudis may have maintained links to Al Qaeda up to 9-11.http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6635758

all of our actions, against any law or standard are judged on a case by case basis.
We do everything on a case by case basis... making decisions as we go. Ethics are our touchstone, our guide, our litmus test. Every single religioun and humanist philosophy shares at its base a common ethic, by the way.

Ricky, the concepts of decisions made on a case by case basis, as opposed to decisions by ethics as a "guide" are contradictory. You cannot have your cake and eat it case by case, too. And no, all our actions against any law or standard are not based on a case by case basis. And if you insist they are commensurate or compatible, then you have left the realm of ethics and entered that of expedience. In the exact same paragraph, you have blown away your own argument of the last...like, 5 pages.

The question is, once a set of values and ethics have been espoused are they to be abandoned for reasons of expediency or practicality at every turn? If so, then the values and ethics are worthless.

You're damn right they are! And again, you are running roughshod over your own argument via the massive contradiction you just put forth. Going case by case is being expedient, is it not? Behaving "ethically" (or even just "as ethically as possible") is not the same as deciding things on a case by case basis. Like I just said, deciding things case by case is not deciding things via a standard, such as ethics (or values, or morals, etc.)

Don't try to backpedal out of this one by "clarifying" yourself, either, it'll muddy your already-sullied waters even more. Likewise, I'd be equally appreciative if you do not say I obviously don't get it because I can't comprehend what you are reading or missing something you said. Because I base my view on nothing more than your own words, just as you spoke them. All of them.

Ricky, we tend to butt heads and trade some barbs here, you and I, but I at least meant it when I said I do not doubt your obvious intellect, and at least your pursuit of what is rational, or what is right. Now, however, you have massively disappointed me. Next time if you are going to make and [try to] support an argument over several pages, make sure it at least makes sense. Otherwise, it is an exercise in rotational absurdity. And I doubt I will be the only one who will take you less seriously from now on, should you continue to textually harangue for naught. Our butting heads aside, I've at least taken you seriously in that I figured you had at least a decent grasp of logic, whether I have agreed with this or that viewpoint. I even got a little sarcastic at points, but still never doubted at least some level of validity to your arguments, whether I agree with them or not. But you've allowed yourself to get absurd with this one, and you've led us through a multiple-page intellectual quagmire in the process.

Freeman

Some allegations that the Saudis may have maintained links to Al Qaeda up to 9-11.http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6635758

Not surprising. They've always walked a fine line for and against religious elements, some of whom wish to destroy them, some of whom will benefit. They're much better "players" (diplomatically speaking) than our Dept of State, when it comes to walking fine lines. Just as good as the Iranians or the Russians (and formerly the Soviets) at reconciling nearly-contradictory "allies". Also not surprising the government does not want to release the evidence to the public, given how many congressmen are probably on the take from the Carlisle Group and other members of Saudi Arabia, Inc. (including my own congressman, for that matter). Robert Baer explained how the KSA has American politicians on the take, in Sleeping With the Devil.

I know I already linked the book but here it is again for anybody who might not have caught this earlier in the thread (and it has unfortunately gone up for $8 to almost $10 in the mean time!)

http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil-Washington-Saudi-Crude-ebook/dp/B000FBFO64/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1423447273&sr=1-1&keywords=sleeping+with+the+devil

hacker, maybe it would help if you knew the defintion of the word ethics.

1. (functioning as sing) the philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct and of the rules and principles that ought to govern it; moral philosophy See also meta-ethics
2.
(functioning as pl) a social, religious, or civil code of behaviour considered correct, esp that of a particular group, profession, or individual
3.
(functioning as pl) the moral fitness of a decision, course of action, etc: he doubted the ethics of their verdict

I refer you specifically to the third ...

and perhaps you need to know the definition of the word expedient.
noun, plural expediencies.

1.
the quality of being expedient; advantageousness; advisability.
2.
a regard for what is politic or advantageous rather than for what is right or just; a sense of self-interest.
3.
something expedient.

please see #2.

hacker

but I at least meant it when I said

I don't think you even understand the terms being used.

hacker

They've always walked a fine line for and against religious elements, some of whom wish to destroy them, some of whom will benefit.

There is no fine line.
There would be no Saudi Arabia if Abd-al Aziz's had not institutionalized Wahabism.
The religion is the reason the House of Saud rules.
Except for a revolt against modernity in the 60s there hasn't been much resistance to the Sauds rule by Wahabists in the KSA. Mostly because the "clergy" enjoyed dominance withini society by their arrangement with the Sauds..
That the Suad tribe needs to control the way the religion is practiced, is evident in that ISIS is Wahabist but wants to enact a theocracy that would supplant the Saud's

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair- ... 17157.html



.

If you recall Ricky, I already quoted the definition of "ethics" above, from no less than Oxford English Dictionary, pretty well trusted as the world's most complete dictionary. Also, thank you for showing me what "expedient" meant, but I ended up looking it up myself already to make sure I understood you clearly enough.

