moral diplomacy definition us history

moral diplomacy definition us history

The Concept and Evolution of Moral Diplomacy in U.S. History

1. Introduction to Moral Diplomacy

The catch here has been the overwhelming tendency of the political scientists to concentrate almost exclusively upon the formal strategies and goals of the different administrations in order to define, categorize, and analyze the separate phases or eras that divide American diplomatic history. These ritual postings of tactical diplomatic initiatives are joined together by using the most recent general foreign policy statement made by the United States government as delimited by either the president or the congressional majority leaders – types of state documents often devoid of principles. In doing so, the student of foreign relations has completely overlooked the animating religious and ethical principles which rationalized the particular American objectives in the first place. They have failed to ask the more important question, “Why?” Only by probing the underlying ethical and philosophical principles motivating a specific administration can one discover how and why the differing strategies and objectives that define one administration’s foreign policy would undergo a radical change in the next administration. Such immaterial things are ignored by the scientist even though they loom large in the minds of the American people. If the specific forms are overlooked or reduced to the survey level of analysis, one would not gain a complete understanding of how the American mind perceives its national interest and how changing perceptions would become translated into strategies and goals when confronting the same international problems.

Historians of American foreign relations have generally accepted Walter Lippmann’s argument that there have been three divergent principles which have underlain United States foreign policy over the years. Ample evidence supports his thesis. The formal statements of goals and the strategies used to pursue these goals undergo a dramatic transformation with each new president. No two administrations ever appear to consider foreign policy in exactly the same light. As Max Beloff has observed, when it comes to implementing policy, the president is legislative, executive, and judiciary combined in one, and it is he who, and he alone, can translate into effective action the general sense of the state.

2. Origins and Key Principles of Moral Diplomacy

Beyond doubt, moral diplomacy as a term has an essentially Wilsonian ring to it. By elevating it to the rank of a guiding principle, President Wilson gave it a powerful impetus from which it took its unique color. It is from his formulation that we have drawn a set of principles which we have named the doctrine of moral diplomacy. However, to describe this as its early regularly is to deny the existence of important instincts towards moral diplomacy in other statesmen or political leaders in the earlier history of the United States. They have found their roots in the ethical precepts that guided the original settlers of North America. The attribution of a certain preeminence in this respect to Woodrow Wilson, in the White House between 1913 and 1921, is not overlooked. From among statesmen of national stature, he will be the idealized figure of moral diplomacy in U.S. diplomatic history. Having identified the concept and outlined its evolution, we shall retrace the events and ideas that shaped the formulation. Along the way, we shall discover an insuperable limit in the application of its tenets, thereby providing a basis for evaluation.

In U.S. diplomatic history, the moral dimension has often been associated with Woodrow Wilson and his vision for ordering and peace. It is generally accepted that he identified the United States with the forces of good and believed that as such it had a role to play in shaping the destinies of other nations. This is the foundation of the doctrine of moral diplomacy, which advisers sitting at his feet with a feeling of reverence in the corridors of power were quick to transform into a guiding principle of foreign policy. Careful analysis of presidential utterances over the years makes the reality of such a progressive transition open to doubt, as will be seen. The idea of a vigilant moral people called upon to moralize their diplomacy is an old one in U.S. history and had been part of U.S. political and diplomatic thinking in the pre-1935 period.

3. Application and Impact of Moral Diplomacy in U.S. Foreign Policy

American policy toward Latin America had consistently been based on considerations of security, and the Monroe Doctrine was a product of this development. A long period of peace and uninterrupted franc led many to consider the security question as largely settled. The Latin American leaders who gathered in Mexico issued this collective protest of the Monroe Doctrine and pledged themselves to cooperate with one another in a serious effort to secure Latin America from dangers and intrusion. Wilsonian moral diplomacy was nothing more than a protest for the Monroe Doctrine which was outdated as the Plan of San Diego was ludicrous in the twentieth century. With the American people in favor of a strong navy and support for intervention in foreign affairs, the security policy was strengthened by American neutrality in the European War. Wilson expanded the post-Monroe Doctrine into one designed to enhance the independence of the Latin American states.

Effectively, the cornerstone of interpretation of moral diplomacy’s application in foreign policy during the Wilson administration in the United States is the president’s urgent need for Latin American policy to be treated in ways that extended the world war peace and progressive principles. However, it became clear at the outbreak of hostilities that the stakes were much higher and the task even more difficult. Critics did not have the same progressive and democratic view of most of the independent Latin American states. The need for coordination was simply abandoned and no Latin American people lost their battles for rights or justice in the United States meaning that cooperation among Latin American states was now of little importance and cooperation factors were merely convenient for those pieces of security.

4. Critiques and Controversies Surrounding Moral Diplomacy

Some historians believe the policy was implemented with tremendous inconsistency and caution. As Castle stated, America’s departure from traditional spheres of influence and naval stations would make the U.S. more vulnerable abroad, with many U.S. capitalist-promising governments which might require protection and aid, certainly not “allies” in any sense. Other critics of moral diplomacy implied that Wilson’s notion of international justice facilitated the emergence in Europe of only the “healthiest” peoples who possessed a “predisposition” for self-government. Such an idea was perfidious, for they believed it reflected nothing more than a cynical rationale for helping the winners of conflicts. In particular, the issue of protecting American interests regarding debts owed by the British and the French was a particular bone of contention between Wilson and the Senate.

Like any foreign policy, Wilson’s moral diplomacy had its share of critics and controversies. As it has been noted in this study, moral diplomacy centered on two broad principles— avoiding questionable alliances and promoting international justice. While these were indeed noble objectives, the reality of international politics sometimes necessitated their compromise, and hence its lack of “moral” consistency. When it came to protecting its interests in the Caribbean and Latin America, Wilson did not hesitate in entering into “incorrect” associations, for alliances and military occupations were made with questionable Latin American dictatorships such as Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. Such incongruities led critics to describe Wilson’s policy as exemplifying hypocrisy to Wilson’s ideals.

5. Conclusion: Relevance and Future Prospects of Moral Diplomacy

Undoubtedly, the ideal of moral diplomacy has lessons for the U.S. concerning the virtue of the application and implementation of moral values, and the realistic acknowledgment of the limitations and possible consequences of the influence of its foreign policy. Such considerations were echoed in the words of Harry S. Truman, when he mentioned, “for we must keep our goals clearly before us, knowing full well that our influence and our aspirations go much further than our last gun. The integrity and the unselfishness of United States action are the most effective voices among free men in all parts of the world.” In moments of reflection about the relevance of the ethical content of foreign policy, moral standards continue to influence the rhythm of U.S. diplomacy. In historical terms, moral diplomacy and the political discourse of American presidents remain important examples for the projection of ethical privileges, and the search for an international leadership role by the United States.

The subject of moral diplomacy is not just a historical debate, it is also relevant for understanding U.S. foreign policy today. The idea of a binary morality applicable to states and a sole defender of good in the world found in moral diplomacy has not disappeared, nor have the ideas of other presidential foreign policies for that matter. Investigating this ideal serves as a reminder of the enduring power of morality in foreign policy and raises questions on just how deeply rooted the ethos of being an exceptional good in the world really is. In addition, like the Good Neighbor Policy, the values that constitute the foundation of moral diplomacy are, if articulated and pursued faithfully, compatible with realism, as well as speak to significant and necessary concerns and needs of other states.