Altruism Corrupts Foreign Policy
by Joseph Rowlands
There's plenty of criticism of the US foreign policy. It doesn't seem to have any coherent principles guiding it. We need a foreign policy based on rational principles. One characteristic of a rational foreign policy would be the need to have clear goals and the need to stick with them. The choices would be guided by the reasoned arguments, and not by any emotional appeals.
For instance, if we decide as a country that we have a compelling interest to go to war with another country, then we should be clear on exactly what we want to accomplish and why. We should then pursue that war in the most efficient manner as possible, accomplishing those goals, and minimizing the loss of our soldiers. It's possible that not everyone would agree with the decision to go to war, but at least those who back it should work on executing it rationally.
This doesn't seem like that much to ask for. There's plenty more we would need to have a truly rational foreign policy. But can we even expect this much? Not anytime soon.
We have to remember that foreign policy is an application of political theory. And politics is intimately connected to ethics. Ethics provides the foundation for a political theory. It affects every aspect of politics. And of course, the dominant moral theory is altruism.
Altruism in practice has many observable traits. The most noticeable is that self-interest is looked at as corrupt or evil. If you gain materially from your actions, then your motives are no longer considered pure. The only way to prove your moral intentions is to avoid the appearance of doing it for yourself.
Altruism has the same affects in politics and foreign policy. Instead of rationally determining what actions are in the best interest of the country and acting on them, our leaders feel compelled to hide the acts behind a veneer of helping other people. It's not so much that our government feels compelled to help others. But the fear or looking like we're acting out of our own selfish interests is enough to try to hide our intentions. They hide the intentions not only from the other nations of the world, but from our own citizens who readily accept that if we pursued our interests, we would be imperialistic. In our country, the charge of imperialism is only countered by a defense that claims we are acting altruistically for the benefit of others.
This manifests in a corruption of any foreign policy decision. If we do go to war, for instance, and one where we actually have a strong interest in the outcome, we can almost certainly expect that the war will be recast as an altruistic endeavor. We aren't there to crush a threat to our nation. We're there to make the world safe for democracy. We aren't there to secure the trading rights of our citizens. We're there to bring freedom to the oppressed.
The Iraq war unfortunately is an excellent example. While there were legitimate reasons to go to war, it quickly became a war to bring democracy or freedom to the people of Iraq. Now there are good arguments for why, if that strategy was successful, it would be the result that was most in our interests. Certainly having a western-style free nation arise there would be of enormous benefit to us. And so it is possible that it was an honest decision.
But from an understanding of the necessary effects of altruism on our foreign policy, it was an outcome we could easily have predicted. At minimum, we should be suspicious that the effort is really genuine. Because once altruism is settled on as the guiding principle, even the goal of liberation is corrupted. Instead of doing whatever is necessary to accomplish that goal, trade-offs will be made to make sure that the wishes of others are taken into account. By justifying the actions based on the desires of the Iraqi people to be free, we have to respect their desire to have a theocracy as well. If we say that we're fighting on their behalf, then we can't simply ignore their wishes. Especially when people start shouting that we don't care about there wishes, and are trying to impose our own will on them. Once altruism is accepted as part of a foreign policy action, it corrupts it thoroughly.
Even if we were able to enact some kind of foreign policy decision unambiguously for our own benefit, it's more than likely that the government would then feel obligated to get involved in other areas that have no possible benefit to our country. Again, altruism would demand that we try to prove that we aren't really selfish and working for our own benefits. And that means sometimes acting where no possible interest exists, in order to prove that we aren't selfish.
Certainly we should push for a more rational foreign policy, and criticize the problems that do exist. And when we support a policy, we should be prepared for a corruption of the purpose in the name of altruism. But the real fight for a rational foreign policy must start with a war on the ethical system of altruism. Until its defeated, and rational self-interest is accepted as not simply practical, but moral as well, we can always expect to see the corrupting force of altruism subvert even the best of decisions.
Discuss this Article (29 messages)
|
