The perfect foreign policy

[The diplomat]

I came up with 3 principles that I think would make a good foreign policy.

Principle #1: No nation should take an action that it is not willing to accept the consequences for.

Principle #2: No nation has the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of another nation unless to protect its national interests.

definition of national interests:
-if the nation's food and/or water supply is endangered.
-if the functioning of the government is endangered.
-if the territory is encroached upon by unauthorized military elements.
-if the lives of the nation's citizens is endangered.

Principle #3: A nation shall either refrain from all military action completely or engage in full military force until victory is acheived.

CONCLUSION: Principle #2 would seek to reduce tensions in the first place by reducing unwanted interference. When tensions do arise, principle #3 would seek to encourage peaceful solutions first, since nations would want to avoid the alternative of all out war with the terrible and disastrous cost in lives and property. Principle #1 wouls seek to encourage nations to respond to tensions in respsonsible ways, since nations would want to avoid solutions that backfire. Also, if all out war were to break out, principle #1 would seek to encourage both parties to respect humanitarian and civilized behavior. For example, I am less likely to slaughter civilians, since then my enemy would do the same to me, and I would not want that to happen.

I realize these principles may be overly idealistic. What do people think? Would these 3 principles lead to a good foreign policy?

[GePap]

First of all: the use of the word nation is asking for problems. The Kurds are a nation, sho would they have to follow these principles? Change Nation to State (or at least nation-state).

On 1:
What constitutes taking responsibility? And how is responsibility determined? Are unintended consequences covered?

On 2:
What constites the endangering of national water supplies? Who has control over water resources that cross interstate borders? Is simply less water, but still enough ot meet the basic necessities of life (if not basic economic necessities) considered threatening the supply?
Is the government being undermined legitimate?
Who can authorize military force?
Does this apply only directly? what about nominal threats, or possible threats?

On 3:
What constitutes complete victory? Must thenother side surrender? If the other side refuses to surrender, is their annahilation allowed?

[Solly]

You need at least 50 principles for ever an average foreign policy.

[Thorn]

Principle #2: No nation has the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of another nation unless to protect its national interests.

So you would protect genicide and murder conducted by other nations just because it isn't our business? Hitler would love you, he could kill jews like flies without anyone stopping him...

[Whaleboy]

Thorn, see Mill Limit, I wont bother explain again how the pacifist philosophy has self-imposed and reasonable limits.

You need cultural relativist principles for a decent foreign policy!

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
First of all: the use of the word nation is asking for problems. The Kurds are a nation, sho would they have to follow these principles? Change Nation to State (or at least nation-state).

Sure. "Nation-state" or "State" would be better.

On 1:
What constitutes taking responsibility? And how is responsibility determined? Are unintended consequences covered?

What I meant is an international affairs version of the golden rule: don't do unto others what you don't want done to you, but applied to the level of states.
Governments should automatically be responsible for the orders that they give.
Unintended consequences are not covered. I am only talking about deliberate actions. Governments would not be responsible for unintended consequences.

On 2:
What constites the endangering of national water supplies?

any action that makes the water undrinkable or a hazard to a person's health.

Who has control over water resources that cross interstate borders?

Well, any nation-state has legit control within its own borders. However, it cannot do anything even to its own water supply if those actions endanger the water supply of others. For example, it does not have to right to pollute its own waters if it knows that the polluted water will flow across borders.

Is simply less water, but still enough ot meet the basic necessities of life (if not basic economic necessities) considered threatening the supply?

yes that would be a threat to the supply, but only if the shortage is deliberate. One nation does not have the right to decide what constitutes "basic necessities" for another.

Is the government being undermined legitimate?

No groups can undermine a foreign government directly or indirectly. It is legitimate for a domestic group to undermine their own government if they are doing so of their own volition.

Who can authorize military force?

appropriate government leaders.

Does this apply only directly?

yes, only directly.

what about nominal threats, or possible threats?

No. The threat must be concrete or substantiated. A gov can't just say, "I think nation A is evil, so I want to attack them".

On 3:
What constitutes complete victory? Must the other side surrender? If the other side refuses to surrender, is their annahilation allowed?

Complete victory is when the other government officially surrenders or if there is no government at all. Of course, the war can also end at any time if both sides mutually agree to a peace settlement.

[Inverse Icarus]

the perfect foriegn policy is genocide. populate the world with your own people.

live happily for a thousand years.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Thorn
So you would protect genicide and murder conducted by other nations just because it isn't our business?

No, of course not!

Hitler would love you, he could kill jews like flies without anyone stopping him... [/QUOTE]

No, because I would stop Hitler.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Uber KruX
the perfect foriegn policy is genocide. populate the world with your own people.

live happily for a thousand years.

Hey! I just said that genocide is not allowed!

I am trying to have a serious discussion about foreign policy.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Hey! I just said that genocide is not allowed!

then your policy will ultimately fail.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Uber KruX
then your policy will ultimately fail.

why? If anyone tried genocide against me, I'd fight back with all out war. (see principle #3)

[Voltaire]

Idealistically speaking the proposed foreign policy may indeed be perfect, but in the real world things work slightly differently. States act in their own best interest, they will interfere in the sovereign affairs of other states if they deem it profitable.

The only way for the foreign policy you envision to be effective would be if there were no need for a foreign policy in the first place. That being that there only existed one state. So long as you have multiple state entities you will have each of those states pursuing a foreign policy that will be of detriment to other states.

[Inverse Icarus]

your policy will fail because you try to take the high road, and accept everything for what it is. the fact of the matter is that people work for different goals, and many may contend with your own.

the only prefect forigen policy is not having one at all.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Voltaire
Idealistically speaking the proposed foreign policy may indeed be perfect, but in the real world things work slightly differently. States act in their own best interest, they will interfere in the sovereign affairs of other states if they deem it profitable.

The only way for the foreign policy you envision to be effective would be if there were no need for a foreign policy in the first place. That being that there only existed one state. So long as you have multiple state entities you will have each of those states pursuing a foreign policy that will be of detriment to other states.

Well, I am not talking about whether every nation should adopt this foreign policy.

The real question of this thread is: would you adopt these 3 principles for your nation? And would these 3 principles be able to handle the different foreign policies of the other nations?

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Well, I am not talking about whether every nation should adopt this foreign policy.

The real question of this thread is: would you adopt these 3 principles for your nation? And would these 3 principles be able to handle the different foreign policies of the other nations?

In a word no, because these three principles do not benefit the states own self interest. In fact in a nation were to adopt these principles it would become pray to other nations. I would adopt something more along the lines of Bismark's realpolitik. The state as an entity strives for supremacy over all other nations, until such supremacy can be achieved by one state or another conflict between states will exist.

[yavoon]

I think its pretty obvious this is an unrealistically ideal foreign policy. tho its also pretty vague, give it a lil while and some wild interpretations of it can turn into something almost usable. just shuffle words like "national interests" "victory" and a few others around and we can get goin!

[Imran Siddiqui]

For example, it does not have to right to pollute its own waters if it knows that the polluted water will flow across borders.

Who determines what is too polluted?

yes that would be a threat to the supply, but only if the shortage is deliberate. One nation does not have the right to decide what constitutes "basic necessities" for another.

So you'd end the technological advancement and benefit of the people of one state, simply because someone further down the river, who would have enough to for his own use, might require more at a later time?

Riparian rights have evolved well beyond that view.

No, because I would stop Hitler.

This would contradict point #2.

--

Anyway, I agree with Voltaire (the poster ), I wouldn't accept these views, but do things that benefit my state.