How you define your interests reflects how you define your country. The Soviet Union and America had similar interests at the end of World War II. America pursued its interests through openness and multilateral systems. The USSR pursued its interests by force, reflecting the brutal nature of its regime.
Some argue that insisting on amoral diplomatic language is no longer necessary, because human rights are more or less universally accepted, if not always observed. But this is true only to a point. Globalization has brought increasing acceptance of common rules and legal norms, but this is not the same thing as universal acceptance of human rights. Many countries claim that their law is based on divine authority, say, the Koran, returning us to the bleak potential for unlimited conflicts over values.
There is also a different order of priorities between weak and strong states. In countries where order may break down at any moment, it may not be better -- as it is in stable, well ordered countries -- to let ten guilty men go free rather than punish one innocent man wrongly. In practice, order must be established before it can be limited by the rule of law and international human rights norms.
Today, the threat of terrorist attack causes people to re-examine human rights and legal standards. It may be more important instead to look at the language in which we discuss terrorist incidents. At times dialogue with terrorists may be needed; there may be reason to avoid making this impossible by fixating too rigidly on moral imperatives and condemning all terrorists as unspeakable criminals. The case for a morally neutral diplomacy remains more compelling than ever, for on closer inspection, it is also a case in favor a foreign policy based on clear moral values.
Robert Cooper is Director General, Political and Military Affairs, EU Council of Ministers. Copy right: Project Syndicate
RSS