To clarify: my point was that if your intentions are to have an ethical foreign policy, but then base some of it on a case by case basis, you are, by definition, no longer acting ethically. Now, I have read the definition from your own dictionary you have kindly quoted above, and, after reading the definition of both ethics and expediency, I am still of the opinion that you have created a logical fallacy within your own argument. In other words, you cannot be both Mother Teresa and reserve the right to act as Machiavelli on a case-by-case basis. Why? Because, once you start allowing this or that foreign policy decision to be made in the name of geopolitical expediency, you are no longer behaving ethically. What's more, after reading the definitions of "ethics" and "expediency" that you have just given me above, I am even more determined that your argument is a logical fallacy; or, in plainer language, you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

However, I admit I got a little sarcastic in response to what I felt was a bit of a condescending attitude toward my views, and that was absolutely the wrong (unethical) way of handling your impatience with people who aren't as smart as you (or who don't agree, even after 7 pages or reiteration). I should have turned the other cheek but instead, got a little uppity about it. So I hope you did not take that personally, it was not my intent. [Pass the salt, please.... ]

Now, that aside, I will respond to your rebuttal to my "fine line" remark concerning the Saudi Crown:

There is no fine line.
There would be no Saudi Arabia if Abd-al Aziz's had not institutionalized Wahabism.
The religion is the reason the House of Saud rules.
Except for a revolt against modernity in the 60s there hasn't been much resistance to the Sauds rule by Wahabists in the KSA. Mostly because the "clergy" enjoyed dominance withini society by their arrangement with the Sauds..
That the Suad tribe needs to control the way the religion is practiced, is evident in that ISIS is Wahabist but wants to enact a theocracy that would supplant the Saud's

The above paragraph is *mostly* accurate, Ricky, but I was aware that they are not only walking a fine line: they're walking a tightrope affixed between the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building, and it's a windy day! Robert Baer calls one of his chapters about the House of Sa`ud "Circling the Drain" and that may have been just being polite Remember that they have more than ISIS against them, there are internal forces, including the aforementioned clerics, some of whom want to see the Saudi Crown go the way of the Hapsburgs (or the Dodo, rather). And now, the late king wanted to allow women to vote in the half-local-council-seats elections. There are forces from within the Saudi Royal family itself (I might have mentioned Edward Luttwak's "palace revolution" possibility), a few members here and there who may feel a little "left out" of governance and not be thrilled with that fact. Then, there are the more influential Bedouin tribes. Then, there are the millions of Saudis who are not Wahabbis, but are Sh'ites instead (and interestingly enough, Baer says they mostly live in this "arc" around the Gulf Area...where most of the oil is). Baer is a trifle of an alarmist, but he seems to contradict a lot of what the Bush Administration believed (so he says) especially where Iraq, Iran and KSA are concerned, and that makes me wonder if he isn't spot-on, because the American Government does act like it is truly as clueless as he says it is.

I'm sorry if that is quite anecdotal, but I will do my best to rustle up some more sources on the subject.

hacker

To clarify: my point was that if your intentions are to have an ethical foreign policy, but then base some of it on a case by case basis, you are, by definition, no longer acting ethically

You cannot know what dilemma, what decision you are going to face.... You cannot have a "rule" for every ocassion that is without considerations...
Many religious fundamentalists point to the 10 Commandments. One of which is "Thou Shalt Not Kill". And yet there are situations when this Commandment is transgress ed by them, because the situation is appropriate. War. Defence of family\s life ... For some, execution of criminals ...

Applying ethics requires evaluation of each decision against a moral code... It doesn't mean that the moral code is always clear, always easy and isn't sometimes contradictory.

There are entire University courses on applying ethics in decision making. But it does involve decision making. The application of ethics in foreign policy doesn't make decision making easier, as you seem to imply, indeed it makes it harder because self interest is no longer paramount.
That also means that the application of ethics is Always case by case, situation by situation.
If one is consistent, it may not make the decisions easier... but those affected will at least understand the importance of how you arrive at the decision...

I'll give you an example: The Crimea was recently annexed by Russia.
Most people on this board took the position that this was an act of aggression by Russia and should be opposed.
I didn't. I believe first in the right if self determination. It was fairly clear that the people of Crimea over whelmingly wished to return to Mother Russia which they had been part of until 1954. And which they felt they had left only after Ukraine left the USSR.
Although I had reservations about the methods (the mechanics and methods of the actual vote for unification) I find it hard to support the right to self determination and not respect the wishes of the Crimeans... The ethical thing is to support an open and fair process that would prove that the wishes of Crimeans were freely and fairly being expressed. The actual process ended up falling short of that goal ...but still opposing Crimean unification would be a denial of the right to self determination for a defined people. And that would be morally wrong.
The expedient thing for western governments and individuals is to lump the Crimean in with the rest of Ukraine and oppose any change in its status. That would deny Crimeans right to self determination. Yet most western governments were unwilling to sustain that right over allegiance to the Ukraine government. An expedient behavior.

re an education in ethics... at the risk of dragging in "some expert or scholarly article.."

