Idealism has no place in foreign policy. This is a fact I have begrudgingly grown to accept.Whilst I was a young idealist I believed morality and ethics were a central facet when states interacted with each other. However, being an historian and someone who is pretty clued up on current affairs I find it extremely difficult to think of an instance when this has been the case.
Within the framework of international politics the concept of realpolitik has always been the key-governing factor on how policy is determined. That is to say national interest, economic gain and risk take precedence over moral and ethical considerations.
Whilst discussing the content of this article with friends many believed the topic to be very pessimistic in outlook. Indeed, on the face of it it clearly is. However, this is indeed the realist approach on global affairs, an approach that has held a position of absolute dominance in foreign policy planning in the post-Second World War era.
For instance, the key line of argument to legitimate the case for the ‘war’ in Iraq was weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the “45 minute” claim; that is to say that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to strike a major Western city within 45 minutes. After the invasion met little or no resistance from Iraqi forces and it quickly became apparent that Saddam’s regime did not possess WMD’s, which also confirmed the assertions of Hans Blix the UN’s Chief Weapons inspector in Iraq, then the military objective quickly switched to ‘regime change’ and all was seemingly justified. Despite this policy to be strictly against international law it has been flouted on numerous occasions by the United States in Latin America, the Middle East and South East Asia, and Western European states namely in North Africa and Asia was primarily undertaken for our own interest rather than the interest of the indigenous population of these states.
However the point I wish to make with the Iraq example; was that there were other motivational factors at play other than removing a dictator that ruled his people with an iron fist for altruistic motives. As Saddam’s human rights abuses and other crimes against humanity were the very least of our concerns. Whereas geopolitical realities enthused us more.
Most industrialized states’ thirst for energy resources and fossil fuels borders on crack-like dependency. Now as most Western states’ economies are tied in with their aviation and/or their automobile industries access to resources such as oil is seemingly vital. Access to cheap oil is all the more attractive.
During the lead up to the invasion of Iraq I remember a debate taking place in Britain discussing the legalities of such an invasion. With most journalists, that can be seen as being the mouthpiece of the right, opting to dishonestly argue that “Saddam must be removed to save the Iraqi people” etc. Other informed dissident voices, like that of Jeremy Corbyn MP, arguing that within twenty years America’s oil reserves within its own territory would have completely dried up. This was in 2002.
I was the chair of the group of students that invited the Children’s Laureate Michael Rosen, Claude Moraes MEP, whom I cornered to admit that British and American policy to have established diplomatic ties with the military dictatorship of Pakistan was indeed “hypocritical”, which admittedly was a coup for me at that point in time, (however as this policy served our national interest the moral argument was once again sidelined) and Jeremy Corbyn MP to our Sixth Form Centre in Islington, which is where he asserted the above fact.
As Western dependence on oil was growing and its own reserves significantly depleting the need to find new locales of reserves was of paramount importance for its economy, its security and to maintain its global hegemony. Western imposed Iraqi sanctions during the 1990’s not only rendered half a million Iraqi children under the age of 5 to an early grave but the sanctions also prevented Iraq from drilling into its vast oil reserves with some analysts stating that Iraq’s huge reserves was second to only Saudi America… er… I mean… Arabia. Typo obviously. Since Iraq was a country “floating on oil”, as Tony Blair said at the time, it made perfect sense to tell an ignorant people hungry for blood after 9/11 that al-Qaeda and Saddam’s Iraq were one and the same. Despite them both being as diametrically opposed as let’s say George Bush and speaking in coherent sentences are. So engaging with Iraq militarily seemed the most obvious course of action.
Here is where I make the crux of my argument; the application of military force in Iraq seemed extremely feasible to our political leaders, as the economic and human cost of the war would be offset by the trillions of dollars worth of untapped oil, that would naturally belong to us, and the geopolitical importance a huge Western presence would make to the Middle East as well as strengthen and consolidate the existence of the State of Israel. At the same time the ability to mobilize a greater amount of troops when the need to attack Iran arises, as Tehran pose a greater military threat.
If the case for war was truly about spreading democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people, preserving human rights and stop the mass slaughter of a people why didn’t Western forces intervene in Darfur, Sudan when an obvious genocide was taking place at the very same time as our military expeditions in Iraq were underway? Why did we allow 500,000 Rwandans to be slaughtered in the less than 6 months back in 1994? Notwithstanding inaction with Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.
Could it possibly be because we have absolutely nothing to gain from these countries if we were to intervene? These countries lack vital natural resources so we will foot the entire economic cost of the war, and of course how unpopular our military casualties would be back home as they could cost the ruling government important votes come election time.
Some people would argue that military intervention in Kosovo in the late 1990’s is an example of morality being at the forefront of foreign policy. However, the mass slaughter of innocent Muslims by the likes of Milosevic, Mladic and Karadzic was and is the worst acts of ethnic cleansing on European soil since the Second World War. After the atrocities of Srebrenica were allowed to happen under the watchful eye of Dutch peacekeepers some four years previous some could easily argue that the policy of intervention was merely carried out to save face. After all if we really wanted to catch the perpetrators of these massacres why did it take so long to capture Milosevic and Karadzic with Mladic still at large?
Justice was clearly not on the agenda here with the façade of military force highlighting to the Serbs that NATO is the dominant military power acting without its approval or authority will only have negative repercussions. As Noam Chomsky eloquently argued at the time.
Indeed putting the wants and needs of the state ahead of moral considerations in relation to international politics is nothing new. The United States stayed well out of the two World Wars until it saw it was safe to enter.
For instance, America did not enter the First World War until 1917; the war was officially over the following year. As with the Second World War President Roosevelt only felt compelled to join the war after they had declared war on Japan after the attacks on Pearl Harbour, which is worth noting, were not directly against Nazi Germany. The Pact Germany, Italy and Japan had in place meant a declaration of war on one of them was a declaration on all of them (now you know where Tony Blair got that from) so Germany and Italy were obliged to declare war on the Americans.
This example merely highlights the moral case for war against Nazi Germany not even figuring in the minds of American policymakers despite the continual cries for help and assistance from the Allied powers. Historians and journalists that spuriously argue that America was an isolationist power during this period are merely drawing attention to their own intellectual dishonesty. Throughout the two World Wars and the inter-war period America conducted extensive military operations in the South Pacific and made it quite clear to the existing European powers at the time that the South Pacific was its domain whilst trying to get a foothold into the Middle East.
There are so many areas in the world today where morality and ethics should play a greater role in policymaking. Israel’s continual human rights violations in the Occupied Territories are a prime example. At a time when our leaders should be pushing Israel to stop its settlement expansion policy we allow it to commit acts of genocide in Gaza as seen in January 2009. Burma’s internment of Aung San Sui Kyi continues to only draw hollow words from Western powers, despite being elected Prime Minister in 1990 she has been under house arrest for almost fourteen of the past twenty years.
These are merely two examples of many one could easily give, however, as intervening in these areas do not fit in with our long-term security and economic ambitions moral, ethical and principled arguments will continue to not feature in our foreign policy. With my pessimism proving to be justified.
