For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
ETHICS AND DIPLOMACY.
Term Paper ID:28996
Essay Subject:
Cites need for a global ethic.... More...
9 Pages / 2025 Words
6 sources, 15 Citations,
TURABIAN Format
$36.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Cites need for a global ethic. Contends that ethical standards must dictate the diplomatic practice. Politics. Different religiouis values. Human rights abuses. Humanitarian interventions & ethical dilemmas. Role of UN (United Nations). Discusses debate between national interest approach to humanitarian intervention vs. human values approach.
Paper Introduction:
ETHICS AND DIPLOMACY:
THE PRICE OF HUMANITARIANISM
Traditionally, ethics have impacted diplomatic practice in a host of ways. In many cultures, religious values impart an ethical standard that is confluent with diplomacy; Muslim states are renowned for their commitment to one religious, ethical, and political law. In more secularized, democratic states, ethics struggle to find a center in a society which is structured to protect individual liberty and the free-market, capitalist system. In any established government, a guiding philosophy must dictate diplomatic practice. Ethical standards must be determined and enforced to this end.
Today, the need for clear ethical standards are more important than ever. The scope of diplomacy is broadening under the new globalization,
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
Anyone with faith in human nature must suppose otherwise. The ethicalfoundation for this approach is one of protection and defense of U.S.interests- not human rights.[6] Support for this ethical approach is widespread. Perhaps eventually ourcollective similarities will outweigh the sum of our differences.Globalization is certainly working towards that end. And so we will always have a need for diplomacy. Each requires a developed ethical framework.[1] Ultimately, the politics of humanitarian intervention are inseparablefrom their underlying ethical dilemmas; in 1914, the Carnegie Council onEthics and International Affairs was founded to study and promote thosevalues and conditions necessary for peaceful relations among individualnations.[2] In 1948, the United Nations issued it's Universal Declarationof Human Rights, pronouncing the "full realization of the intrinsic dignityof the human person, the inalienable freedom and equality in principle ofall humans, and the necessary solidarity and interdependence of all humanswith each other".[3] In 1993, The Parliament of the World's Religionssought to elevate what was to the United Nations a declaration of rights toa new level: a declaration of ethics. And would it discourage the United States fromcontinuing to pursue its economic interests overseas under a banner ofhuman rights protection? This is astrictly ethical issue. Hence, it isin everyone's interest to nip such insurgencies in the bud. burdens itself with a disproportionateshare of the cost of global peacekeeping. Konrad Raiser, GeneralSecretary of the World Council of Churches in Geneva explains that theDeclaration "is confident that the different religious and ethicaltraditions of humankind contain sufficient elements of an ethic 'which isconvincing and practical for all women and men of good will, religious andnon-religious".[13] The Declaration espouses four "irrevocable directives"which are designed to satisfy the criteria explained above. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1996.Kollek, Teddy. Of all the forces which shape diplomatic practice, ethics are amongthe most influential, as well as among the most intangible. And, many feel that if theUnited States does not defend democracy and human rights in the new worldorder, no other nation will be inclined to step in in it's stead.Regarding the economic feasibility of the human value ethic, the promotionof democratic regimes abroad could eventually create a climate ofstability, and in the process open and expand foreign markets favorable toAmerican goods and culture.[9] Many political theorists regard the human value approach as the onlyviable option for nations such as the United States. Hans Kung, a key player at the Global Ethic roundtable,acknowledges that "As in the question of human rights or ecology, peace anddisarmament...this will happen in a very complex and long-draw-out processof a change in consciousness."[15] The ethic is clear- it is a moral issue, an issue of conscience andconsciousness. The four directives obviously endorse the human value approach toethics. On the other hand, UN-sponsored military interventions inBosnia(and others) have been led by U.S. Before examining the components of a global ethic, it is prudent toexplore the debate between the national interest approach to humanitarianintervention and the human values approach. Until that time,ethical standards will continue to clash all over the world as theymotivate contradictory diplomatic practices. participation, which seems to havebeen prompted by a genuine desire to uphold a human value ethic.