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v10n1/

Ricky, the issue with Crimea (and now Eastern Ukraine), is not whether we respect the will of the people in one area or a larger one.

It is whether it is ethical to pre-empt that through force of arms. While the end in Crimea may be the right one, the means were not (and they delegitimise the end - was that vote a fair one when Crimea was effectively under occupation and it took place so soon?)

danivon

Ricky, the issue with Crimea (and now Eastern Ukraine), is not whether we respect the will of the people in one area or a larger one.

It is whether it is ethical to pre-empt that through force of arms. While the end in Crimea may be the right one, the means were not (and they delegitimise the end - was that vote a fair one when Crimea was effectively under occupation and it took place so soon?)

My example was incomplete. as I didn't fully demonstrate this part of the dilemma. The way the secession from Ukraine took place.
Which you've outlined here.
I don't concur that they left through force of arms though. The vast majority of Crimeans were not forced in any way. The presence of Russian troops, who were always present in Crimea, may have constrained two things: the voting turn out of the small minority of the populace who were Ukrainian and Tartars...and the Ukranian military from denying the Crimeans their act of self determination by force...
And as for the "occupation"... The Russian ethnics in Crimea might well describe the previous 65 years as an occupation by Ukraine..
I grant you that the methods employed in the Crimean secession were not ideal. And they have added fuel to the current civil war.

Our discussion does centre around the ethics of the event. And it is debatable.
A purely pragmatic approach would not involved these aspects...

You cannot know what dilemma, what decision you are going to face.... You cannot have a "rule" for every ocassion that is without considerations...

No kidding. That was my point all along. You cannot have a more ethical foreign policy at the same time you're going case-by-case. You see? Maybe you don't. In any case, I will say no more on the subject since you won't convince me that your logical fallacy is in any way prudent, and I will only continue to fail to convince you that your idea, the way you have presented it, is based on the aforementioned logical fallacy. One of those "agree to disagree" moments would be the most adult way to settle it.

As far as my own view on foreign policy is that it be pragmatic rather than "ethical"; and it's "utility" measured by how effective it is at protecting the people their government is sworn to protect (or exists in order to protect). In my own view, anything else is folly; and any abandonment of the total protection of one's citizens in favor of being ethical toward someone whose people you didn't promise to protect when you were sworn into office, is gross negligence. That, to me, is a standard that you CAN actually follow. Ethics? Not so much.

Machiavelli said something to the effect that it would be really really nice if a prince could act only in ways that are "good". But since so many men (and so many other "princes") are "not good"; how can the prince in question possibly act "good" all the time? Not sure if you have read The Prince before, and I forget which chapter in which he discusses this. (I'm in the middle of re-reading it). But I think this is the best translation if you haven't before. Whether you agree with Mr. Machiavelli or not, you likely won't regret reading it. (I made a link to this in another thread, that about great political books, but the following link is to amazon.ca, not amazon.com.)

http://www.amazon.ca/Prince-Niccolo-Machiavelli/dp/0199535698/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423611774&sr=1-4&keywords=the+prince

So you understand my position, even if you don't agree with it?

Personally, I wish my government (secretly, so as not to arouse partisan sentiments) *would* come up with a "standard" of foreign policy. The problem with U.S. foreign policy is not so much that it's realist or idealist, or the other way around, or not ethical enough; it's that it is inconsistent in most cases, and has a shelf-life of four to eight years at best. One president (or Congress) can undo entirely the foreign policy of his predecessor(s). No sooner is a new president elected, foreign heads of state/government roll their eyes in disgust and dismay. (Gee, what's this @#$! going to undo in his first 100 days?!!) That, to me, is the bigger danger than an ethical foreign policy, or an unethical one, or any allowances for the deviation from those principles in the name of expediency! It all boils down to: how well are the American People protected? It should be ethical to the American People first...not anybody else. And if that sound selfish, I cheerfully accept the charge as should any president, Secretary of State, or foreign policy-maker in the U.S.

By the way, remind me: who gave the Crimea back to whom in the 1960s? Russia to Ukraine or Ukraine to Russia?

And wasn't that really an "internal transfer", which would amount to the State of New York transferring Long Island to the State of Massachusetts? Not the same as New York (or the United States federal government) transferring a few upstate counties to Canada, you see what I mean? Both countries were constituent "union republics" or "soviet socialist republics" of the USSR at the time. Doesn't that really amount to an "internal transfer" by the Soviet Government from one lower authority to another? In other words, it was a transfer of the Crimea between the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). Not from one "sovereign" nation-state to another. Both were two of the constituent SSRs of the USSR.

So isn't that sorta....different than transfer from one "nation" to another?