The Blame Game—Who Is Right On The International Stage?

Our first lessons in life are about what is acceptable and what is not. 

The actions we justify morph depending on various factors: character, outcomes, context, etc.

Assuming we all have the same idea of “normal,” someone entering a classroom with a clown costume on would catch our attention, but what influenced that person to do that?  

Perhaps they work at Party City or enjoy wearing the outfit to calm their nerves for final exams. 

By combining the actions with the factors listed, we can subjectively choose the appropriateness of the action. 

This mental schema applies to states as well.

Recent events have reinvigorated the discussion on morality and ethics in international relations and whether the roles played by the United States, Israel, Russia, Ukraine, China and Iran are justified. 

This article intends to analyze factors people use to prove “we are right and they are wrong.” 

History

One of the most common ways individuals reinforce their behavior is by emphasizing the past.

For example, Person A lives in a pro-car state, where the country has burned all records of time before cars and excludes the mention of car crashes. Person B lives in a state with no characteristics. 

If both persons debate on transportation, Person A will likely support a pro-car position with a lack of fluency and a biased vehicle history. 

History is a fickle logical tool that can be manipulated by the user. No one is omnipresent or omniscient and therefore can’t understand the motives behind every second of human history. 

Interest

States often justify their actions, such as going to war, signing a treaty or refusing to raise tariffs, if it’s in their interest.

Again, this argument depends on your access to a country’s inner workings and foresight into future needs. It assumes that the state’s benefit is of utmost priority in contrast to the needs of other countries. 

Those included in this “interest” are questionable—is it only the state or does it include civilians, corporations and non-state actors? 

This statement also brings into question where the authority of a nation comes from, especially in a democratic country. If the state can unanimously decide its intentions, where does it leave those who inhabit or depend on it? 

Reciprocity

The idea of tit-for-tat is predominant in human and international relations. 

This idea is reinforced with sayings such as, an eye for an eye and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It’s based on the idea that actions taken were unthinkable before the other party took them.

We see this come to fruition when nations wage tariffs and trade wars against each other.

Reciprocity logic is dangerous; it creates an infinite feedback loop. Those who use this argument draw upon historical reasoning, with their evidence for committing an action stretching back years.

Conclusion

The logic behind arguments that hinge on history, interest and reciprocity is unique, each deserving of an independent article. 

While the question of right and wrong is vast, it should neither deter or silence conversation.