{"id":450,"date":"2024-11-26T18:37:56","date_gmt":"2024-11-26T18:37:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/?page_id=450"},"modified":"2024-11-26T18:53:57","modified_gmt":"2024-11-26T18:53:57","slug":"2017-national-security-strategy-policy-analysis-ethical-implications","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/2017-national-security-strategy-policy-analysis-ethical-implications\/","title":{"rendered":"Ethical Implications"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

2017 National Security Strategy Policy Analysis: Ethical Implications<\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Hamza Demirel<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

CYSE425W
Edwin Wells IV
<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

                We can judge the National Security Strategy of 2017 by analyzing the purpose and effectiveness of this document in domestic and international politics. However, we must also look at the ethical implications of President Trumps document as well. This is because world politics now involves approximately eight billion individuals across two hundred countries each with their own unique cultural and ethical traditions. As such any political actions the United States makes must be morally reasoned given the situational context of the time. \u201cGood moral reasoning does not judge presidential choices based on their stated intentions or outcomes alone, but on all three dimensions of intentions, means, and consequences\u201d (Nye, 2021, p. 27).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                So then how do we go about and evaluate whether the National Security Strategy is ethically good or bad. If we were to use a single ethical tradition to measure the documents worth, we would surely misjudge it due to the \u201ccomplexity of the context \u2026 in framing and ethical foreign policy\u201d (Nye, 2021, p. 48). Josephy Nye uses a three-dimensional ethical model to measure the intention, means, and consequences of political decisions. This framework draws from virtue ethics to evaluate the intension, rule-based ethics to evaluate the means, and consequential ethics to evaluate the consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Intentions are where any person starts a decision-making process. Realism with the virtue ethic or prudence is the default and best place to start in a world of sovereign states and foreign policy (Nye, 2021, p.42). In being were a president usually starts the process of decision making \u201cthis is the chief advantage of using realism as a tool for evaluating United Stated foreign policy decisions\u201d (Harbour, 1999, p. 198). This starting point usually views the world of politics harsh in nature with more \u201ctrade-offs between U.S. needs and those of the world as a whole\u201d (Nye, 2021, p.37 & Harbour, 1999, p.198). The limitations with realism come in that it is very \u201cthin\u201d reasoning with \u201cnational interest [coming] perilously close to self-interest\u201d (Harbour, 1999, p. 199). Others also criticize it for being community oriented in which the outside community is left out and that realism is limited to protecting narrow material interests of the communities\u2019 citizens (Harbour, 1999, p. 199).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Regarding ethical means, rule-based ethics can determine ethical actions taken. The deontological \u201cjust war criteria or proportional and discriminate use of force\u2026 [and] Rawls\u2019s liberal concern for minimal degrees of intervention in order to respect the rights and institutions of others\u201d can be the guiding factors (Nye, 2021, p. 46). The advantage of using deontology as a measure is the specificity, clarity, and hierarchy of criteria used in the judgement (Harbour, 1999, p. 202). However, the major disadvantage of a deontological approach is that others may not accept the premise of the framework in the evaluation process (Harbour, 1999, p. 201).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Lastly, in the three-dimensional model is the evaluation of political decision consequences. Did the \u201cpresident succeed in promoting the country\u2019s long-term national interests, \u2026 avoid \u2026 unnecessary damage to foreigners, and \u2026 promote truth and trust that broadened moral discourse\u201d (Nye, 2021, p. 46). The advantage of a utilitarian lens is that it \u201cencourages [a] step back and [to] ask whether the participants\u2019 framing of the problem was the only one, or even the best one\u201d (Harbour, 1999, p. 200). However, attaining a decision in politics to maximize the happiness of all affected is \u201cdoomed to consistent failure in a political arena\u201d (Harbour, 1999, p. 201) Although, having a goal to leave the world better off with each decision, even though unattainable, should improve the world we live in (Harbour, 1999, p.201).