[5] For the United States the ethical basis of diplomacy clearly canoscillate according to circumstance. prepare to take an active rolein disciplining and isolating nations that abuse human rights, eitherthrough economic sanction or direct military intervention. Ignoring human rightsabuses, it is felt, encourages despotism and oppression; when dictators areappeased, as was Adolph Hitler by British Prime Minister NevilleChamberlain in the years preceding World War II, the stage is effectivelybeing set for disaster and conflict on a much larger scale. In any established government, a guidingphilosophy must dictate diplomatic practice. ETHICS AND DIPLOMACY: THE PRICE OF HUMANITARIANISM Traditionally, ethics have impacted diplomatic practice in a host ofways. involvement, though under coverof human rights protection, was widely understood to be economicallymotivated. The argument for limited involvementoverseas is a potent one in the United States, for there is much to riskwhen a human values ethic is employed. In finding the commondenominators among the religions of the world, the Parliament of theWorld's Religions aims to quiet the storm of human suffering. Retrieved from the World Wide Web May 21, 2 : www.public-agenda.org."Declaration Toward a Global Ethic." Yes to a Global Ethic. The scope of diplomacy is broadening under the new globalization,and in this international integration system there exists many anopportunity for individual nations to extend their diplomatic practices tothe far reaches of the planet. On the domestic end,many Americans feel that the only justifiable ethic is one which dealsnearly exclusively with urgent needs at home. For now, ethics and diplomacy will likely remain a national issue.Indeed, in the quest to retain national sovereignty in a globalizing world,ethics may be a last line of defense against the intrinsic culturalhomogeneity brought on by economic inter-dependence. To combat this ethical dilemma, the Declaration Toward a Global Ethicseeks to derive a value system from the whole of the human race, a systemto which everyone can adhere in good conscience. Internationally, many nationsabroad feel resentment for the U.S. In the age of technological convergence, globalized commerce, andsocio-cultural tension, an ethical framework that can unite the people ofevery religion and every nation would not be remiss. The objective:to completely and concisely design a global ethic blue-print which mayimpact the diplomatic practice of all nations. In the emerging globalization, a strong economy is regarded asthe ultimate source for long-term security; an ethic of narrow interestoverseas attempts to streamline diplomacy towards the advancement ofeconomic stability and domestic wealth.[7] On the other hand, a human values approach which promotes democracyand protects human rights is, in many ways, more ethically appealing.Under this approach, diplomacy in the United States assumes a verydifferent style. has a vested interest in the state of affairs of the world atlarge, and has unrivaled influence abroad. In the case of the United States, an ethical frameworksupporting diplomatic practice is nearly always in flux, as each situationabroad is weighed against public opinion, international pressure, andeconomic special interest. It commands that the U.S. June, 1999. Of paramount concern are human rightsviolations, and any "immoral" exploitation of the weak by the mighty. BibliographyAhmed, Akbar S. And that diplomacy will always be justified. Ahmed, "Islam's Crossroads", History Today, v49 i6 (June1999): 24-7.[13] Konrad Raiser, "Global Order and Global Ethic", Yes to a Global Ethic,(1996): 122.[14] "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic", 17-23.[15] Hans Kung, "Will a Global Ethic Prevail?", Yes to a Global Ethic,(1996): 3. One approach to this dilemma states that nationalinterests must be the prevailing catalyst for any sort of intervention.Another argues that human values must determine the basis of aninterventionist diplomatic policy. Will internationalhomogeneity someday extinguish the flare of diversity? And that justification willalways correspond with the "ethics" preached by the combatants. "Islam's Crossroads." History Today. But at what pricewill we blend our economies, cultures, and ethics? An appropriate model for thisstudy is the United States; arguably the world's only remaining superpower,the U.S. The challenge ofhumanitarian intervention might be assuaged if individual states andpersons were prompted to focus upon moral common denominators, not culturalor political discrepancies. Health care, education, andwelfare all suffer when the U.S. Believing that there can be noglobal order without a global ethic, the Parliament made it's DeclarationToward a Global Ethic in hopes of aligning the people and governments ofthe world behind a moral, ethical code of conduct for diplomatic practicein the future. In the future, it is well to hope that a global ethic will bind thereligious and non-religious of the world together. The U.S. The four directives command that all nations commit to non-violenceand respect four life, to solidarity and a just economic order, totolerance and truthfulness, and equal rights and a partnership between menand women.