What makes for a moral foreign policy?

first_imgAs his trial begins in the U.S. Senate, the impeachment of President Trump is, at its heart, a question about ethics. Was it proper for the president to withhold U.S. military aid to a strategic foreign ally to leverage its cooperation in an effort that could undercut a political rival? In a new book, “Do Morals Matter? Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump,” Joseph S. Nye Jr., University Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS), examines the role that ethics played in the foreign policies of every U.S. president since World War II. In evaluating each on the moral soundness of their intentions, their results, and the means they used to achieve those results, Nye makes a case for the enduring relevance of American exceptionalism in the 21st century.Q&AJoseph S. Nye Jr.GAZETTE: What prompted your interest in looking at foreign policy through a moral lens?NYE: I used to teach a course here at the Kennedy School on ethics and foreign policy and so it has been on my mind. But obviously, the Trump administration has brought a lot of that to the fore in terms of the questions of: Should presidents ever tell lies? To what extent should they risk American lives? And to what extent should they take into account human rights in other countries? These are issues which have become a lot more salient as a result of some of the controversial decisions of the Trump administration.There’s a big difference between the national interest and the personal and political interest of a president. The two sometimes get blurred, but this [Ukraine situation] seems to be a clearer differentiation than we’ve seen in cases in the past. To give you an example, Richard Nixon knew that he wanted to get out of Vietnam, but he also felt that he couldn’t get out too quickly because it would be damaging for American credibility. So they aimed to get what they called a “decent interval” between when the American troops would leave and when the South Vietnamese government would collapse. They thought it would be about two years. He spent 20,000 American lives to create a decent interval. It was partly his political interest to not be the man who lost Vietnam immediately. But it was partially a national interest to keep the credibility of U.S. guarantees, to make sure that it wasn’t too precipitous a defeat. So how much of that was personal, how much of it was national interest? That’s a hard one to parse. On the other hand, what we’re seeing in this Ukraine case, it’s pretty hard to see a national interest there. “Americans want a certain amount of idealism and value in foreign policy. They also want to have their security protected and their prosperity advanced, and so a president is always balancing those two.” American foreign policy in flux Former career Ambassador Victoria Nuland unwinds the tangle of issues around Russia, Ukraine, and Syria Amid Iranian missile strikes, U.S. ambassador examines what’s next after Iran shrugs off nuclear deal following Trump-ordered killing of Suleimani In an excerpt from her just-released memoir, Samantha Power recalls her experience going from Balkans war correspondent to Law School student — and her stumbles along the way GAZETTE: President Reagan gets a decent score from you.NYE: Yeah. He’s in the middle rank and that too surprised me because I was more critical of him at the time. Many people, when Gorbachev first came to power in ’85, didn’t trust Gorbachev, didn’t see this as a possible way to wind down the Cold War. And Reagan was out in front of his fellow hawks in saying, “I can deal with this person.” And he did. When people think back on Reagan, they forget that he was not only the spokesman of business groups and leader of the right wing of the Republican Party, he’d also been the head of the actors union in Hollywood. They forget he also was able to perceive an opportunity to bargain and to find the compromises that were necessary. If you ask: Did Reagan end the Cold War? No. The biggest share of credit goes to Gorbachev. But Reagan had the sense to see that opportunity, see the moment, and to bargain.GAZETTE: In the 21st century, with the rise of China and as the West seems to be drifting away from the post-World War II liberal world order, can we still hold on to the idea of a moral foreign policy, which is embedded in the notion of American exceptionalism?NYE: I don’t think you can recreate the post-1945 situation. We’re still the largest country, but we don’t have this degree of preeminence that we had in the past, and it would be a mistake for us to try to recreate that degree of dominance or control. But you can say that there’s certain things where, if the largest country doesn’t take the lead in producing global public goods, nobody can. If we act as a free rider, nobody else will produce these. Take something like climate change, which is going to affect all of us. Cooperating with others and taking the lead is going to be essential. Or with international financial stability, where the dollar still is, by far, the dominant reserve currency in the world. If we don’t take the lead in terms of international financial stability and you have an international financial system which is wracked by crises, everybody suffers. Or developing rules for the global commons in cyberspace. If we don’t help to take the lead on this, it’s not going to get done. So we can have an interest as the largest country — not in dominating and controlling, because we can’t, but in trying to form coalitions of the willing, trying to develop alliances, trying to put together institutional frameworks which can provide these global public goods. And if we retreat from that broad definition of the national interest to a narrow, transactional one, then we will have sold ourselves short, as well as the rest of the world.This interview has been condensed for length and edited for clarity.,Key: Good | Mixed | PoorDescription of categories above. (Click to expand)Moral vision: Did the leader express attractive values, and did those values determine his or her motives? Did he or she have the emotional IQ to avoid contradicting those values because of personal needs?Prudence: Did the leader have the contextual intelligence to wisely balance the values pursued and the risks imposed on others?Use of force: Did the leader use it with attention to necessity, discrimination in treatment of civilians, and proportionality of benefits and damages?Liberal concerns: Did the leaders try to respect and use institutions at home and abroad? To what extent were the rights of others considered?Fiduciary: Was the leader a good trustee? Were the long-term interests of the country advanced?Cosmopolitan: Did the leader also consider the interests of other peoples and minimize unnecessary damage to them?Educational: Did the leader respect the truth and build credibility? Were facts respected? Did the leader try to create and broaden moral discourse at home and abroad?Source: “Do Morals Matter? Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump,” Joseph S. Nye Jr., Oxford University Press, 2020 The Daily Gazette Sign up for daily emails to get the latest Harvard news. Related GAZETTE: What is an ethical foreign policy and how can it be assessed in an objective way?NYE: Sometimes people say if you have good intentions, that’s all that counts. Well, no. I argue that a moral foreign policy, like many moral decisions related to policy, have to combine three dimensions: the intentions, the means that are used, and the consequences. Balancing those three dimensions is what gives you an assessment of whether the policy was moral or not. But it’s not enough just to say, intentions were good, and it’s not enough to say it worked all right so therefore it’s good. You need to think of how you did it, as well — the means that were used.GAZETTE: Modern presidents are generally thought to be firmly entrenched in just one of two foreign-policy camps, a Wilsonian liberalism or Machiavellian pragmatism. What did you find when you examined their track records closely?NYE: What we find is, in practice, presidents draw from both. Americans want a certain amount of idealism and value in foreign policy. They also want to have their security protected and their prosperity advanced, and so a president is always balancing those two. Very few are totally cynical and pay no attention to values; very few can pay attention just to values.GAZETTE: Presidents always have to make very difficult decisions that people will question and disagree with. Very few, if any, of those decisions have outcomes that satisfy everyone, whether it’s Nixon’s withdrawal from Vietnam or Trump’s response to the Jamal Khashoggi murder. In the Khashoggi case Trump decided that punishing Saudi Arabia was not worth the economic and political risks even as critics said it’s immoral for the U.S. not to have done so. Isn’t the definition often in the eye of the beholder?NYE: There are always going to be trade-offs like that. Trump’s not the first to face those. People sometimes complained that Jimmy Carter paid too much attention to human rights. People are now complaining that Trump pays not enough attention. But those trade-offs are inevitable. Nixon and [Henry] Kissinger took a very strong view that nuclear arms control and détente with the Soviet Union took priority over getting Jews out of the Soviet Union. Sen. Henry Jackson took the opposite view and tried to torpedo détente. He said that Nixon and Kissinger were not doing enough for human rights. Kissinger’s alleged to have said at one point, “There are no human rights among the incinerated.” So you can have differences about how much human rights or values you want in your definition of a national interest.,GAZETTE: You grade each president on how they performed under the circumstances they faced and with the priorities they tried to advance. But is it fair to compare presidents to each other given those vast differences?NYE: There’s always a certain arbitrariness. This is why I talk about contextual intelligence, which is, how good of a job did they do at trying to understand the context? The context can be very different in different circumstances. Take Harry Truman: When he became president in 1945, he dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and many people faulted him for that. The practice of killing large numbers of civilians by bombing cities was widespread. In that context, it would have been quite extraordinary for Truman to have refused to drop the bomb. Doesn’t mean it was right or wrong that he did it. But it just means that the context was such that it was moving very heavily in a given direction. What’s interesting is that five years later, when Truman and the United States were losing the war in Korea, Gen. [Douglas] MacArthur said to him, “We’re losing. The only way I can win this is that you allow me to drop 25 to 50 atomic bombs on Chinese cities.” And Truman said “No, I’m not going to kill any women and children.” By then, he had learned a lot about what atomic weapons really were, which wasn’t well understood in ’45, and he also had a sense that if you open this Pandora’s box, it was going to spread. And so, the man who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima refused to drop it to save himself in the Korean War. That’s an example of a changed context, same person.GAZETTE: Could we pluck someone from 1989 and drop them into 1945 and expect them to do a similar job?NYE: You could in some sense. An interesting case is George H.W. Bush, who in 1989 responded extremely well to the collapse of the Berlin Wall. People said, “We should be declaring this as a great victory for the West.” And Bush said, “I’m not gonna dance on the Wall and make it more difficult for Gorbachev to do the things he needs to do to wind down the Cold War.” That showed an extraordinary amount of restraint. Franklin Roosevelt also used restraint in many cases as we began to work our way up to World War II. He knew that if he pushed American opinion too hard, too fast, he might lose the capacity to do what he needed to do to defeat Hitler. And he also made compromises with Stalin, who was a nasty dictator, because he felt that Hitler was even a greater threat. So presidents are making decisions and trade-offs. I think George H.W. Bush, who ranks very high by various scales, would have made the same types of decisions if he was in Roosevelt’s seat, and I suspect Roosevelt might have made similar decisions if he and Bush traded places.GAZETTE: FDR, who was commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces that won the greatest global conflict in human history, gets fairly mixed marks. And President Nixon, who’s often lauded for his foreign policy achievements, particularly with China, scores pretty poorly. Were you surprised by any of the findings?NYE: One of the personal surprises was how well George H.W. Bush did. As a personal note: I had worked in 1988 on the [Michael] Dukakis campaign and had done my best, obviously inadequately, to prevent George H.W. Bush from becoming president. And lo and behold, 32 years later, when I’m writing this book, I find he comes out pretty close to the top of the pile. “A moral foreign policy … [has] to combine three dimensions: the intentions, the means that are used, and the consequences.” On the brink of war Like a fish out of a war zonelast_img read more