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Even with a three-dimensional model to guide our evaluation process we should also understand the differences in power that are available to the president. Generally, there are two types of power, hard and soft power. Soft power is the power of attraction and trust from other countries. The use of coercion and payment are forms of hard power which are often tempting to presidents due to their ability to accomplish goals in a short amount of time. However, their use alone often tolls a higher cost than when used in combination with soft power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                The National Security Strategy of 2017 returns toward realist themes with limitations of \u201cmultilateral institutions and global commerce\u201d (Nye, 2021, p. 172). It also restricted American soft power in the same stroke claiming past \u201cpolicies based on the assumption that engagement with rivals and their inclusion in international institutions and global commerce would turn them into benign actors and trustworthy partners\u201d failed (NSS, 2017, p.3). With a harsh and competitive view of the world Trump puts less emphasis on human rights and more on reciprocal trade agreements and increasing American power. Nye calls this document a \u201czero-sum Hobbesian realism of a narrowly defined American self-interest\u201d according to his first dimension of intentions, goals, and motives (Nye, 2021, p. 178).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                In terms of means Trump\u2019s document entails checks for middle east terror groups and China specifically. The National Security Strategy call from an increased role of regional allies, adopting bilateral agreements versus multilateral agreements, and economic policies to control both the middle east and China (Saniabadi, 2018, pp. 204-205). Ultimately Trump\u2019s policy is willing to work with China in some area of common interest (NSS, 2017) while \u201ccontainment and regime change [are emphasized] by secuirzation of Iran and representing it as a threat to the peace and security of the region and the world\u201d (Saniabadi, 2018, p. 205).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                The consequences of Trump\u2019s means and intentions can be seen in an article by Joseph Biden titled Why America Must Lead Again Rescuing U.S. Foreign Policy After Trump<\/u>. <\/em>In pursuit of the bilateral agreements sought by the National Security Strategy, President Trump shattered American credibility and thus its soft power by pulling out of treaties, walking away from U.S. responsibilities, breaking policies, and constant lying (Biden, 2020, p. 11). Ultimately ending up in trade wars not only with China but also other foes and friends alike (Biden, 2020, p. 1). These actions may have taken step to increase our short-term hard power but decreased our long term soft power and ultimately hurt not only the American people but also by extension the world for not making it the same or better than it was the day before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Trump rejected the liberal international order, questioned alliances, attacked multilateral institutions, withdrew from Obama\u2019s trade and climate agreements, become involved in a trade war with China, and refocused American policy in the Middle East on Saudi Arabia and Iran (Nye, 2021, p. 180). He did so with a realists\u2019 motivations focusing on self-important national interests at the expense of international institutions. He did so through the use offshore balancing policies, either balance of power or threat, in the National Security Strategy. However, consequently ended up demolishing our soft power and leaving the state of world institutions for the worse. Thus, according to Nye\u2019s three-dimensional model for intensions, means, and consequences Trump\u2019s National Security Strategy ends with poor grade for moral reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biden, J. R., & Jr. (2020, January 23). Why america must lead again<\/em>. Foreign Affairs. https:\/\/www.foreignaffairs.com\/articles\/united-states\/2020-01-23\/why-america-must-lead-again<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Harbour, F.V. (1999). Thinking About International Ethics: Moral Theory And Cases From American Foreign Policy (1st ed.). Routledge. https:\/\/doi-org.proxy.lib.odu.edu\/10.4324\/9780429495694<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NSS booklayout fin 121917 – the white house<\/em>. Trump Whitehouse. (2017, December 18). https:\/\/trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nye, J. S. (2021). Do morals matter?: Presidents and foreign policy from FDR to trump<\/em>. Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reichberg, G., & Syse, H. (2018). Threats and Coercive Diplomacy: An Ethical Analysis. Ethics & International Affairs,<\/em> 32<\/em>(2), 179-202. doi:10.1017\/S0892679418000138<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saniabadi, E. R. (2018). Comparative Analysis of U.S. 2017 National Security Strategy Document towards China and Iran. Geopolitics Quarterly<\/em>, 14<\/em>(4), 188\u2013208.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

2017 National Security Strategy Policy Analysis: Ethical Implications Hamza Demirel CYSE425W Edwin Wells IV                 We can judge the National Security Strategy of 2017 by analyzing the purpose and effectiveness of this document in domestic and international politics. However, we must also look at the ethical implications of President Trumps document as well. This is… <\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":25223,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/450"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/25223"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=450"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/450\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":470,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/450\/revisions\/470"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}