Does Morality Matter in Security Policy Review (Essay Sample)

Name:
University:
Course:
Tutor:
Date:
DOES MORALITY MATTER IN SECURITY POLICY REVIEW
Fisher on is article, " does morality matter in security policy" focuses on application of morality in security policy, highlighting different cases of insecurity across the world. Mostly, politicians talks about morality but there talks are just moonshine. The question over whether morality plays a role in shaping security policy can be answered by considering the British security policy debate after the end of Second World War. The debate focused on area bombing that began immediately after the closing of the Second World War extending to present days, nuclear weapon panic as from 1950s to present days and post-cold war military use of force, particularly intervention of the humanitarian morality. The three areas of debate aimed at protecting the innocent civilians from national attacks with application of just war principle. A lot of organizations like Council on Christian Approaches to Defense and Disarmament (CCADD), United Nation Security Council, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) addressed the issues of just war in order to protect violation of civilian moral values.[Fisher, David. 2013. Does Morality Matter on Security Policy. Taylor Francis Online, 55. 3 (2013): 129-146.]
Critical Review
Fisher explains that little public debate existed about the city bombing morality during the Second World War by allies though a lot of people had lost their life and property. The purpose of the area bombing which led to the killing of over half a million Germany civilian was to weaken the enemy civilian population morale. Fisher, further, explains that different people like George Bell, Winston Churchill and Michael Walzer among other criticized the act of city bombing since it violated moral values. The act was morally questionable, since it led to breach of just war theory which states that a violent conflict should meet political, religious and philosophical criteria. In consideration of morality of area bombing, changes were made in international law in 1922 to 1923. In 1977, a protocol that stated that attacks should be directed to the military target and not innocent civilians was included in Geneva Conventions.[Fisher, David. 2013. Does Morality Matter on Security Policy. Taylor Francis Online, 55. 3 (2013): 129-146.]
From Fisher’s perspective on the legacy of area bombing, nations considered morality in security policy. This is because after consideration of mass destruction of life and property in Germany the international law and Geneva Conventions were changed to avoid future violation of human rights. From the view of realism, an international relations theory by Niccolo Machiavelli, morality does not matter in security policy. Realists see states and humankind as competitive and self-centered. The state will only implement a policy which favor is operation. All states are concerned on implementing policies which ensure there success and survival. The policy was implemented in Britain to ensure that they control American military from bombing their states, since America had sophisticated weapons. As a result, America withdrew from the Hague Statue in order to maintain is sovereignty. After the implementation of the laws to protect innocent civilian population in Britain, a lot of cases against humanity have been taking place in different states. For example, the September 11, 2011 involved destruction of main American towers by Al-Qaeda (military group) without consideration of innocent civilian.[Fisher, David. 2013. Does Morality Matter on Security Policy. Taylor Francis Online, 55. 3 (2013): 129-146.] [Newburn, Tim. Criminology. (New York: Rutledge, 2013), p. 60.]
On the view of moral panic over nuclear weapons, Fisher highlighted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Tokyo firebombing in 1945, which led to death of over 110,000 people. John Foster in 1954 made a declaration that, they will respond to any attack from west with nuclear weapon. This declaration was found immoral and attracted debate in UK over the issue. Fisher states that morality shaped the use of nuclear weapon policy. A burn to use nuclear weapons was imposed, since they caused mass destruction of the innocent people’s life. According to Thomas Hobbes views on sovereignty, morality did not shape the nuclear weapon policy, because US was denied access to exercise power and guarantee best interest to its citizens. A state is regarded as sovereign if it ensures and gives its citizens the best interest. Americans wanted to use a nuclear weapon to silence the west countries but was prevented by the new policy. Moral practices differ with region and states. Using a nuclear weapon was morally upright in America. Abolition of the nuclear weapon violated American citizens’ morality and made it to lose sovereignty, since it did not give the citizens best interest. If morality shaped nuclear policy as Fisher argued, each state interest could have been considered before implementing the policy against nuclear weapon.[Treadwell James. Criminology. (New York: Rutledge, 2006), p. 75.] [Siegel Larry. Criminology. (Canada: Cengage Learning, 2011), p. 89.]
In humanitarian intervention Fisher explains that United Nations decided to participate in case of violation of just war principles by any nation. Fisher goes ahead and highlights that, UN played a big role in ensuring the involvement of morality in implementation of security policy. In contrast, UN did not enforce application of morality in security policy implementation but considered moral values of certain community and abandoned another. According to Marxism society is divided into classes and universal morality can not exist. Just war principles were first developed by Catholic Christian Thomas Aquinas...