Read More →

Fitness camp for obese Negrense cops mulled

first_img“Every morning, he does walking fortwo to three kilometers. Since we started this, he has lost 12 kilograms,” thepolice official said. According to Baleros, they areplanning to implement a weight loss program for 45 to 60 days. The participantswill be housed at the provincial police headquarters in this city. “Big Boy” told reporters that whenBaleros first saw him, he weighed 158 kilograms, but he is now down to 146. Alias “Big Boy” dismissed the commentsof netizens that he was shamed by Baleros in uploading the video of him doingphysical exercises. Alias “Big Boy” said his weightballooned during the time he was doing office duties between September 2013 andApril 2014. He added that while these policeofficers are based at the Camp Alfredo Montelibano Sr., he will join them intheir daily morning walking exercise and ensure that they follow a certaindiet. Still, he said he will persevere withthe encouragement and support of his superior as he admitted having lacked thediscipline to maintain his ideal body weight. “They don’t know the whole story. PD(provincial director) also gave me advice during that time…He has goodintentions,” he added. BACOLOD City – Overweight policemen inNegros Occidental will be forced to work off their accumulated fats and bulgingwaistlines. Police Colonel Romeo Baleros, the province’s top cop, is set tolead an in-house fitness camp starting next week for overweight police officersto help them reach their ideal body mass index (BMI).center_img During the press conference, Balerospresented alias “Big Boy,”  an obesepolice officer he has been helping lose weight since November last year. “I asked the one in-charge of the BMIevaluation to identify all policemen who are obese. Our aim is to significantlytrim down their weight,” Baleros said on Tuesday. “Right now, my weight loss is stillnot significant, but I will push for it. It’s hard to go on a diet especiallywhen you’re used to eating a lot,” said the policeman, who is a good cook. On Feb. 29, Baleros uploaded on hispersonal Facebook page a video showing him coaching the policeman in doingsit-ups, push-ups and stationary jogs while inside his office. Baleros said that when he saw “BigBoy” on detachment duty about four months ago, he ordered him to be assigned atthe NOCPPO headquarters so he could closely monitor his progress in losingweight. Still, he needs to work harder toreach a BMI of 80 kilograms, which is ideal for males like him who are 5’11”tall. He said he tipped the scales at 80 kilograms when he was a police traineein 2011. Baleros said he is helping “Big Boy”to also encourage other obese policemen to become fit so they can do their jobwell. (With a report from PNA/PN)last_img read more

