ethICAL ForeIgn PoLICy
For centuries, the foreign policy of most Western nations was based on realpolitik, doing whatever necessary to forward the self-interest of the nation. In the United States, which traditionally has seen itself as held to a higher standard, tension has always existed between realpolitik and a desire to act out of humanitarian concern or to preserve liberty.
During the 1990s, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and, the continuing genocide in Darfur forced Western nations to confront the question of ethics in foreign policy. Should nations whose self-interests are not threatened intervene in other countries solely for humanitarian reasons?
Pros Cons
Western governments must pursue an ethical foreign policy. This translates into the philosophy that impels us to act whenever there is a moral imperative to do so.
If “ethical foreign policy” means active intervention whenever there is a “moral imperative,” then it is a hope-lessly naïve notion. Governments are constrained by practical concerns. For example, selling arms to certain nations might be unethical, but if the government stops such sales, citizens lose jobs—and the weapons are pur-chased elsewhere.
Lobbyists should not influence foreign policy. It should be above special interests and should focus on doing what is right.
In a representative democracy discounting these groups is impossible. Moreover, the “right thing to do” for the nation may be what special interests demand.
The argument for ethical foreign policy is strongest when the West confronts heinous crimes in foreign lands, such as genocide in Rwanda or ethnic cleansing in the Bal-kans. In both places, the West had a clear moral impera-tive for acimpera-tive involvement—our action could save lives and free people from oppression.
We concede the principle but reject the practice. Inter-vening might make matters worse. We also have to be mindful of broader concerns, like the situation in the foreign country and what action might do to our image in other nations. Taking an active and moralistic stance toward African problems, for example, may make the West look like neo-imperialists.
In many cases, such as that of Kosovo in the 1990s, the humanitarian imperative demands intervention: We must act because if we don’t people will suffer and die.
Taking the pragmatic approach based on a careful assess-ment of national interests costs lives.
Intervention before a situation is fully assessed may cost more lives in the long run. Being starkly utilitarian is horrible, but foreign policy must solve problems for the long term; it cannot be based on a knee-jerk reaction to an immediate situation.
Extraordinary Rendition |91 This House would have an ethical foreign policy.
This House believes politics is the art of the necessary not the possible.
Web Link:
Reflections on the Theory and Practice of an Ethical Foreign Policy. <http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:W45iU_
• qsHNYJ:www.eucm.leidenuniv.nl/content_docs/gudmundson.doc+ethical+foreign+policy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&client=
safari> Analysis of how ethics relates to foreign policy.
Further reading:
Chandler, David, and Volker Heins. Rethinking Ethical Foreign Policy. Routledge, 2006.
Forsythe, David P. Human Rights in International Relations. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Meyer, William H. Security, Economics, and Morality in American Foreign Policy: Contemporary Issues in Historical Context. Prentice Hall, 2003.
extrAordInAry rendItIon
“Extraordinary rendition” is the transferring of a person from one jurisdiction to another, without any form of ju-dicial or administrative process (“rendition” in this case means giving something over to someone else). This makes it different from other rendition methods, such as extradition, which is treaty-based, or deportation, which is based on the expelling country’s domestic judicial processes. The term is currently connected to the US government’s “war on ter-ror.” Ever since President Bill Clinton issued a directive in 1995, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has had the possibility of using extraordinary rendition in the US fight against terrorism. The agency’s use of it rose significantly after the 9/11 attacks.
The persons who are “rendered” might be captured outside the US and then, without legal process, transferred to the US. They also might be captured on foreign soil and then transferred to another country. It is the latter case that has attracted the most criticism: according to critics, the US uses this specific form of extraordinary rendition to torture those suspected of terrorism, without having to do the torturing itself. That is why extraordinary rendition is sometimes also referred to as “torture flights.” This discussions focuses on these alleged “torture flights.”
Pros Cons
The US government uses “extraordinary rendition” as
“torture by proxy.” It delivers those suspected of terror-ism to countries that are known to practice torture, and expects certain results from those countries, in the form of information extracted. US practice violates both the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT), which forbids countries to render persons to states that practice tor-ture, and US domestic law, which also prohibits this.
In 2006 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed that the US government does not render persons to countries with the purpose of having them tortured. The US government may render those suspected of terrorism for “harsh interrogation,” but harsh interrogation is legal both under CAT and domestic law, which determines torture as “inducing severe pain.” In any case, the main reasons for rendering a terrorist suspect to another coun-try for questioning have more to do with that state’s role in the investigation than with particular interrogation techniques practiced there. The destination state may be better placed to interrogate the suspect in his own lan-guage, and may have detailed background information to inform the questioning process that the US lacks. The
Pros Cons
suspect may also be accused of plotting atrocities in the state to which he has been rendered, so it has a legitimate interest in interrogating him first.
