Opinion 
 

Opinion

Morality in International Relations

States are not kind-hearted political entities. They have two different concepts of morality—one for human beings and one (practiced and observed between) the states.

By Mariam Khan | September 2024

History would refer to the current era as one that recorded the highest number of armed conflicts since the end of World War II. According to the Peace Research Institute Oslo’s (PRIO) report Conflict Trends: A Global Overview, 1946–2023, ‘In 2023, 59 state-based conflicts were recorded in 34 countries, the highest number of conflicts registered since 1946. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza were the primary contributors to the more than 122,000 battle-related deaths in 2023. Despite a substantial decrease from the previous year, 2023 is the third most violent year since the end of the Cold War. Non-state conflicts decreased compared to previous years. In 2023, 75 non-state conflicts resulted in approximately 21,000 battle-related deaths.’

In the words of John Mearsheimer, “States operate in a self-help world in which the best way to survive is to be as powerful as possible, even if that requires pursuing ruthless policies. That is not a pretty story, but there is no better alternative if survival is a country’s paramount goal.”

Based on the notion of self-help, are states increasing their power to ensure their security and survival in an anarchic international system, as per the Realist theory? Dr. Naeem Ahmed, Chairperson of the Department of International Relations at the University of Karachi, states, “The prime objective of every state is to enhance its power to ensure its security. That is what we know about the neo-realist theory, which is a dominant theory at this moment, and I would say after the Second World War, many scholars advocated this theory to understand international politics.”

A world that is under the ‘liberal’ influence of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, where lies morality if ‘2023 was the third most violent year since 1989’ according to PRIO’s report on Conflict Trends? “In my opinion, the national interest overshadows the moral aspects of the state or the state politics. If it’s in the national interest of the states to promote moral aspects in the international system they do so, otherwise they are more prone to their strategic interests in the name of national wants. I don’t think neorealism adequately talks about the moral aspects of the international system,” shares Dr. Ahmed, a structural realist himself, who mentions the limitations of the theories of IR, with no one theory giving a holistic answer to societal problems.

In some respects, moral and ethical considerations underpin what international relations scholars refer to as “international relations theory,” which is primarily an attempt to both explain why there is conflict and violence between states in the international system and whether such conflict and violence can be eradicated shares Dr. Paul Poast, Deputy Dean of Doctoral Education, Social Science Division and Associate Professor, Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago (UChicago).

“Ethical considerations arise because liberalism holds that you should do all that is possible to promote the things (commerce, democracy, and institutions) that can lead to a lasting peace. Realism holds that such a view is misguided because those attempts can never address the underlying reason for violence, which is the desire for power and the fear that it creates. Indeed, Realists such as Hans Morgenthau go as far as to question the ethical desirability of pursuing the spread of commerce, institutions, and democracy because it can lead to misguided efforts and can be used to justify war,” Dr. Poast shares.

When asked about the role of morality in the context of international relations, particularly within the frameworks of realist and liberal schools of thought, Dr. Peter Slezak, Honorary Associate Professor in Philosophy, School of Humanities & Languages, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia doesn’t think the very abstract and general academic frameworks of ‘realist’ and ‘liberal’ schools of thought are very helpful in understanding the specific issues arising in a particular historical case such as the Israel/Palestine “conflict”.

Discussing important writers, including historians such as Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Rashid Khalidi, and other academic scholars, Dr. Slezak mentions that they don’t use these frameworks to explain the problems today or as they arose in history. “The role of morality in international relations should be raised in light of specific policies, events, statements, and actions of the relevant political actors. In the case of Palestine, the historical record, as amply documented going back to the role of the British since the 1917 Balfour Declaration, shows that their policies were, often quite explicitly, not driven by moral considerations at all. For example, (Arthur) Balfour wrote explicitly that the concerns and rights of the indigenous Palestinians were of less importance than the ambitions of the European Jews. The same pattern persists today in the actions of the big powers, particularly the USA. Morality has nothing to do with their policies and willingness to tolerate and indeed support the most extreme violations of human rights and international law,” says Dr. Slezak.


