Theology Today - Vol 28, No. 4 - January 1972 - CRITICSCORNER - The Necessary Morality of Foreign Affairs

500 - The Necessary Morality of Foreign Affairs

The Necessary Morality of Foreign Affairs
By Mark O. Hatfield

THIS past spring, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Paul Ramsey, and I were asked to deliver lectures on the theme of "Morality and International Affairs" at the Johns Hopkins School of International Affairs. The essence of Mr. Schlesinger's lecture appeared in the August issue of Harper's ("The Necessary Amorality of Foreign Affairs"). Mr. Schlesinger emphasizes that the day by day, concrete decisions of foreign affairs should not be viewed directly in moral terms. Rather, the guide for the foreign conduct of a nation should be the prudent pursuit of its own self interest. The dangerous and malicious examples of foreign conduct, according to Mr. Schlesinger, have resulted from those nations who became overly zealous and moralistic about their pursuits, rather than being bound by careful assessments of their national interest.

The thrust of my own remarks in the Johns Hopkins lecture series took a significantly different direction. I argued that the deepest tragedy of our foreign policy has been its insensitivity to the moral dimensions of our conduct with other nations, and to global problems that confront mankind. I pleaded for a new integration of fundamental moral concerns in the formulation and implementation of our foreign policy.

It is in Vietnam, in my judgment, where our glaring lack of morality has been most obvious. The psychology of the "body

Mark O. Hatfield is the Republican Senator from Oregon and is known for his opposition to the Vietnam war, particularly through his co-sponsorship of the Hatfield-McGovern Amendment, which proposed to set a deadline for the withdrawal of all U. S. troops from Vietnam. Senator Hatfield, a Baptist, has also urged evangelical churchmen to assume a greater awareness of and responsibility for social problems. Many of his speeches and essays on these subjects are collected in his recent book, Conflict and Conscience (1971), including his article, "The Path to Peace," which appeared in the January, 1970, issue of THEOLOGY TODAY.

501 - The Necessary Morality of Foreign Affairs

count" and the incalculable toll of human death and suffering, caused primarily by our overwhelming use of fire power, has demonstrated a callous insensitivity to the worth of the individual human life.

The differences between Mr. Schlesinger and me can be amply illustrated, I believe, by our perspectives on the Indochina tragedy. He eventually acknowledges that the war "is an immoral war," but then says "it became so, ironically, when our moralistic zeal burst the limitations of national interest." Thus, Mr. Schlesinger asserts that a misguided moralism made our original commitment, which was justifiable, an intractable and immoral involvement.

I disagree. In my judgment, from the beginning of our aid to the French, through the subsequent support of successive regimes in South Vietnam and the use of our troops there, we have been consistently motivated by an estimate of our national interest. Our leaders have believed that our interests included the survival of a friendly, non-communist government in South Vietnam. Perhaps, as some have argued, past Presidents since Truman also thought that this policy was in their own personal political interests in order to assure their reelection. A calculus of our own national interests, devoid of basic moral concerns, has consistently been at the heart of our intervention. We did not seriously consider, for instance, the moral implications of underwriting France's efforts to preserve colonial rule in Indochina, or the moral dimensions of intervening directly in a conflict that was seen by most Vietnamese as a civil war, or the moral travesty of the death and devastation that has resulted throughout Indochina, or the moral vacuity of a policy designed to reduce American deaths while perpetrating suffering and destruction of Vietnamese.

Certainly, as Mr. Schlesinger points out, many leaders have used moralistic language in justifying our policy. Further, we need not deny the disregard of moral principles demonstrated by the adversary in Vietnam.

However, I contend that the fundamental mistake of our policy in Indochina has been its divorce from moral concerns. We have pursued what was thought to be in our national interest without questioning the moral consequences of our actions. Our error has

502 - The Necessary Morality of Foreign Affairs

not been that we simply were mistaken about our national interest. Rather, it is that we based our policy on the exclusive pursuit of our self interest rather than adhering to fundamental moral claims and considerations.

Our Vietnam policy is a prototype for the moral lethargy and insensitivity that characterizes much of our foreign policy. Put simply, schemes of political collaboration and presuppositions about our national interests take precedence over needs of humanity. The death of nearly 10,000 people daily because of inadequate food, the suffering of nine million refugees who have fled East Pakistan, the plight of those subjected to the repression of military dictatorships in Brazil or Greece, and the impoverishment and hopelessness of millions living in the Jakartas and Calcuttas of the world-these moral, human realities do not become the basis for our action in the world.

If we follow a foreign policy based on the pursuit of our national interest, geared to the preservation of our society's fundamental political institutions, we do not have to do anything about these instances of tragic human suffering in the world. Our interests and security are not really threatened by such problems. That is why I reject a foreign policy constructed on the simple notion of our self-interest and independent of basic moral considerations.

It is because our nation is so rich, so resourceful, and so powerful that we cannot afford, for the sake of mankind, to think we are immune from a moral responsibility for the needs of our fellow man. We must integrate, rather than remove, moral considerations as we formulate our foreign policy.

III

As Christians, we should be at the forefront of the attempt to relate, in a creative new way, moral claims to the conduct of our foreign policy. While much of our recent theological tradition, which was referred to by Mr. Schlesinger, has attempted to justify national interest as the legitimate guide to foreign policy, our present era demands that we re-think these concepts.

The needs of mankind become more severe as population increases; communication technology increases man's awareness of his condition. The solution to global problems of hunger, impoverishment, population growth, resource depletion, and environ-

503 - The Necessary Morality of Foreign Affairs

mental destruction can come only as the rich and powerful are motivated by humanity's needs rather than simply their own self interest. There must be a moral basis for such action. For me, as an individual, that basis is found through allegiance to Christ.

Realists have ruled the world for decades. Who is satisfied by the results? We can do no worse, now, than to respond to man's ideals, to moral demands, and to the dictates of compassion. Indeed, only such a response can begin to open man's hope for the future.