Session 5 – Good Intentions

Morgenthau’s view that good intentions of any statesman do not necessarily translate into foreign policies that are morally praiseworthy or politically successful is very interesting. I find myself pondering over what exactly constitutes “good intentions” and “politically successful”

Good intentions of a person may not be perceived as good intentions by another. For example the “good intentions” of Hitler to make Germany a super power and exert the dominance of Germans over the rest of Europe do not seem so well intended. Even if we consider the argument that intentions need to be judged on whether they are good for a country in the international arena, we find that many people from the same country will oppose the action and term it as harmful and destructive. The point being that it is hard to build a consensus as to what constitutes “good intentions.”

The same argument can be applied to “politically successful.” What one may consider to be politically successful may not be so for another person. The example which comes to my mind is that of Kashmir. A division of Kashmir on the basis of some mutually agreed formula between India and Pakistan may be a politically successful step for some while others may term it as loss and defeat. In this case how do you define what politically successful is?

Both the terms for me are highly subjective whose definitions differ from person to person. There is no correct way to interpret them. But a range surely exists in the minds of the people which help them place good and successful over a spectrum.