Download Ethical and Philosophical Connotations of Foreign Policy Doctrines

Jana Lasicová – Dagmar Hoscheková
ETHICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL CONNOTATIONS OF FOREIGN
POLICY DOCTRINES
Rezümé: (A külpolitikai doktrinák etikai és filozófiai vonatkozásai.)
A dolgozat célja, hogy megvilágítsa a doktrína alkotás hatásait és korlátjait. A szerzők két
nagy doktrínát, illetve politikai rendszert állítanak szembe, együttesen vizsgálva a
hidegháborús, univerzalista és moralista Amerikait az absztrakciókon alapuló szovjet
doktrínákkal melyeket a Truman, Carter doktrínák, Marshall terv, illetve a marxizmus és a
Varsói Szerződés képvisel. A doktrína, habár elméleti eszköz, nemcsak politikai döntéseket
módosíthat, hanem mint társadalmi, gazdasági stabilizáló illetve destabilizáló tényező is
megjelenhet. A történelem során bebizonyosodott, hogy csak azok a doktrínák lehetnek
politikailag sikeresek melyek tiszteletben tartják az erkölcsi normákat és az emberi jogokat és
azok melyek ennek a feltételnek nem feleltek meg, eltűntek a történelem süllyesztőjében.
Term “doctrine” is used for marking of that part of an ideology, for those ideas which
represents a relatively systemized set of theory, tradition, headboards and symbols
determining the frame of practical behaviour of a state in a certain field. The doctrines involve
an inner and a foreign policy and are always directed at the future, set aims of practical
behaviour. The doctrine formulate the aims as well and determines the means for their
achievement. Therefore the doctrinal influence is intentionally widening and the doctrine
begins to function as a form-creating element on “additional” means, philosophical thinking,
activities based on moral reasons, broader social-cultural aspects of era in which the doctrine
was created and function. The doctrine represents a frame where not only political thinking
and foreign policy activities of a state are created with certain accuracy but also a base of
function for a law with unintended effect (defined by K. R. Popper). We can mention about
two apparently independent functions of the doctrine even by its birth:

territorial or ethnocentric

personification
The territorial function is aimed on an improvement of certain aims which were planned in the
doctrine. The personification function of the doctrine is connected with a concrete person,
mainly a world-known authority, who adds some ethical message into doctrine or on contrary,
some dictatorial elements. However, the doctrinal personification is impossible to consider as
an explication of author‘s ideas (Truman’s, Breznev’s, Carter’s doctrine). It is always the
result of a concrete situation of the state, a level and a value of philosophical and historical
research and a prevailing ethical principles of that era. In broader understanding is impossible
to reduce the doctrine only on directions how to proceed in the certain field. The doctrine has
its own development‘s dynamic, contains inner elements which can transform to political,
social and ideological changes even though all the classical doctrines were originally
formulated as military-political or foreign-political doctrines. It was showed that after
fulfilment of that “basic” task the doctrine lives its own life. The doctrine has finishing phases
which needn‘t have a connection with an original intention. A base of adaptational ability and
further activity of the doctrine is a division into periods which are developed spontaneously
from original structure. (For example Monroe’s doctrine created at the beginning of 19th
century, expressed a foreign-policy attitude of the USA in period when European equilibrium
and American interests were newly formulated. The doctrine was an expression of certain
isolationism of the USA which arose in other periods as well, after World War I and II. Some
analytics mention that old American isolationism is restoring after September 11, 2001 as
well.) Above mentioned development has nothing common with a mystification of the
doctrine. It is only an assumption that the doctrine has except a political effect some
transcendental ability to influence in other dimensions. This aspect is usually secret or
intentionally hidden. Because doctrine‘s authors mainly realised that the doctrine can be an
imaginary institution, can modify not only political decisions but also can function as socialeconomic, stabilizing or unstabilizing factor as well. Share of humanity and ethical principles
in the doctrine determines a character of mentioned factor. History shows that each doctrine,
respecting generally valid human principles and which was quintessence of ethical principles,
was politically successful, contributed to peace, experienced phase of re-animation or served
as a historical milestone in some important era (for example Carter’s doctrine or origin NATO
doctrine, which had permanent influence on European continent almost 50 years). On
contrary, the doctrine which covered imperial and expansive efforts and could be hidden by
whatever moral headwords, this doctrine lost an ability to apply its function in short time and
contributed to the law of unintended effect (Warsaw pact doctrine which was in its base
extremely fundamentalist). From the historical point of view each doctrine was, already at
time of its birth, a set of political decisions and creator‘s ethos. Its creation was influenced by
elements of preferences of given political system, but “per analogiam” there were encoded an
idea of profit brought by its application.
