The complex morality in armed intervention

The history of ethical dilemmas in the context of armed intervention has been long and chequered. Since the Melian Debate between the Athenian envoys and the Athenian Commissioners in the 5th century BC down to the philosophical and religious debates on ‘human nature’ since the Age of Enlightenment onwards, deliberations on the issue have remained inconclusive. We are yet to find concrete answers. Rather, what we encounter is a paradigmatic dilemma of ethics, morality, state sovereignty and foreign policy.

To understand its complexities, four questions need to be raised: 1. Does the international community have a moral obligation to invade another country to stop genocide or ethnic cleansing? 2. When and on what basis can armed interventions be justified? 3. If a country develops weapons of mass destruction, does a country have a right to militarily intervene? 4. Does ethics and morality need to keep pace with the changing nature of war and conflicts?

Inherently, ‘foreign policy’ is a moral activity and the pursuit of ‘national interests’ is also perceived to be a moral category. Various occurrences of the ‘ought’ can be discussed in the context of foreign policy. One is a ‘Moral Ought’ that prescribes norms that ought to influence the behaviour patterns of states. Second, is an ‘Instrumental Ought’ that dwells on strategy, tactics, bargaining and negotiations. In this sense, foreign policy is almost akin to a game of chess. Hence, one may wonder whether there can be a non-moral reason to pursue national interests. The realist critique of Wilsonianism and inter-war appeasement are perhaps important examples in this context. They raise issues about the higher moral obligations of leaders to protect the safety and security of their states.

In a way, all debates about foreign policy are moral debates. Yet, almost every intervention or every bombing is imbued with rational and moral conduct. President William McKinley’s justification for the annexation of the Philippines in the late 19th century is a classic case. In this sense, ethical dilemmas abound in the way states articulate their goals, interests and means. Debates about armed intervention tend to get highly politicised. The dilemma is that the norm of non-intervention is foundational to world politics, and yet, armed interventions keep occurring very frequently.

Terms of armed engagement

The international consensus on when to get involved in the internal affairs of another state is fast dissipating. The fact is that world history has largely been a history of armed intervention. One way of explaining this is through the prism of the Just War Theory, rooted in the philosophical and religious thought of St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, where war could be justified in defence of the ‘common good’, i.e., it has to be based on right intentions, just cause and sovereign authority. Hence, two key standards come into effect. One is the jus ad bellum principle i.e., “the justice of going to war” which has to be based on right cause, competent authority, right intentions, limited objectives, and war as a last resort. The second principle is the jus in bello principle i.e., “justice during wartime.” This implies that force can only be used against the political leadership and the military.

Legitimation of armed intervention takes place for a variety of reasons. States tend to legitimate it often by manipulating ethical standards. For example, the Iraq War of 2003, the NATO bombing of Kosovo in 1999, the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands Islands in 1982, and the Israeli destruction of the Osirak reactor in 1981.

The major question is whether foreign policy can be ethical. Though foreign policy is inherently a moral activity, very often it is not truly ethical. In the realm of foreign policy, the term ‘ethical’ seems to be used in a more narrow and technical sense. Though there is a broad consensus on some of the criteria of ad bellum and in bello, there is much disagreement about their substantive content. It is difficult to fulfil ethical standards because all states do not necessarily sing from the same song sheet. Most of them speak of morality in Manichean terms. The dilemma between the ‘morality of power’ and the ‘power of morality’ clearly plays out.

States come up with their moral vocabularies and tend to act on their moral judgements. Similarly, actual wars are justified, rather than necessarily just. The ethics, morality and politics of armed intervention will continue to remain a puzzle. The challenge is to strike a balance between power and morality on the one hand, and instrumental values and intrinsic values on the other.

(The writer is a professor in the Department of International Studies, Political Science and History, Christ deemed to be university, Bengaluru)