Actually, morality is a big part of international conflict, however "realists" try to analyze things in power terms. For example, the South counted on Great Britain to support it, because of GBs dependency on cotton for their textile mills, but GB remained neutral, and even tilted towards the Union, because of substantial anti- slavery sentiment. Without external support, the South was doomed to failure. Similarly, although Great Power rivalry played a part in the French support of the Revolution, there was genuine admiration for the Americans, as indicated by the receptions accorded Jefferson and Franklin when they lived in France, which probably solidified support. If the United States had not considered Britain admirable for resisting the Nazis, it is doubtful that Roosevelt could have gotten Lend- Lease through Congress, and therefore kept Britain and the Soviets going until we entered the War.
Taiwan is still independent of the PRC because of an American commitment to it that was based on a moral preference for the Kuomintang over the Communists. India is independent now because of Gandhi, and the pressure put on Britain (and France) to divest themselves of their colonial possessions with all deliberate speed, especially by the United States. In general, insofar as both responsible individuals and masses of people can be swayed by their perceptions of the right and wrong of things, morality will always matter, not only "in itself", but as a practical element in international affairs......... |