Attempt on universal content within the doctrine
One of the first administration task of the USA after World War II. concerned foreign policy.
It had a connection especially with collective security, a distinguished aim, which was
imposed by nations for common good. Nations should prefer it to their own national interests.
However, the real realization was from the beginning resistant to the world order.
In spite of everywhere present emphasizing of a moral obligation among states to each other
defined in the UN Charter, in spite of the doctrines of both world blocs, which made a
propaganda that their doctrines are based on human rights and ethic protection, the second
half of the 20th century was a period of grave regional conflicts, crisis and instability.
Truman’s doctrine was an attempt on filling the doctrine with a universal content, broader
then a political content. Mentioned doctrine is a typical example of continuity of American
foreign policy applied to new circumstances. Truman’s doctrine should give back a rigid,
absolute political aim and a limitation to specific foreign policy strategies. The doctrine was
aimed against the Soviet expansion. The USA had started to establish a contra power against
Soviet imperialism “anywhere on the world, where the USSR showed an indication of
intervention”. Truman’s doctrine presented an emancipation from the isolationism what
represented a new element in American foreign policy. However, America decided to fight for
an abstract freedom everywhere on the world. (Human rights and Carter’s doctrine were
founded 30 years later.)
The time of war alliances, where the USA was involved, finished with World War II.
American determinants before the year 1947 were the efforts to avoid new exclusive alliances
in the time of peace. The obligations were formulated only under the UN Charter,
nevertheless a new line started – new solutions of East-West relations were searching before
the term Cold War started to be used.
Soviet influence and Soviet military power were very strong in central European region after
World War II. This expansion was understood threateningly. The enthusiasm from side of the
most central European governments toward the USSR was incomprehensible for the USA.
The mentioned enthusiasm was caused with initial constructive successes. The USA did not
let to mislead – an extension of communist sphere went together with pressures on individual
freedoms, a limitation of sovereignty, a construction of secret police, political processes and a
destruction of traditional cultural and religious values which were replaced by new human
morality of “Homo sovieticus”.
While the Soviet army were occupying central Europe, the West demobilized. Forbidding
power should have an atomic bomb which, as the West believed, by its existence could re-
establish an equilibrium and inhibit next expansion to the USSR. Restoration of Poland and
Balkan states, development in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were relatively restful. Therefore
the USA and Great Britain drew bigger attention to Iran, Turkey and Greece in accordance
with war agreements. President Truman considered evoking of riots in Greece as a part of
Soviet strategy, as an attempt to install communist regime and therefore he recommended to
Congress the plan which is known in history as Truman’s doctrine.1
Immediate need to help to Greece was only the next context how to help people worldwide
where democratic institutions and national integrity were threaten against aggressive
movements formed by totalitarian government.
Protection against directive and undirective aggression can be successful only in case that this
protection does not threaten a world peace - it was the next context of the doctrine. From that
reason American help kept away from military contingent, was primarily aimed on economic
and financial help, should not and did not want to bear on imposing of whatever political,
religious or national limits. This was considered as unmoral from side of the USA. Greece and
Turkey accepted the help, Central Europe refused its equivalent - Marshall Plan.2
European states were divided into two blocs and both began to assert their own conceptions of
universalism, when new cloud appeared on horizon of the world - Korean War. This war was
first that began to break a conception about possible moral universalism of the doctrines in
both world blocs.
Universal efficiency of Truman’s doctrine should be confirmed by decision to interfere in
Korea and to stop communist aggression against south Korea.
Shadow of memories on Hitler and Munich Agreement was very painful still in the year 1950.
Everybody then remembered a terrible price which humankind paid for an unstopped German
aggression. Truman’s doctrine was an alternative rising from morality: which evil is worse interfere and discriminate or not interfere and let itself and others to discriminate, because
each person, not only a politician, forms his own thinking after negative and positive moral
principles.
When the choice existed, consequence was to use contra power against Soviet expansion.
