Session 7 - Another Great Debate

In the first section of his article, Morgenthau questions whether one can really find ‘humanitarian and pacific traditions’ in American foreign policy. He argues that the foreign policy was actually based on balance of power politics and that it is absurd to say that it was based on humanitarianism and pacifism. He says that the American public refuses to believe that policies were made on anything but moral principles. I particularly enjoyed this section as Morgenthau systematically dismantles the foreign policy of a ruling hegemonic super power which propagates moralistic ideas across the world and uses such values as an excuse to interfere in the affairs of other countries.

In his second section, Morgenthau says that national interests change with time and circumstances. Along with this, conflict and threat of war have to be continuously adjusted by diplomatic action. I agree with Morgenthau, as nation’s interests do not stay stationary and rather than creating peace, there is a perpetual threat of conflict. This makes sense because if state interests were to ever remain the same throughout time, the world would eventually reach a point of total peace. However, as realists argue, there can never be peace, although there is a possibility that there may exist a negative peace in the world.

Lastly, Morgenthau says that while it is possible that you may wage war based on moral principles and national interests, the method of fighting the war and achieving peace reflects your political philosophy. Furthermore, it is possible to win the battle on ground but still defeat your moral principles and national interests. I could not help but think of the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan. While Pakistan fights for Kashmir on the basis that it is a Muslim majority region, the method of resolving the issue may reflect poorly on the principles of the so called ‘Islamic’ republic of Pakistan.