[14] Clearly, the global ethic acknowledges that there can be nopeace among nations if there be no peace among religions. In many cultures, religious values impart an ethical standard thatis confluent with diplomacy; Muslim states are renowned for theircommitment to one religious, ethical, and political law. "Ethics and International Affairs." Foreign Policy. V49 i6 p24."America's Global Role." Public Agenda Online 2 . Today, the need for clear ethical standards are more important thanever. Ethical standards must bedetermined and enforced to this end. This limited, national interestethic demands that diplomacy reflect a narrow set of internationalinterests. It is in many ways a self-sacrificing ethic; it places thebest interest of humanity above the best interest of America, inherentlybelieving that human prosperity is ultimately the most important franchiseof all. In moresecularized, democratic states, ethics struggle to find a center in asociety which is structured to protect individual liberty and the free-market, capitalist system. Doubtful. For theUnited States and the Muslim nations, would an ethic such as this one serveto relax those Arabs who regard the West as the "Great Satan" of the livingworld? Though globalization is shrinking the world down, many culturesand systems still decorate the planet, and often the moral judgments andideological preferences of one nation are not consistent with those ofanother.[11] For example, many Islamic peoples currently despise theinflux of Western culture into Muslim society; in some cases the West, andparticularly the United States, are pictured as the embodiment of ethicsgone awry, and Islamic fundamentalists are fighting to rid Muslimgovernments of any Western stylings.[12] Under the current arrangement, aWestern human value ethic may appear downright immoral to Muslims, hencebetraying the best intentions of the diplomatic practices reached inaccordance with that ethic. Spring 1999 i114 p128(2).-----------------------[1] Atman Trivedi, "Ethics and International Affairs", Foreign Policy, i114(Spring 1999): 128.[2] Ibid., 128-9.[3] "Declaration Toward A Global Ethic," Yes to a Global Ethic, (1996): 14.[4] Teddy Kollek, "Answer From Jerusalem on the Global Ethic", Yes to aGlobal Ethic, (1996): 83.[5] Trivedi, 129.[6] "America's Global Role," Public Agenda Online, © Public Agenda 2 .www.public-agenda.org.[7] Ibid.[8] Ibid.[9] Ibid.[1 ] Trivedi, 128.[11] "America's Global Role", www.public-agenda.org.[12] Akbar S. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1996.Raiser, Konrad. In Muslim states, ethics are up for debatealso; as different sects of Muslims interpret Islam and the word of Allahin varying ways and to varying degrees, so the ethical backbone ofdiplomacy curves and buckles. For a nation of this size andwealth, the ethical debate is deep and multi-faceted. Applying ethical insights to global affairs is an increasinglydifficult task in a world in which human rights abuses abound. The diplomacy attached to that ethic is not. It encouragesdiplomatic practice to recognize fledgling democracies and provide aid innurturing them. "Global Order and Global Ethic." Yes to a Global Ethic. More doubtful still. In this, domestic strategic needs and economic self-interest maybe made to suffer.[8] Ultimately, the human value ethic best promotes the ideals and valuesthat many Americans identify with most acutely. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1996.Trivedi, Atman. The first approach is highly economical- and opportunistic; the second, highly moral- and invariably self-sacrificing. has so farutilized both ethical approaches in determining diplomatic practice abroad;in Kuwait during the Persian Gulf War, U.S. Everydeveloped nation on the planet must decide what will determine wheninteraction abroad is necessary to prevent humanitarian crises. when it assumes it's role as a "WorldPoliceman". Teddy Kollek, mayor of Jerusalem from 1965 to1993 writes that "Whether by egotism or ignorance, humanity has far toooften flouted the rules of co-existence with others."[4] Ethical diplomacyis intended to eliminate egotism and ignorance, replacing it withsolidarity and compassion. In this, few strategic alliances should be made, and alloverseas commitments and expenditures should be scaled back. Ethicsaside, as long as people walk this earth, they will find some fundamentalthings to disagree about. Not as obvious is what practical diplomatic course would bestaccommodate this global ethic, assuming all nations and cultures do agreeupon it. However,ethics remains a tricky business, and humanitarian intervention can sustainethical criticism as well as endorsement.[1 ] A human value ethics approach obviously impacts diplomacy in drasticfashion. "An Answer From Jerusalem on the Project of a Global Ethic." Yes to a Global Ethic. A shifting,evolving entity, ethics often change in response to international eventsand crises.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject