There is No Morality in International Politics
- Realist Approach to International Politics: States prioritize self-interest, security, and power over morality, as evidenced by historical and contemporary global events.
- Pakistan’s Silence on the Uyghur Crisis: Pakistan’s economic and military dependence on China leads to its reluctance to address human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
- Global Response to the Palestine-Israel Conflict: Strategic alliances, such as the U.S. support for Israel, often overshadow moral concerns, leaving Palestinians without meaningful support.
International politics is often characterized by nations placing their self-interest above moral principles. While diplomatic discourse may frequently emphasize ideals such as justice, human rights, and ethical governance, state actions often diverge from these values, prioritizing power, security, and strategic objectives. This article will argue that morality seldom guides international politics, illustrated through Pakistan’s silence on the Uyghur crisis, the global response to the Palestine-Israel conflict, and Iran’s support for India over Pakistan on the Kashmir issue.
Power Over Morality
The realist school of thought in international relations argues that states primarily act out of self-interest, focusing on their power and survival. Realists contend that morality plays a minimal role in the decision-making of nations, with the international system being anarchic, meaning there is no higher authority to enforce ethical behavior. States, therefore, seek to maximize their security and interests, often at the expense of moral principles. Historical examples, such as the Cold War and colonialism, illustrate how states have consistently prioritized their own needs over ethical considerations.
The Global Response to the Palestine-Israel Conflict
Another glaring example of morality taking a back seat in international politics is the global response to the Palestine-Israel conflict. For decades, Palestinians have endured occupation, displacement, and systematic human rights violations. However, the international community’s response to this ongoing crisis has been largely tepid and uninvolved. A key factor in this is the role of the United States, which continues to provide unwavering military, economic, and diplomatic support to Israel, driven primarily by strategic interests rather than moral considerations.
The U.S. considers Israel a key partner in a volatile Middle Eastern region, prioritizing its own geopolitical interests over the plight of the Palestinians. Despite the long-standing oppression of Palestinians, the U.S. continues to bolster Israel’s position, reflecting how national interests often overshadow moral imperatives. Furthermore, in recent years, Arab nations, which have historically been vocal supporters of Palestine, have begun to normalize relations with Israel through the Abrahamic Accords, driven by political, economic, and security considerations. These nations have chosen to prioritize their own national interests, including economic ties and security cooperation with Israel, over the moral imperative to support Palestinian self-determination. As a result, Palestine has been left isolated, with its cause relegated to a lower priority in international diplomacy.
Iran’s Support for India on the Kashmir Issue
The Kashmir conflict is another example where strategic interests eclipse moral considerations in international politics. The Kashmir issue has been a point of contention between Pakistan and India since the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947, with Pakistan advocating for the right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination. However, Iran, a country with deep cultural and religious ties to Pakistan, has often sided with India or remained neutral on the Kashmir issue. This stance may seem contradictory, especially considering Iran’s self-image as a champion of Muslim causes. Yet, Iran’s position on Kashmir can be explained through its economic and strategic relationship with India.
India is one of Iran’s largest trading partners, particularly in the energy sector, and the two countries share significant interests in areas such as infrastructure and regional security. Moreover, India has invested heavily in the Chabahar Port project, a strategic port in Iran that provides Iran with access to the Indian Ocean, bypassing Pakistan’s Gwadar Port, which is part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. This port project holds significant geopolitical value for Iran, and its strategic importance outweighs Iran’s traditional support for Muslim causes. Despite the shared religious ties with Pakistan, Iran’s economic interests and strategic considerations lead it to prioritize its relationship with India, even if it means distancing itself from Pakistan on key issues such as Kashmir.
Pakistan’s Silence on the Uyghur Crisis
Over the years, multiple reports have surfaced about the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in China, including mass detentions, forced labor, and cultural suppression. Given Pakistan’s identity as a defender of Muslim rights and its historical alignment with the Muslim world, its silence on this issue is both puzzling and significant. However, this silence is not due to a lack of awareness but is, in fact, a deliberate strategic decision.
Pakistan’s relationship with China is crucial, both economically and militarily, particularly through projects such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which has become a cornerstone of Pakistan’s development strategy. China’s financial and military support is vital for Pakistan, particularly in the context of regional security challenges. As a result, Pakistan’s dependency on China for economic aid and military backing outweighs any moral obligation to take a stand on the Uyghur crisis.
Although some may argue that the reports about the Uyghur situation are exaggerated or constitute international propaganda, it is essential to acknowledge that propaganda often contains a kernel of truth. Independent human rights organizations have reported widespread abuses in Xinjiang, yet Pakistan’s silence reflects the prioritization of its national interests over moral values. This situation highlights how states tend to prioritize their strategic relationships even when confronted with ethical issues that could challenge their diplomatic ties.
The Realist Perspective
These examples demonstrate that international politics is driven more by self-interest and power dynamics than by moral considerations. While states may express support for human rights and justice in diplomatic rhetoric, their actions often reflect a prioritization of strategic goals such as security, economic benefits, and alliances. The realist perspective, which views international relations as a struggle for power and survival, offers an explanation for why states frequently overlook moral concerns. In a world without a central authority to enforce ethical behavior, countries act primarily in their self-interest, often ignoring the moral consequences of their actions.
In conclusion, the lack of morality in international politics is not a failure of diplomacy but a reflection of the realist principles that guide state behavior. States will continue to act in ways that advance their strategic interests, whether or not they align with ethical ideals. The global response to issues such as the Uyghur crisis, the Palestine-Israel conflict, and the Kashmir dispute illustrates how power, security, and economic interests often take precedence over moral values in international relations. This trend is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, as the anarchic nature of the international system ensures that states will continue to prioritize their survival and self-interest above ethical considerations.
The author is studying Defense and Diplomatic Studies at Fatima Jinnah Women's University, Rawalpindi, with a keen interest in expounding the intricacies of diplomatic relations, negotiation strategies, and cultural diplomacy.
