The Morality of Foreign Intervention

THE MORALITY OF FOREIGN INTERVENTION

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.    3-11

Abstract:  Moral questions regarding any military intervention by one country in the internal affairs of another are raised, and alternative answers and their implications are described.

Key Words:  morality, war, foreign intervention,

Following the popular demonstrations in Egypt that resulted eventually in President Mubarak’s resignation, similar demonstrations have occurred elsewhere in the Arab world, and these have progressed to open armed rebellion in Libya.  When it began to appear that Libya’s leader, Col. Kadafi, would be able to quash the rebels with military power, several countries, notably France and England, began pushing in the United Nations for resolutions authorizing military intervention in Libya by foreign powers.  These were granted by the Security Council, and bombing began a few days ago, aimed at making it impossible for Col. Kadafi to use his tanks and air power to finish off the rebels.  The U.S. has dithered on the issue of what to do, but with the U.N. resolution, joined in the military action.

The stated reason of the U.S. for taking military action in Libya was “to prevent a massacre of civilians” (are the rebels “civilians”?) by Kadafi, but it seems more likely that the reason is to prevent Kadafi from winning this civil war, so that he will eventually leave power.  He has been a leader who is largely unpopular with other nations, and even some Arab nations have endorsed the military action.  He was probably behind the Lockerbie airplane bombing some years ago, although it is unclear whether he has promoted terrorist violence recently.

The willingness of nations to intervene within other nations militarily raises some moral questions, and their justifications for intervening suggest hypocrisy.

(1) Would intervening nations argue that their behavior is morally justified?  In this case the pretext of preventing a massacre seems flimsy, and there is almost certainly more to it.  This means that there is a need for a more comprehensive (and honest) explanation.  The military action was undertaken with no advance justification, making it seem as if any explanation now might be for show or justification purposes only and might not include the real reasons.  What are the principles currently accepted as moral for intervening militarily in the internal affairs of another country?

(2) Does the intervention in Libya and its supposed justification mean that whenever there is a rebellion or civil war (or alleged genocide?), the United Nations should automatically intervene to protect both sides?  No one has proposed this or seems likely to propose this, which makes the massacre excuse seem untrue (or at least insufficient by itself).  Whenever there is a civil war, it has always been understood and generally accepted that such a war would result in casualties until one side or the other surrenders.  A uniform policy of intervening would mean that another method of determining outcomes must be developed.  Does this mean that we insist that all conflicts that could become civil wars or genocide be settled by diplomacy?  If so, the experience of Israel and the Palestinians does not suggest that resolutions will be easy! 

Could this principle of uniform intervention be extended to war in general?  Perhaps the United Nations should intervene in every war to separate the two sides and insist on a diplomatic settlement.  This is in a sense reasonable (and the world may eventually come to this), but the nations intervening in Libya would not tolerate such interference now in their own affairs!

(3) Would intervening nations (in this case, France, England, Italy, the U.S.) acknowledge that in the future, if other nations are sufficiently concerned about or disapproving of the internal affairs of France, England, Italy, or the U.S., that those other nations are morally justified in intervening militarily?  This would be only fair, but it does not seem that any nation would agree with this, and yet refusal to agree seems hypocritical.  The same rules should apply to all nations, and to act as if they do not gives a clear message to the world that nations with power will do what they want to do, with little regard for morality.  Might certainly does not make moral right.

(4) The U.S. justified its invasion of Iraq by arguing that it prevented a possible nuclear or biological attack on the U.S.  Thus it gave moral standing to pre-emptive military action.  Instead of being harmed, a country was justified in attacking the supposedly dangerous country first, in order to prevent the harm.  We can assume that this would only be acceptable to most people if the probability of the anticipated attack was very high (which in the case of Iraq, it was not) and the danger very great (a nuclear or biological attack would probably qualify), but nonetheless it is glaringly obvious that almost every war could be justified by fear of an enemy attack, whether there was much danger or not, thus inviting countries to lie in order to simply do what they wanted.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gave the U.S. President the right to act militarily if there was a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.  In the current case of Libya, the administration is suggesting that military action is justified by the fact that the disorder in Libya could develop into a serious situation in the Middle East, once again justifying a pre-emptive action.  Even leaving aside the question of pre-emption, it seems almost ridiculous to make this claim, since nothing that could happen in the Middle East itself could really create a national emergency in the United States.  Even an attack on U.S. armed forces in the area would not really constitute a national emergency.  The war in Iraq certainly did not create a national emergency in this country, as taxpayers were hardly affected while the war was going on.  The War Powers Resolution does not include allies, so an attack on Israel would not meet its criteria. 