Role of international institutions in promoting global norms and moral values

The supporters of the Liberal International Order advocate for the role of international institutions and cooperation in promoting global norms and moral values. But how effective have these institutions been in integrating morality into international policies? “The answer is obvious from the clear evidence – almost completely ineffective. Consider the recent and earlier International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings issued by the world’s highest judicial body. These have been ignored by Israel (e.g., Ruling on the separation wall) and more recently. The innumerable UN rulings on the illegality of Israeli settlers in the West Bank in violation of the Geneva Conventions have had no effect whatsoever in changing the facts on the ground. Undoubtedly, power and national interest always dominate over the idea of moral responsibility among states and, indeed, especially in the apologetic propaganda produced by academics and intellectuals to justify the crimes of states – as famously pointed out by George Orwell and Noam Chomsky, among others,” underscores Dr. Slezak from UNSW.

“The contrast between our attitudes to Ukraine and Gaza is not fundamental concerning principles of morality but much more straightforward – a case of cynical self-interest.”

Concept of Morality in International Relations

Dr. Ahmed, Chairperson of the Department of IR at KU, cautions one on the idea of morality in IR. “One needs to be very cautious about the concept of morality. Morality amongst states is different than the concept of morality, which human beings experience and observe vis-à-vis each other because when we talk about morality among states, it means that states promote democracy.” States may emphasize upon economic cooperation and the utility of international organizations for international peace, but Dr. Ahmed elaborates that “it doesn’t mean that states should be kind enough or have sympathies or compassion for other states.” But again, it is a state’s national interest to promote economic cooperation and work for international peace. “It doesn’t mean states are kind-hearted political entities, no. It means we have two different concepts of morality – one for human beings, and one (practiced and observed between) the states.”

Current conflicts and the questions of morality

Ethical acts or doing things right haven’t been followed in the history of nations. To understand this, one need not dig up books on conflicts; wars in Gaza and Ukraine have brought issues of morality to the fore. “They both demonstrate the pain and suffering that all of international theory tries to explain while also highlighting the contradictions and hypocrisy underlying attempts to resolve those problems. Ending violence as soon as possible by stopping military operations would seem to be the right thing to do. But we see, for example, Russia rejects calls for a ceasefire in Ukraine, and the United States rejects calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. To a realist, this is unsurprising. To someone who advocates for international institutions, this is frustrating,” says Dr. Poast, from the Department of Political Science at UChicago.

Keeping in check moral considerations, do they influence state behaviour? “I think moral considerations do influence the state behavior, and I don’t say without compromising national interest when they are under the influence of moral considerations, of course, it is again in their national interest to do so,” Dr. Ahmed from KU’s IR Chairperson notes how “Canada is upholding the democratic norms with regards to the Sikh community living in Canada and on the other hand they are very tough as far as Indian involvement in the killing of Sikh leaders is concerned, so here one could say, had they considered their national interest, particularly in terms of trade and political clout at the international level, they would not have had taken such a tough stance vis-à-vis the Modi government so I think states do consider moral aspects when it comes to the interaction with the other states in the international system.”

Are there different versions of morality – one for the West and another for the rest? Dr. Slezak from UNSW shares that “the moral principles shared by every tradition are essentially similar and sufficient. The problem is only to apply moral principles consistently and disinterestedly. The idea that there might be some “pluralistic” view of morality suggests a kind of relativism that is appropriate to discuss in a philosophy seminar but is unnecessary in real, everyday political cases. Morality, in this sense, is quite universal and not specific to the “Western” sphere. The contrast between our attitudes to Ukraine and Gaza is not fundamental concerning principles of morality but much simpler – a case of cynical self-interest, hypocrisy, political expediency, political power, and the usual considerations operating in international relations. In this respect, the moral arguments used by states – the leaders and their apologists – are transparently self-serving, cynical arguments having nothing to do with the most basic moral principles. The most powerful, extensive critique of these tendencies has been the voluminous writings of Noam Chomsky about Western, mainly US foreign policy in places like Vietnam, Latin America, and the Middle East.”

Read More