Read More →

Caution opens door for Cordes in XSAN Hawkeye Dirt Tour at Indee

first_imgINDEPENDENCE, Iowa (July 24) – The caution that Troy Cordes was hoping for finally came out with eight laps left in Thursday’s XSAN Hawkeye Dirt Tour main event at Independence Motor Speedway.Defending IMCA Xtreme Motor Sports Modified series champion Ronn Lauritzen drew the outside pole start and clearly had the fastest ride through the first 22 circuits. Cordes had taken the opening green from 11th and worked his way steadily to second but was still well off the pace before the fateful yellow flew for a car stopped on the track. The two Independence regulars dueled up front before Cordes finally found his way to the front. The final caution, for a car perched on the backside of turn four, set up a green, white, checkered fin­ish. Cordes pulled ahead to take the checkers a couple car lengths ahead of Lauritzen. He earned a spot on the 2015 Fast Shafts All-Star Invitational ballot along with his tour career first victory.Vern Jackson, Jeff Waterman and Adam Johnson completed the top five. Point leader Mike Van Genderen was sixth. Different drivers have prevailed in each of the first six series events this season; Cordes had run second to Darin Duffy when the Hawkeye Dirt Tour shared the midweek stage with the World of Outlaw Late Models last August. Cordes has won 10 sanctioned events this season and now has 90 IMCA Modified victories to his ca­reer credit.Next up on the Hawkeye Dirt Tour schedule is the Thursday, Aug. 7 show at Hancock County Speedway in Britt. That event doubles as the 20th annual Night of 1,000 Stars special and pays a minimum of $3,500 to win. Another $2,500 in lap money is at stake, plus a $1,000 bonus for leading at midway of the 50-lapper. Another $2,000 will be added to the winner’s share if they’ve raced at Hancock County Speedway at least four times previously this season, making for a potential payout of $9,000 at the Doug Studer Farms-sponsored program. Feature results – 1. Troy Cordes, Dunkerton; 2. Ronn Lauritzen, Jesup; 3. Vern Jackson, Water­loo; 4. Jeff Waterman, Quincy, Ill.; 5. Adam Johnson, Independence; 6. Mike Van Genderen, New­ton; 7. Scott Hogan, Vinton; 8. Jesse Sobbing, Glenwood; 9. Jeremy Mills, Garner; 10. Cay­den Carter, Oskaloosa; 11. Tim Ward, Gilbert, Ariz.; 12. Darin Duffy, Urbana; 13. Joe Docekal, Dysart; 14. Patrick Flannagan, Cedar Rapids; 15. Mark Schulte, Delhi; 16. Ed Thomas, Waterloo; 17. Tyler Groenendyk, Oskaloosa; 18. Nick Roberts, Des Moines; 19. Richie Gustin, Gilman; 20. Jacob Murray, Hartford; 21. Jason Snyder, Dunkerton; 22. Matt Gansen, Zwingle; 23. J.D. Au­ringer, Waterloo; 24. Dustin Brown, Thornton. 1st heat (top three) – 1. Carter; 2. Waterman; 3. Johnson; 4. Duffy; 5. Groenendyk; 6. Snyder; 7. Justin O’Brien, West Union; 8. Ward. 2nd heat – 1. Van Genderen; 2. Gustin; 3. Cordes; 4. Sobbing; 5. Gansen; 6. Schulte; 7. Murray; 8. Derek Reimer, Marshalltown. 3rd heat – 1. Hogan; 2. Mills; 3. Docekal; 4. Flannagan; 5. Dustin Brown; 6. Kyle Brown, Kellogg; 7. Tyler Droste, Waterloo; 8. Zach Less, Hopkinton. 4th heat – 1. Lauritzen; 2. Roberts; 3. Jackson; 4. Auringer; 5. Shane DeMey, Denison; 6. Thomas; 7. Brennen Chipp, Waterloo.1st “B” feature (top five) – 1. Duffy; 2. Flannagan; 3. Groenendyk; 4. Dustin Brown; 5. Snyder; 6. Kyle Brown; 7. O’Brien; 8. Droste; 9. Less; 10. Ward. 2nd “B” feature – 1. Sobbing; 2. Auringer; 3. Gansen; 4. Thomas; 5. Schulte; 6. DeMey; 7. Mur­ray; 8. Chipp; 9. Reimer.Provisionals – Ward and Murray.last_img read more