Finally, in ratifying the Convention Against Torture in 1994, the US did so with the reservation that it can render persons to countries when it believes that it is more likely than not that a person will not be tortured.
Thus, under the US interpretation of CAT, the US can render individuals to countries that practice torture, as long as the US has reason to believe that the country will not torture in this specific case.
How does the US government know the difference between “harsh interrogation” and “torture,” and on what grounds does it base its belief that it is “more likely than not” that torture will not take place? By its nature, the work of the CIA is secretive. So, even if the CIA does obtain assurances, the general public can never check whether these agreements are being enforced. Since the CIA is being held responsible for fighting terrorism, they might even have an incentive to bend the rules a bit—as long as they can later show results to the public.
The CIA has a policy in practice whereby it obtains “dip-lomatic assurance” that torture will not be used. Under customary international law, the USA is obliged to act
“in good faith.” So, when America is given diplomatic assurance by another government, it would be a diplo-matic blunder not to trust that guarantee. Also, imagine the consequence if it were one day proved that the CIA rendered a person, knowing they would be tortured: not only would those involved lose their jobs, but also the reputation of the CIA would be severely damaged. That is why the CIA has an incentive to make sure that these assurances are believable.
What if the CIA makes mistakes? Because the victims are held in detention without recourse to any kind of judge, they have no possible way of getting out. Even worse, if someone is released out of this type of detention, the vic-tim has no way of seeking redress since the operation was covert. An example of this is the case of Khalid El-Masri, a German of Lebanese descent, who suddenly disap-peared in 2003. After he resurfaced in Albania in 2004, he claimed he was “kidnapped” by the CIA and tortured under the policy of “extraordinary rendition,” until the CIA realized its mistake and released him, without ex-cuse, and without compensation of any kind. Since there is no official record, his attempts to make a case against the CIA have failed. Worse still, a US judge dismissed his case, under the argument that pursuing the case would be a severe threat to national security.
To ensure that the CIA does not make any mistakes, it has started researching so-called erroneous renditions.
In the case of Khalid El-Masri, the CIA has never ad-mitted kidnapping him. The CIA does suspect, and is trying to apprehend, a German-based terrorist with the name Khalid Al-Masri, and it is possible that this per-son is using the similarity in names to create a backlash against the CIA. Regardless of the merits of this particu-lar case, it is clearly in the interests of America’s enemies to blacken its name and undermine its security forces through accusations of torture. Murky and unsubstanti-ated stories about rendition should thus not be believed uncritically.
For every example of an “effective” rendition, one has to ask: is it worth it? Because for every terrorist successfully caught and convicted after rendition, there may be many more mistakes. For every Ramzi Youssef, there might be dozens of Khalid El-Masris, Abu Omars, Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmads, Muhammad Bashmilas, and many more.
On top of that: consider the loss of reputation that the practice of extraordinary rendition has caused the US to suffer among its chief allies. In 2007 the EU adopted a
What people should not forget is that extraordinary rendition saves lives. It is used to bring people who are known or believed to be terrorists, to justice. These sus-pects are often stateless and they hide in places where ordinary processes of law do not work. Extraordinary rendition is then the only possible way of tracking them down, getting the necessary information from them, and bringing them to justice. They carry information that could save thousands of lives. The US would be foolish
Extraordinary Rendition |93
report condemning this particular US policy, and this was followed by a massive public outcry against the prac-tice. Such American tactics simply play into the hands of terrorists who seek to stir hatred against America and divide it from its allies. And finally, does the pretext of a terrorist threat really justify taking away a person’s right to due process? The question is even more relevant in that many experts believe torture is an ineffective meth-od of acquiring reliable intelligence in any case.
not to try to extract that from them. An example of this is Ramzi Youssef, who masterminded the 1993 bomb-ing of the World Trade Center and plotted to blow up airlines over the Pacific Ocean. After a rendition to the US, he was convicted and is now serving a life sentence.
Without rendition, who knows how many people he would have killed?
The people targeted by extraordinary rendition are citi-zens, not combatants, and more important, they are human beings. If there is a reasonable suspicion that these people are terrorists, the US should follow the normal route of asking the country where the suspect is living to extradite him. The suspect can then be tried by a regular US criminal court, where the public eye will ensure his right to due process. Even if one views this person as a “combatant,” he still has the fundamental human right to due process. The US should not vio-late the fundamental democratic rights it proclaims to defend in this war on terror.