Once again, we see that statements of even our own country demonstrate a refusal to interpret things reasonably and a general neglect of real justification for the country’s actions.  Pre-emptive military action is dangerous for everyone, and we would only engage in it if we believed that no one would punish us for it.  Apparently in the tide of Neo-Conservative thinking that seems to be still influential, that is all that matters.  It is not important whether an action is right.  (It is completely absurd to claim in a Post-Modern way that “morality” cannot be defined, since everyone has a different idea of what is right, and since what is viewed as right is so culturally-related.  Morality is well defined over the ages, and most claims of variation are actually attempts to change definitions of already defined terms in order to justify a current action.  Murder and taking over another country by force are universally agreed to be “wrong.”)

The increase in recent years in military interventions implies that they are becoming more acceptable.  Most citizens seem to feel that whatever the U.S. wants to do must be OK (since we are “good” and therefore could never do anything “bad”), but this means that we are amoral as a nation, since we do not require that our behavior be morally justified at all.  “We like so-and- so” or “we don’t like so-and-so” is not a moral justification for violence.

If nations give untrue, morally-related excuses for their behavior, it is immoral (lying).  Nations lie to minimize negative reactions to their behavior, and this is immature and immoral.  Should Americans tolerate our nation lying in this way?  Are we happy to see other nations act in this immoral or amoral way?

The U.S., as still the most militarily powerful nation on the planet, bears a special responsibility to carefully consider the morality of its actions, since if we do not restrict ourselves to morally justifiable actions, other nations get the clear message that considering the morality of actions is not necessary for them either.  It is easy for us to slip into a stance of “we can do anything we want because no one can get us back,” but might does not make right, and our amoral attitude says clearly to other nations that doing the right thing is not important.  It seems clear that the U.S. is slipping from pre-eminence toward a more equal position with respect to other nations, so it would be in our best interest to cultivate an attitude that makes the morality of a nation’s behavior important!

In considering the morality of pre-emptive war, we must face up to the possibility that to forego pre-emptive war as a preventive measure because it seems “wrong” might result in one’s country experiencing the explosion of a nuclear bomb in a city or the release of biological agents that would kill many people.  This would be a high price for acting morally in that instance, but we should consider the longer-term benefits and costs of acting morally against those of acting immorally (or amorally).  To have a history of acting morally would make it more costly for another nation to attack, in terms of world opinion, and therefore would make an attack less likely.  Acting morally does not mean being paralyzed from any action, and a history of acting morally and decisively when appropriate would give an attacking nation no illusion that the moral nation would not counterattack.  There might be some short-term economic benefits from acting amorally or immorally, but having that reputation in the world community would make it a little more likely that a nation contemplating an attack would go ahead with it.  This “psychology” is subtle and will never appear in the e-mails of staff considering an attack, but it does affect behavior.  The easier it is to demonize or vilify a nation, the easier it is to act to cause it harm.

You may have noticed that the arguments in this essay assume that moral principles should be applied equally not just at home but abroad and that the moral principles of nations should be the same as those of its individuals.

Human beings have a tendency to de-humanize those not of their own groups, so that it might not occur to a person who thinks of himself as moral to treat persons in other nations with the same dignity, respect, honesty, and courtesy that he does his own friends and family.  With the continuing increase in intercultural contacts and conflicts over time, surely it is becoming clear that treating everyone (equally) morally is the only path to a comfortable and peaceful world.  Otherwise, conflicts and violence will continue to multiply.

A nation’s behavior exemplifies the morality of its citizens and represents that to the world.  Since power-oriented individuals, who care less than other citizens about the morality of their actions and the morality of the actions of the nation, tend to rise to national leadership roles, nations often behave immorally (lying, cheating, reneging, taking advantage, stealing).  If citizens realize that their own moral principles apply to their treatment of all human beings and that their own values and standards are being represented to the world (as often immoral) in the behavior of their nation, perhaps they will be motivated to demand greater consistency between their own values and morals and those of their nation’s actions.

blog\postings\foreigninterventions