Ethics and Foreign Policy

20Historically Speaking * January/February 2005 Ethics and Foreign Policy Richard Ned Lebow In the Western world, there is a widely accepted distinction between public and private moraUty. We consider itwrong to Ue, but smile knowingly when we first hear the old adage that a diplomat is an honest man who lies in the interest of his country. But how do we feel about leaders who Ue to their own people in the name ofnational security, or actively support murderous dictatorships because they are anti-communist or protect American interests? Is any action defensible ifit enhances national securityorthe national interest? Is the distinction between public and private moraUtya useful, perhaps necessary , one in a world where hostile forces plot our destruction? Oris itmerelya convenient rationaUzation forunscrupulous and self-serving behavior? As currently formulated, there is no way to adjudicate between competing claims of ethics and security. The demand for ethical foreign poUcies is rebuffed by the assertion thatphysical securityis the essential precondition for the kind ofsocietythat makes ethical life possible. The counter-argumentthat one cannot produce or sustain an ethical society by immoral means provokes the rejoinder thatinternational politics does not allow this kind ofluxury. The controversy quickly returns to its starting point. But are the imperatives ofsecurityreaUy at odds with the canons of ethics? Is a nation always best served by hard-nosed self-interest? If it can be shown that ethical behavior is more conducive ^—perhaps even essential—to national security, the advocates ofRealpolitik could be chaUenged on their home turf. I contend, pace Thucydides, that interests —of individuals or states—presuppose identities, and thatactors can develop identities only through membership in societies. AU functioning societies in turn rest on some ethical foundation. Ethics accordinglyenables identities and interests. It follows that maintenance ofthe principles ofjustice that sustain societies is a primary interest of all actors, including states. Money, Individual Identity, and Tyranny There is as much disagreement about the extent to which ancient Greeks understood economics as a separate field of inquiry as there is agreement about the socio-economic changes that accompanied the emergence of the poUs. The individual gradually replaced the extended family or oikos as the basic economic unit, and the goal of production and exchange increasingly became the pursuit of wealth. The economywas disembedded from the oikos and put on a contractual basis. Economic exchangeswere more likelyto be evaluated independent ofpast exchanges and the relationships these had estabUshed or maintained . This change in thinking was facilitated by the use ofcoinage, thought to have appeared in the third quarter ofthe 7th century . The money economy hastened the decline oftraditional social relations and the values onwhich they rested. Before the introduction ofmoney, gifts often had no precise equivalent, creating the expectation offuture exchanges and ongoingrelationships. Money equaUzed exchange and aUowed for one-time transactions. In the traditional economy, giver and recipienthad also been linked bythe stories attached to their objects ofexchange. In the modern economy objects were inaniniate goods. The "individual" gradually emerged as anidentity, acquisition became bis end, and profit (kerdos) the means to this end. If money became the currency of economic exchange, Thucydides leads us to understand that power became the currency ofpoUtics. Affective bonds and the commitmentto the good ofcommunity they encouraged gave way to the goal ofindividual selfadvancement . PoUticians used any available means to attain power, just as unscrupulous individuals did to obtain wealth. ForThucydides and Aristophanes, the economic and poUtical realms come togetherin the figure of Cleon, son of a leather factory owner, who spread his wealth lavishly and openly to buy votes in the assembly. Thucydides's language encourages readers to draw an analogy between individual pursuit ofwealth and Athenian pursuit of power. The empirewas based on the power of money (chrëmëton dunamis). It generated revenue {chrëmëtonprosodöi) to build and maintain the largest navy in Greece. Athens was so powerful relative to other city-states thatit could dominate them (allön arche) by force.1 Tyrants were rulers without any constitutional basis who dispensed with reciprocity and took what they wanted. Gyges of Lydia was the first known tyrant, and not coincidentaUy , Lydiawas thoughtto be the first city to have introduced money. Other notable tyrants...