What is right vs. what works

Just in time for recapping the polarized choices presented by President Obama and President Putin at The United Nations General Assembly.

 

In Foreign Policy there is a struggle between two concepts which every nation must face. There is the idealist perspective which promotes what is right under societal values and norms (which differ per culture), and there is the perspective of what works. There are limits to both. I'm not saying that what is right is always in contrast to what works, but today, it seems that it is.

 

While promoting self determination and democracy among nations may be the right thing to do, it is clearly not working in the current form in The Middle East/North Africa. It works effectively in more monotheistic nations where the population can easily join together to support one cause (eg. Japan post WW2). It is based on the notion that humans have inalienable rights, not given by any government, but inherent through their god or intelligence through evolution.

 

The other option, is what works in the near term, where a polarized world supports authoritarian regimes around the world, who are aligned to the East or West, and effectively brutalize and keep it a cap on their citizens and dissent. This option permits those in wealthier nations to go about their day, play on facebook/linkedin, write elitist opinions on social media, without setting foot in the land of the oppressed. Although what works is logical, it is immoral and I prefer to be an idealist. Life is much happier when believing in the better nature of people, even if it turns out to be a lie.

 

I will not give up on what is right, just for the comfort of stability in the near term. We have seen this movie before.