Read More →

Confident Kolkata Knight Riders up against Rajasthan Royals

first_imgJaipur: High on confidence after their magnificent victory over Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB), Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) will eye another dominant show when they take on Rajasthan Royals in an Indian Premier League (IPL) match at the Sawai Mansingh Stadium here on Sunday.On Friday, it was Andre Russell’s rampage, which powered Kolkata to a five-wicket win over Royal Challengers Bangalore while chasing a massive 206-run target. The purple brigade are currently placed second in the league points table with three wins in four matches and the Dinesh Karthik-led side will aim to keep the momentum going against an average looking Rajasthan.On the other hand, Rajasthan lie seventh in the points table after managing just a win from four games.Kolkata batsmen Andre Russell, Robin Uthappa, Nitish Rana and Shubhman Gill are in fine touch. After the win against bottom placed RCB, Kolkata will carry the belief to win games from any situation, thanks to Russel, who has single-handedly won matches for them.Rana has also been effective so far as the batsman has been amongst the runs, accumulating 169 from four games at a fantastic average of 42.25. Kolkata’s bowling will once again revolve around Sunil Narine, Kuldeep Yadav and Piyush Chawla as the wicket at Sawai Man Singh has been slow and low this season.Rajasthan, on the other side, have some stars in their rank with the likes of Steve Smith, Ben Stokes, Sanju Samson and Jos Butler. However, all of them have failed to live up to expectations. It would be a perfect time for all of them including skipper Ajinkya Rahane to deliver the goods as playing at home will certainly be an added advantage.Coming to their bowling, Rajasthan bowlers Jofra Archer, Jaidev Unadkat and Stokes have leaked runs in the death overs so far and will certainly have to look for a solution after Russell’s sensational fireworks against Bangalore.Rajasthan will once again look at Sherays Gopal, who has scalped six wickets from four games and was exceptional with the leather with figures of 3/12 against Bangalore. Overall, Kolkata will be favourites on Sunday. However, one can’t underestimate the power of Rajasthan, the inaugural title holder of the cash-rich league. IANSAlso Read: SPORTS NEWSlast_img read more

Read More →

House Puts AG, Commerce Sec in Criminal Contempt Over Census Question

first_imgThe U.S. House of Representatives voted late Wednesday to hold Attorney General Bill Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in criminal contempt of Congress.Democrats accuse Barr and Ross of rejecting subpoenas for information about the origins of President Trump’s citizenship question, which was intended for the 2020 Census but was banned by the Supreme Court.The vote passed along party lines, 230-198.In response, the White House calls the move “ridiculous and yet another lawless attempt to harass the President and his Administration.”According to a statement from Barr and Ross, “By taking this action, the House is both unnecessarily undermining inter-branch comity and degrading the constitutional separation of powers and its own institutional integrity.”When it became clear last week that the census would most likely not include the citizenship question, President Trump ordered federal agencies and departments to provide data about citizens and non-citizens to the Commerce Department.last_img read more

Read More →