Human rights and foreign policy
The New York Times today has the story that the French foreign minister, a founder of Doctors without Borders, has shocked (shocked!) many by saying in an interview that “there is permanent contradiction between human rights and the foreign policy of a state, even in France” and that “One cannot decide the foreign policy of a country only as a function of human rights. To lead a country obviously distances one from a certain Utopianism” — in French — “angélisme.”
It reminded me that John Courtney Murray shocked many Catholics when he expressed his agreement with the question a journalist friend had asked him:
Since the day of Roger Williams and his separation of the “garden” (the Christian community) and the “wilderness” (society or “the world”), prevalent American moral theory has never found a way to bridge the chasm between the order of private life and the order of law, public policy, and institutional action, especially when the question concerns the nation-state. The private life is governed by the will of God as stated in the Scriptures. It is to bear the stamp of the Christian values canonized by the Scriptures—patience, gentleness, sacrifice, forbearance, trust, compassion, humility, forgiveness of injuries, and, supremely and inclusively, love. On the other hand, it is the plainest of historical facts that the public life of the nationstate is not governed by these values. Hardly less plain is the fact that it cannot be. What, asked my journalist friend quite sensibly, has the Sermon on the Mount got to do with foreign policy? Pacifism, for instance, may be a dictate of the individual conscience, but it cannot be a public policy. What then is the will of God for the nation-state? How and where is it to be discovered? There is no charter of political morality in the Scriptures.
Murray’ essay (chapter 12 of We Hold These Truths) includes a criticism of people whom he called “ambiguists,” of whom Reinhold Niebuhr was an example, and to whom Murray wished to contrast the clarity and firmness of a revival of natural law theory.
Thoughts on either argument?
What, asked my journalist friend quite sensibly, has the Sermon on the Mount got to do with foreign policy? Pacifism, for instance, may be a dictate of the individual conscience, but it cannot be a public policy.
I find it hard to make such a clean division between the moral norms governing states and those governing individuals. States are comprised of individuals and their policies are carried out by individuals. If the moral guidelines for states are different than those for individuals, then there must be some individuals who choose to turn aside from their personal moral obligations (e.g. turning the other cheek) and become agents of the state. On what grounds may an individual turn aside from the commands of Jesus?
Some might answer: for the common good (or for the greater good). This seems to me to be a kind of utilitarianism.
I do not know Fr. Murray’s work well enough to say whether I agree with him or not. But I am in general agreement with what I take to be the thrust of the passage that Fr. Komonchak cites. I would offer the following clarifications. First, I believe that there are some state actions that no one, individual citizen or public official, can rightly condone or participate in. For example, torture. The list of things forbidden is open to expansion through further investigation both of facts and of the implications of such moral norms as those that forbid deliberate violations of the most elementary human rights.
Second, whatever policies a state adopts that do not aim directly to violate anything I say in the first point are subject to criticism in terms of their practicality, but are in principle candidate for morally justified support. This means that A may prudently conclude that he or she can rightly support them , while B may prudently conclude that he or she should not do so. In such cases, there is no ideally right conclusion that obligates everyone. In this sense, I would agree with the comment that “there is no charter of political morality in the Scriptures.” Nor is there any charter anywhere else.
Please let me append here a remark about Peter V’s (apologies for not recalling the proper spelling of Peter’s last name) enthusiasm for “analytic philosophy.” All too often, some philosophers have used the term “analytic philosophy” as a weapon to justify dismissing out of hand the work of people like Habermas, Lefort, Merleau-Ponty, Jonas, and Ricoeur. I know of no precise definition of what makes a philosophy “analytic.” Just waving this adjective around as a way to dismiss thinkers like these is not a mark of intellectual excellence.
I agree that “there is no charter of political morality in the Scriptures”, but perhaps it’s worth recalling that Scripture is not the the totality of God’s revelation to us. While principles for the right conduct of nation-states aren’t found in the Gospels, those principles are nevertheless discernible through reason – ideally, reason purified by faith. David Tenney, perhaps that is the link between moral norms governing the individual and those governing the state – the discernment and judgement of the state’s leaders.
Might one not say that can be no such thing as political morality? Is not morality a personal matter? Is there a political action which is not carried out by a person or persons? The refusal to carry out an unjust political action may well lead to martyrdom. Is this not what Socrates – before the coming of Our Lord – exemplified?
Perhaps JAK’s piece is a kind of reply finally to a question I have put to all three Catholic periodicals, namely, the unending silence of the RCC against the Slaughter of the Innocents by Israel.
However, this silence must have been the same of Pius XII on Hitler’s slaughter.
Putting aside the God-Speak, it seems to me that the Church is wrong is both instances, so wrong, that no question will be answered.
Silence is no Catholic reply to the torments of the Palestinians.
But it is a way out of a great embarrassment because if the periodicals were more Catholic, the Church could expect lots of push-back from the Lobby.
Hardly the policy of representatives of the Prince of Peace.