Hal Brands’ article “The Age of Amorality” in Foreign Affairs points out a big problem. He thinks that there is a contradiction between American efforts and its actions. Brands say that democracy makes it harder for the United State to find allies who share its values. So, it can be a problem for the US. He also mentioned that American allies do not fully support democracy. For example, the US worked with Stalin to defeat Hitler, stepped into Africa and Latin America to stop communism, and now depends on countries like India, Turkey, and Hungary. It is also important to note that these countries are not perfect democracies, to stand up to China.
This belief is not new that the United States has the right to intervene in other countries. This idea started in the age of Theodore Roosevelt. This is the person who claimed that the United States could step in to prevent “wrongdoing” in Western Hemisphere. Woodrow Wilson thought the US was a unique nation and also selected by divine favor. Henry Kissinger also stated in his book” World Order,” that sometimes it is good to ignore strict rules and ideas in order to bring and maintain peace across the world, especially after World War II.
This shows a long-standing belief among American leaders in “American exceptionalism” and the moral rightness of U.S. actions to promote freedom and democracy.
The United State interventions arise two questions in mind. First one is that these actions of Americans are morally justified. And second one is state morality something real or just an idea? According to Brand the US often gets trapped into tough situations because of its commitments to freedom and democracy. These commitments are used to justify actions like coups and military interventions, it’s clear that treating smaller countries as mere tools violates their sovereignty. It clearly opposed the United Nations charter, which is the backbone of the international order after World War II.
Examples like the US intervention in Iran to overthrow Mohammad Mosaddegh, the removal of Salvador Allende in Chile, or its support for Pakistan during the Bangladesh liberation war show a disregard for the moral principle of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Even from a practical standpoint, the US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t work out. After removing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, the U.S. failed to establish stable governance, leaving the people in chaos.
The war between Israel and Palestine shows a basic moral reason for the United State to support Israel. Brand argues that Hamas is the terrorist group while Israel is not. Israel is only defending itself against those attacks attempted by Hamas.
However, Israel broke international laws on October 7. They attacked civilians, This action of Israel clearly highlights that the action of this nation is different from their words.
From a realist perspective, some might say that countries don’t need to follow individual moral rules and that “self-preservation” is more important. But this idea goes against the principles of the international system meant to prevent chaos, as we see in the Ukraine conflict.
Brands is right to say that today’s major power struggle is really about different ideas and ways of life, with the US and China leading the way. The US offers a place where everyone can chase the American dream, while China focuses on improving life for millions through government actions. Unlike during the Cold War, the difference between the two isn’t as clear-cut because both countries benefit from global organizations like the WTO. This makes it possible for both superpowers to compete fairly by following the rules.
The question of whether morality should drive diplomacy or just be a goal is a tricky one with no simple answer. It’s hard to completely separate morality from actions, especially for a major power like the US. In practice, we often see the true impact of morality only after decisions are made, as it acts more like a guiding light than a strict rulebook.
