Joseph Nai: What is a moral foreign policy?
Author: Joseph S. Nye, professor at Harvard University, his latest book is "Is moral important?" From Roosevelt to Trump 's President and Foreign Policy (Oxford University Press, 2020)
Source: Full text translated from Project Syndicate, original title "What Is a Moral Foreign Policy?" (2020); China and the United States focus
WeChat platform editor: Zhou Yue
Many Americans say that they want a moral foreign policy, but what exactly they mean, they each have their own rhetoric. Using a three-dimensional scorecard to see the motivations, means and consequences of the US president's actions can help us avoid coming up with simple answers.
For example, take Ronald Reagan and two Presidents George Bush for example, when people call for "Reagan-style foreign policy", they emphasize that Reagan's words expressing values are very clear. To clearly understand the goals can also educate and inspire the public at home and abroad.
But this is just an aspect of Reagan's foreign policy. The success of his moral leadership depends on his bargaining and compromise methods. The key question is whether he carefully balances goals with the risks of achieving them.
Reagan's remarks at the beginning of his first term created dangerous tension and distrust between the United States and the Soviet Union, increasing the risk of misjudgment or unexpected warfare. But this also became a guide to bargaining, which Reagan later took advantage of when Gorbachev took over the Soviet power. Reagan improved the national interests of the United States, and the method he used was not only good for the interests of the United States.
In contrast, Bush himself admitted that at the end of the Cold War, he did not pursue that transformative foreign policy vision. His purpose is to avoid disasters in a period of rapid and profound changes in geopolitics. Although there is a reference to the "new world order", he never clearly described it. The strength Bush and his team are largely out of his control, so the goal he sets is to find a balance between opportunity and caution.
Bush constrains short-term goals in pursuit of long-term stability, which has led some critics to complain about his lack of greater ambitions. He acted cautiously in that turbulent period, trying to achieve the goals of the United States in a way that is neither excessively isolated nor as much as possible without harming the interests of other countries. He carefully avoided embarrassing Gorbachev and managed to cope with the transition from Yeltsin to Russian leadership.
With better communication skills, Bush may be able to do more. He could educate the American public about the changing nature of the world faced after the Cold War. But considering historical uncertainty and the possibility of misfortunes after the Cold War, Bush adopted one of the best foreign policies since 1945. He allowed the United States to benefit from the Cold War results while avoiding disasters.
His son Bush had little interest in foreign policy at the beginning of his tenure, but after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, his goal began to become transformative. He began to focus on national security, but at that time of crisis he turned to using democratic rhetoric to unite his followers. His 2002 national security strategy declared that the United States would “identify and eliminate terrorists and the regime that supports them, no matter where they are.” This is what people later called "Bushism".
This new game has no rules and no means of care. Bush's solution to the threat of terrorism is to spread democracy, and therefore, the "freedom agenda" became the basis of his 2006 national security strategy. However, he lacked the means to make Iraqi democratic, and overthrowing Saddam Hussein did not complete this mission. Inadequate understanding of background and poor planning and management have greatly reduced Bush's ambitious goals. The result was a sectarian war broke out within Iraq, and the terrorist organization forces rose, which eventually turned into the "Islamic State".
A long-term problem of US foreign policy is the complexity of connecting the past and the future, which increases the possibility of unexpected consequences.Caution is sometimes seen as simple egoism and despised, but in foreign policy it is a virtue. The hasty assessment and risk-taking often lead to immoral consequences, and the legal term is called "crimeless negligence." Being cautious also requires the ability to manage your own emotions. From these two aspects, President Trump's refusal to intelligence and relies on television news has caused serious doubts about the morality and practicality of his foreign policy.
This in turn leads to the role of the executive body and the broader issue of the president's definition of the national interests of the United States. The president’s foreign policy lies not only in concrete actions, but also in how his mode of action shapes the world’s political environment. In terms of providing global public goods, the leadership of the world's most powerful country is in line with the concept of "America First", but it relies on a broader understanding of this term than Trump has shown. As Kissinger said, "The calculation of strength without moral dimensions will turn all differences into strength tests... On the other hand, moral prescriptions that ignore balance will either go toward the Crusade , or the incompetence of policies will bring challenges. Both extremes endanger the coherence of the international order itself."
For a good foreign policy, caution is a necessary virtue. But that's not enough. When U.S. presidents need to have a broader institutional perspective, they are always cautious. In the future, it will be crucial to correctly understand and respond to new technologies and environmental changes such as cyber threats, artificial intelligence, climate change and epidemics with a vision and strategy.
Ethical foreign policy not only makes Americans safer, but also makes the world a better place. We judge moral policy by observing all three aspects of behavior and system, action and inaction, and motivation, means and consequences. Even so, the nature of foreign policy (with many unexpected and unpredictable events) means that our final conclusions are often mixed.
Digital Economy Think Tank
Politics and International Relations Forum
In order to better serve the construction of the digital China, serve the construction of the "Belt and Road", and strengthen theoretical and practical exchanges in the process of digital economy construction. Experts and scholars from China's digital economy and the construction of the "Belt and Road" have established digital economy think tanks to contribute to the construction of digital China. Wei Jianguo, former vice minister of the Ministry of Commerce, served as honorary president, and well-known young scholars, Huang Rihan, , Chu Yin, , etc. The Forum on Political Science and International Relations is a special platform under the Digital Economy Think Tank.
