A moral action is one that upholds and strengthens the ties that bind a community together, so how can a foreign incursion into sovereign territory be regarded as moral? The U.S.-led coalition’s military intervention against the Islamic State raises an interesting question about the place for morality in foreign affairs, and exposes this specific case for closer scrutiny of the presence of a moral argument.
To date, the United States, the United Kingdom, and a number of other nations have conducted hundreds of airstrikes against IS targets. Congress has authorized the training of 5,000 moderate Syrian rebels. And days ago, the U.S. began airdropping weapons and medical supplies to Iraqi Kurds in Kobani. We are once again waging war on an enemy in which President Obama has vowed to “degrade and ultimately destroy.”
When justifying military intervention, the international doctrine of “just war” principles typically applies. The Obama administration has used this explicitly when justifying drone strikes, and indirectly when referring to the net costs, legitimacy, and right intentions of a military intervention in Libya. In presenting his argument for a response to IS, President Obama has couched the rationale in terms of a morality that appeals to a “common humanity”. But does morality have a place in foreign policy? Common humanity may be the most obvious and appealing moral position, but it is the notion of a common security that justifies these actions as a moral strategy.
If we think of morality as tied up with notions of community cohesion and strength, to conceive of a “moral foreign policy” we must do as William Schulz, former Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, implores, and measure foreign policy objectives by the extent to which they support the interests of American citizens. By relating foreign policy objectives to issues central to their lives, Schulz, in his book “In Our Own Best Interest”, provides examples of how seemingly distant, foreign events impact individual interests back home. Foreign labor markets offer enticing alternatives to offshore jobs to lower cost and less regulated locations, impacting wages and American jobs. There are macroeconomic impacts of a world with less political suppression; political and economic freedoms abroad support buoyant international trade. Foreign policy objectives must be tested for their domestic impacts to determine their morality, as measured by the American people.
It is more challenging to address the impacts of American foreign policy on the global community, which truly is a melting pot of different–and at times conflicting–norms, values, and aspirations. But Schulz provides a direction for how this may be achieved, reflecting that human compassion dictates why human rights matter, and that this is unbounded by national borders. President Obama references these bonds of “common humanity”; an argument he previously made for intervention in Libya, and one he is making now in support of the current campaign against IS.
But appeals to common humanity are more fragile than appeals to common security. A testament to an overwhelming moral outrage can be seen in the coalition forming to combat this threat: more than 40 nations have pledged their support in the fight against IS, including 10 Arab nations, and a number of strange bedfellows. But these sovereign states have different views of the sanctity of life and the meaning of liberty within their own borders. Whilst there have been widespread and intuitive reactions to the shocking and gross indecency of IS’s terrorizing acts that undermine a perceived moral code, these unalike and unallied nations come with different values, customs, and moral codes, but unite over a perceived common threat
This is a moral intervention because what IS does unravels and destroys communities. By reinforcing the centrality of regional partners in securing stability in the region, Obama acknowledges that for this offensive to have moral legitimacy an effective Iraqi government must be in place and engaged, and key regional players in support. These partnerships are founded on a moral response, but a morality that is based only on the ties that bind them together–the concept of global security. Morality and national security interests don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Morality and conflicting moral codes can coexist.
But what of the national security interests? The President acknowledges that there is no evidence of a direct threat on America from this group at this time, but it is the specter of what might happen that is used to justify action now.
Is this moral? If action prevents an attack on American citizens by this group, absolutely. If the group’s ambitions lie closer to home, building strength in the domestic region only, the President’s position is more akin to moralizing. But it is highly classified, highly complex intelligence that informs our understanding of the substance of such threats, and in this regard the public does not have full information.
But we do know that IS is not a benign threat. The executions of two American journalists demonstrate both the threat of IS and the threat of retaliatory acts on American citizens. Currently, American citizens may be in greater danger in Erbil than in New York City–but other threats to the West may not be so clearly elucidated.
There are clear implications for the global economy of a reshuffling of state boundaries and leadership in this region. Unrest and conflict have destabilizing effects that ripple throughout other parts of the world; undermining political systems, economic systems, and unraveling communities, both directly and as conceptual ideals.
Political vacuums and the growth of destitute, disenfranchised groups breed violence–violence like that being witnessed through the barbarous acts of IS. In a globalized society, the destabilization of two states–Syria and Iraq–has an impact felt across the world. The alleged foiled attacks on Australian citizens are just one example of how widely discontent may spread.
With no known imminent danger on American targets, defining IS as a terrorist organization appears to be enough logic to connect the problem of their expansion with the need for America to respond with their military might. But being a terrorist group refers to actions not intent. It is possible for a terrorist group to act morally if their extreme measures are necessary to secure moral outcomes, something the US appears to acknowledge through their history of collaboration with opposition groups, such as the Kosovo Liberation Army in 1999 and moderate Syrian rebel groups in 2012-13. Labeling IS a terrorist group may not be enough to justify intervention, but couching the threat as a direct threat on the community–threats to security and stability at home–does create a moral argument. President Obama has appealed to a “common humanity” and “common security”: a simple device to justify a moral position. But in a globalized world security threats are domestic and global. As George Kennan, former American diplomat, reminds us, “National security can never be more than relative.” It’s not that morality trumps sovereignty, but that in the case of security, it is required to uphold it.
Laura returned to academic studies after spending 6 years supporting the business management and commercial development of oil platforms in the North Sea, based in Norway, London, and Scotland. With an interest in social policy, she has worked as a research assistant at London based think tank, Demos, and during the 2014-15 academic year will be working in the political team at the Democratic National Committee.