Moral decision to interfere, in order to protect independence of south Korea, was an analogy
to Hitler’s expansion. Following this line of thinking, the USA decided for war in Vietnam as
well. It was one of the most fateful decisions of American foreign policy, influenced
American and world public opinion, which convicted American war as unmoral. Universalism
1
2
President’s Speech to Congress: The Truman Doctrine, 12 March, 1947
The Marshall Plan, originally proposed by the Secretary of State G. Marshall on 5 June, 1947
of Truman’s doctrine ceased to be in force. Vietnam was faux pas of American foreign policy.
Truman’s doctrine and an effort to assert its methods in the next years after its birth was one
of example how political decision to answer on specific elements with universal (and
dogmatic) solution can disturb world equilibrium. The biggest disadvantage of Truman’s
doctrine was its universalism, which president Truman and Americans considered at the
beginning as very positive.
The doctrine showed itself as absolutely unworkable at the time of Vietnam war and its
majoritanianism and moral incompetence deeply cut down American moral credit.
E. H. Carr, an English political scientist mentions following comment: “the worst vice in
political decisions is dogmatism, which is always based on great principles instead of leading
discussions and exact verification, what has human character in international relations ... Ideal
which is popular is easy to fulfil. It is easier to take and maintain popular dogma then make an
analysis. ... Everything good or bad in dogma, analysis show usually as contraposition.”3
Therefore doctrines and doctrinal practise avoided to analysis. Fundamentalism of Warsaw
Pact doctrine is typical example.
Inner modality of doctrines
Basis of the international policy practising in the world till 90s of the last century were laid at
the beginning of 50s, when both great powers, the USSR and the USA, built the basis of their
understanding of international security. This security should be different than alliances during
World War II. Creation of two ideologies based on two different approaches to the doctrine
depended from this security. The doctrine involved a moral obligation with two poles - aim
and bordering - for the USA.
For the USSR every doctrine was above all an international obligation with an abstract
freedom. 50s in Europe began with Truman’s doctrine and Marshall Plan, but with an
implication of Soviet party system into central European regimes as well. These were
theoretical starting point of power and were practically realised by installation of measures
which should execute the power - NATO and later Warsaw Pact establishing.
Now we can say, if the events did not happened in 50s, world would develop in different way.
Famed iron curtain territorially and mystificationally divided two world blocs. For the first
time in the history of the world reason, also another iron curtain was created inside of central
European and Soviet intellectual thinking and divided philosophical, ethical and other
3
Carr, E. H.: The Immanence of Power as the standard. In.: Masters of International Thought, Luisiana State
University Press, 1980
scientific theoretical thinking to acceptable and unacceptable thinking. Acceptable one was
developing as Marxism and unacceptable one became a medieval heresity, which wanted to
conserve mainly continuity of European thinking and science, but was pushed to the edge of
interest. Heretics, authors of antimarxism or alternative theories, were not burnt to death on
bonfire but were convicted to silence, persecution and dissent. This antagonism had different
dimensions and every former socialist state experienced it in its own way. It had its own
course in Hungary especially from the reason that ten years between 1950-1960 was specially
cruel. All distressed states are reconciling with this period and beat with consequences till
nowadays.
Why this happened? Members of young generation ask now. Why did doctrines based on
imposing morality representing to conserve individual moral habitus, sovereignty of nation
and state and independence in behaviour of both tend to consequences which we consider as
the most relevant dehumanisational problems of the second half of the 20th century?
American protestant theologian Reinold Niebuhr often warned before moralists in foreign
policy. By his opinion moralists can even more threaten national ideals and bring them to
unwelcome consequences then cynical realists. He obviously was afraid of fact that if moralist
searches for limits of foreign policy, he will suppose known resources - values and goods
already achieved in small communities - family, religion community, locality, region.
Moralists want to use a working model for solving of international community problems.
Especially Niebuhr insisted not to identify small communities with great powers in the
world.4 He considered as impossible to create universally valid rules in foreign policy by
simply derivation from behaviour of great powers politicians toward small states.
Scientist, engaged in research of morality and philosophy of morality, know that one of
fundamental difficulties in definition of “moral reasoning” consequences from impossibility
to create universal model of “reasonable morality”.
