At Least Do No Harm

The most important issue is coming up now, as our week is winding down, the one Michael Contarino raises in his last posting, namely regarding the role of morality in foreign policy. I could not agree more that the next president must work to restore the "moral credibility" of the United States.
A good place to start is for the US to take the Hippocratic Oath: First Do No Harm.
The US should engage in war only if all other means of resolving a conflict have been exhausted, and if its vital interests are truly threatened. War--I know from personal experience--is neither heroic nor uplifting, but a killer. It undermines people's character, divides nations, and devastates others.
Second, the US should recognize that the less power it has--economic, military, cultural--the more important the morality of setting priorities becomes. It is a sort of lifeboat ethics. If we cannot save everyone and secure everything, we must carefully assess where we shall use up whatever resources--political capital included--we still have.
As I see it, morally speaking, our first duty (beyond attending to our vital interests) is not to force democratization on people but to stop genocides--all other good deeds pale in comparison. Sick people may be nurtured to good health; homeless people may be helped to build huts; hungry people, to be fed. However, dead people cannot be brought back to those who love them, and those who are killed are denied all other rights.
For more discussion see Part I of Security First (Yale 2007). Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at The George Washington University. To contact him, write comnet@gwu.edu.
www.securityfirstbook.com















Stopping genocide sounds good, doesn't it? Who could be against that?
Well, it's not as easy as just saying "let's stop genocides." Members of the US military signed up to defend the United States not to save lives abroad. What if we had intervened militarily in Rwanda and gotten stuck in the kind of morass that we found in Somalia? Would it have been worth American lives or American money? The answer isn't necessarily yes.
Further, Etzioni has a pretty wide view of when and why we might breach another country's sovereignty. I recall him arguing here that the Burma dictatorship's refusal to help its people after the monsoon was cause for the international community to enter Burma. Maybe so. But is that worth the risk to US lives? Is it worth our money when we have so many needs at home?
September 26, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink