Morality is the new mantra in politics

Realpolitik is more and more criticised. Morality tends to become the new yardstick of international politics, at least vocally, particularly in Western countries. It is a side effect of the growing importance of public opinion on decision making in international politics.

Everyone should be satisfied with this growing influence of moral criteria on diplomacy. One could hope such a trend will be helpful to shape a better world. But we also have to be careful, and therefore separate the sheep from the goats.

Praising morality does not automatically imply that man practises it. Moreover, it may only be a smokescreen used to hide a traditional policy based on the power paradigm.

Nowadays, there is no government that still justifies its policy by invoking national interest. Nevertheless, national interest is still the main objective of diplomacy.

By presenting their action as taken in the general interest of the people, governments look for support and approbation of public opinion.

There are many examples of such political strategy, from the military intervention in Cuba in 1898, presented as a means to deliver the Cuban people from colonial rule, to the Iraq war in 2003, of which the purpose was to topple a dictator and to give freedom to the Iraqi people.

The list is exhaustive of such actions of power policy dressed up as moral policy. There is no denying this kind of strategic communication policy is not an American monopoly; it is a political instrument shared by most other countries.

As always such moral considerations are partly true: Cuban people wanted to break the yoke of Spanish colonialism, and Saddam was a cruel dictator. But the fundamental reasons of these military interventions were rather more strategic. Morality was a justification, not the real motivation.

But moral arguments could backfire against its users. Good feelings are not enough to provide good policy. Any policy must be realistic.

In Western countries, resorting to morality could lead to some new kind of "McCarthyism". Some intellectuals, self-proclaimed moral leaders, turn out to be really intolerant sometimes.

Indeed, those who disagree with them are not considered intellectual contradictors but as immoral persons whose arguments should not only be fought, but also in some cases forbidden.

This is a kind of "intellectual terrorism" used by few academics against their opponents, for instance when those who criticise the Israeli policy are presented as being anti-Semitic. Yet, this is very different to being opposed to a governmental policy, which could be changed, and to be opposed to a people as such.

Danger

Another danger is Manichaeism, which consists in classifying things only as "good" or "bad" with no other nuance of analysis. Thus, complex situations tend to be presented with only two alternatives.

But who could believe international life may be analysed through such simplistic and restrictive visions?

From Middle East tensions to African conflicts, from Caucasia to Afghanistan, there is no strategic situation which allows a binary analysis and which could therefore be presented with only two antagonistic options.

In the field of morality, the main threats are double standards, and selective resort to so called universal principles.

Indeed, there are behaviours that are sometimes accepted, and even supported, but depending on the context, may on the other hand be strongly condemned in other occasions. Therefore, the main criterion is not the way an international actor behaves, but who he is - a friend or a foe.

If he is a friend, he will get the green signal, whatever his policy. But if not, he will be strictly scrutinised. For example, some Western intellectuals and political leaders thought that bombing civilian populations with military planes is inhuman and must be forbidden and severely condemned.

However, the same ones who denounced Russia, when it bombed the Chechens, saying such behaviour could only fuel terrorism, remain silent when Israelis use the same tactics against Palestinians or Lebanese.

Some of them are even cynical enough to applaud it, arguing that it is necessary to fight terrorism. They are unaffected by the Palestinian situation.

It appears strange and paradoxical as the international law does not recognise Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, whereas it does not question China's sovereignty over Tibet.

The same distortion could be highlighted concerning the Balkans. Although no one before had contested Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo, this territory has recently become independent, ten years after the war between Nato and Serbia.

But more than 40 years after the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, independence for Palestine is still not in sight.

Dr Pascal Boniface is the founder and director of IRIS (Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratgiques). He has published or edited more than 40 books dealing with international relations, nuclear deterrence and disarmament, European security and French international policy.