Ways of thinking are also liable to fashion and influence always on another set of events. Karl
R. Popper was often criticised for his modernistic, scientistic attitude to political philosophy
of Plato especially for his considering of Platonism as antithesis to his “open society”. W. Mc
Govern refers in his book From Luther to Hitler on Luther’s doctrine of human’s
emancipation. Although this doctrine appealed to intellectual freedom of man, it led to
political passivity of citizens. This passivity brought Germans to voluntary subordination to
nazism 500 years later.5 Then also Nietzsche’s glorification of germanism is possible to
4
5
Niebuhr, R.: Realistic Internationalism. Christianity and Society, IX. (Fall, 1944), 4
Mc Govern, M. W.: From Luther to Hitler. Boston. Houghton Mifflin, 1941
understand as kind of revolt. Maybe this revolt rehabilitates him because we can consider now
his work as an alternative of passive Christian morality dominance and not as basis for
fascism.
So we can ask - if modern philosophy was able to critically qualify past doctrinal conceptions
and warn against repeating of the same mistakes , why it was not able to create universally
valid moral doctrine or at least a model acceptable by both poles of world ideology in half of
the 20th century? What does the modern philosophical thinking miss in the second half of the
20th century that intellectual bloc was not created against accretive intellectual revisionism of
Cold War and intercultural thinking? There were and are attempts for solving - based on
Thomism and protestant philosophy, postmodernism, culturology, futurology, philosophy of
history. However, interconnection with political and foreign policy doctrines is missing. It is
possible that authors are intentionally avoiding because foreign policy doctrine brought into
life destroys illusions of each theory for ever.
Both classical doctrines of the second half of 20. century, Truman s and Warsaw Pact, were
such attempts and derive their genesis from the morality.
Effect of both doctrines in broad international space was highly contra productive because a
will of one state of one kind of thinking was forced to another states. Abstract communist
ideas of Warsaw agreement, Breznev's doctrine and their airy internationalism died out in
connection with Berlin wall. Some Western doctrines were shown as unacceptable at the
beginning of the 21st century as well. However, these doctrines laid the basis for creation of a
new human rights conception, not universal but multidimensional. Obstacle for their
realisation is already now functionalism, commercionalism and Americanisation.
If we want to speak about modern universal doctrine, we must try to create the doctrine based
on fundamental ethical principles of respect to human being, ethnic, nation, humankind,
nature. We must try to search for new identity of European man and globetrotter, protect
multiculturalism and humanity. Any universal doctrine, if such will be created at all, must not
give its universalistic equipment to egoistic forces, ignore particular forces of world
community. Existing ignorance of moral, philosophical and doctrinal interconnection is a
warning.
Bibliography:
Briška, F.: Problém človeka a humanizmu v politickej filozofii. Iris, Bratislava, 2000
Dobrík, M.: Vedomie súvislostí na prahu 21. storočia. Zborník z konferencie Riešenie krízových situácií
v špecifickom prostredí. ŽU Žilina, 2002
Grenville, J. A. S.: The Major International Treaties. London, 1974
Kazanský, R.: Vybrané aspekty z ekonomickej globalizácie. Zborník z konferencie MENDELNET, Brno, 2001
Krejčí, O.: Mezinárodní politika, Ekopress, Praha, 2001
Mesíková, E.: Fenomén politickej slobody v diele J. S. Milla. In.: príspevok na konferencii Človek-dejinyhodnoty, PF OU, Ostrava, 2002
Mészöly, M.: Domov a svet. Kaligram, Bratislava, 1995
Niebuhr, R.: Synové světla, synové tmy. Praha, 1947
Ondrová, D.: History of the USA. FPVaMV UMB, Banská Bystrica, 1999
Pástor, Z.: Dejiny Slovenska. FPVaMV UMB, Banská Bystrica, 2000
Šlosiar, J.: Prolegomena filozofie. Metodické centrum, Banská Bystrica, 1999
Thompson, K. W.: Morality and Foreign Policy. Luisiana University Press, 1982
Tito, Ľ.: Dejiny nemecky hovoriacich krajín. FPVaMV UMB, Banská Bystrica, 1999
Tito, Ľ.: Postavenie SNR v európskej politike. In.: Politické vedy 4/2000, FPVaMV UMB, Banská Bystrica
Vlček, D.: Paradigma mieru a idea integrácie novovekej Európy. FPVaMV UMB, Banská Bystrica, Habilitačná
práca, 2001