We should not forget that the people the US targets for extraordinary renditions should be considered “unlawful combatants” in the war on terror. This term is important, because it identifies the US government as taking part in a war and terrorists as the combatants in that war. The people targeted for extraordinary rendition are “unlaw-ful combatants” since their aim is to kill and terrorize US civilians, not US soldiers. Under international law, that is a very severe war crime, requiring the US to take very severe measures. Moreover, since the US is at war with terrorism, it has the obligation to protect its citizens first—and the obligation to dirty its hands in the process.
Mistakes will inevitably be made, but in a time of war, the US cannot afford to risk the lives of its own citizens.
sample motions:
This House advocates ending the use of extraordinary rendition.
This House would end rendition flights.
This House believes the current US policy of using extraordinary rendition cannot be justified.
This House would end torture flights.
This House advocates denying the use of our airspace and facilities to extraordinary rendition flights.
Web Links:
Amnesty International. <http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/POL30/003/2006> Q&A on: rendition and secret detention.
•
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report: Renditions: Constraints Imposed by Laws on Torture. <http://www.fas.org/sgp/
• crs/natsec/RL32890.pdf> Overview of laws restricting rendition for torture.
Times Online. <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article745995.ece?token=null&offset=0>
• Condoleezza Rice statement justifying US practice.
Further reading:
Grey, Stephen. Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Rendition and Torture Program. St. Martin’s Griffin, 2007.
Paglen, Trevor, and A.C. Thompson. Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA’s Rendition Flights. Melville House, 2006.
Schulz, William. Tainted Legacy: 9/11 and the Ruin of Human Rights. Nation Books, 2003.
FACtory FArmIng, BAnnIng oF
Factory farming is the large-scale, industrial production of livestock and poultry designed to produce the highest output at the lowest cost. The practice began in the 1920s after the discovery of vitamins A and D and vitamin sup-plements, which allowed large numbers of animals to be raised indoors without sunlight. Proponents of the practice point to its economic benefits, while opponents say it has led to cruelty and environmental destruction.
Pros Cons
Factory farming is intrinsically cruel. Modern science permits factory farms to raise large numbers of animals indoors with no concern for their physical and emo-tional needs.
Factory farming involves very little cruelty or suffering—
certainly no more than in traditional forms of farming.
Animals have always been herded together, confined, branded, killed, and eaten. Furthermore, government regulatory agencies can more easily monitor large factory farms, so the animals often fare better than they would on traditional farms. Activists have ensured that the few isolated incidents of cruelty or bad practice have received publicity greatly out of proportion to their significance.
Factory farming sees animals as commodities for pro-duction and sale just like bricks or bread. But animals are conscious and know pleasure and pain. We should treat them humanely and with dignity. Factory farming does not. Yes, we are capable of higher thought and ani-mals are not, but this means that we must be good stew-ards and care for them. How terribly we fail in fulfilling that duty.
This is sentimental nonsense. Unless the state is going to impose vegetarianism (and that’s not being proposed here), farming will continue to be a business. It should be efficient and make a profit for the producer, while keeping prices low for the consumer. Many animals exist simply as a food source. Animals are not our equals and don’t have the capacity for higher thought. We can use them without any moral problem.
Factory farming does not practice healthier, traditional farming methods that were more in tune with nature and that were the backbone of a rural way of life that is now dying. The countryside that we love was created by traditional farming methods, particularly grazing, not vast sheds full of imprisoned animals.
Again, sentimentality is interfering with logic. Farming has always been the imposition of artificial, man-made patterns on nature. As for farmers losing jobs, plenty of people are employed in factory farming. Why is that any less worthy? And many farmers have sold off their land for enormous profits.
Factory farming is unhealthy for the environment. The waste from factory farms has contributed to water pollu-tion; large-scale beef farming has produced vast quanti-ties of methane that damages the ozone layer. Factory farming also erodes topsoil at an alarming rate.
Come on! Are we really supposed to believe that cow-produced methane is in the same league as pollution from big business and industry?
The topsoil point is more substantial. But that’s an argument for regulations requiring the upkeep and replacement of turf, not for banning a whole industry.
sample motions:
This House would ban factory farming.
This House would go free range.
This House prefers low-intensity agriculture.
Failed States, US Intervention to Prevent Collapse of |95 End Factory Farming. <http://www.factoryfarming.org.uk/whatis.html> Overview of the topic from an anti–factory-farming
• group.
FactoryFarming.com. <http://www.factoryfarming.com> Information on specific aspects of the topic by group opposed to
fac-• tory farming.
In Defense of Animals. <http://www.idausa.org/facts/factoryfarmfacts.html> Useful source of information from a group
op-• posed to factory farming.
Further reading:
Masson, Jeffrey Moussaieff. The Pig Who Sang to the Moon: The Emotional World of Farm Animals. Ballantine, 2003.
Scully, Matthew. Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy. St. Martin’s Griffin, 2003.