المنتدى الدولى للصحافة والإعلام

Dr. Essam Al-Barram

Since the emergence of the modern state, the moral question has shadowed politics like a shadow follows the body. Can politics, as the art of managing interests and balances of power, be practiced on the basis of fixed principles? Or does the world of international relations, with its competition and conflicts, impose its own logic that makes ethics a luxury reality cannot afford?

This question is resurfacing today with force amid successive global crises, open wars, and shifts in the balance of power, making talk of “ethical diplomacy” appear to some as idealistic, and to others as an urgent necessity.

Diplomacy, in its traditional definition, is a tool of the state to achieve its interests through peaceful means. However, interests are not an abstract concept; they are the product of a certain vision of the self and of the world. When a state defines its interest as being limited to narrow security concerns or short-term economic gains, the ethical dimension shrinks. But when it includes regional stability, respect for international law, and human rights in its calculations, the concept of interest expands to include a value-based dimension. It is here, precisely, that the notion of ethical diplomacy begins.

Yet the tension between ethics and politics is not new. Classical political thought has long been divided between those who saw politics as a field independent of ethics, governed by the necessities of power and survival, and those who believed that the absence of an ethical dimension turns politics into a practice stripped of legitimacy. In practice, we rarely find a pure model of either approach. States speak the language of principles, but negotiate in the language of interests, often attempting to combine both within a delicate equation.

Ethical diplomacy does not mean denying interests or ignoring power balances; rather, it means setting limits on what can be accepted or rejected in pursuit of those interests. It is an acknowledgment that means cannot be fully separated from ends, and that the way international relations are managed leaves a deep impact on a state’s image and credibility. A state that adopts an ethical discourse but acts contrary to it gradually loses the trust of both partners and adversaries alike. Conversely, when there is a degree of consistency between words and actions, this becomes a moral asset that strengthens influence in the long term.

However, the international reality poses complex challenges to this aspiration. In times of crisis, a state may find itself facing two difficult choices: either adhering to a principle and bearing significant strategic or economic costs, or partially abandoning it to avoid a greater loss. At such moments, the question becomes sharper: are ethics absolute or relative? And can the same standards be applied in all contexts, or does each situation impose its own specificities that require a different approach?

Some argue that talk of ethical diplomacy sometimes conceals an opportunistic use of principles. States may raise the banner of human rights in one context, then remain silent in another when such issues conflict with their vital interests. This selectivity weakens the credibility of moral discourse and exposes it to accusations of being a tool of political pressure rather than a genuine commitment to principles. Therefore, the real challenge lies not only in adopting an ethical discourse, but in applying it in a balanced and as non-selective a manner as possible.

Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that values have played a central role in the development of the modern international system. The idea of international law, the principle of state sovereignty, and the prohibition of the use of force are all concepts with an ethical dimension before being legal ones. Even the creation of international organizations stemmed from the belief that cooperation and understanding are more humane and less costly than perpetual conflict. These developments indicate that ethics are not entirely foreign to politics; rather, they have always been part of humanity’s effort to organize its relations in a less violent way.

Ethical diplomacy may manifest itself in supporting peaceful solutions to conflicts, mediating between warring parties, and providing humanitarian assistance beyond narrow calculations. It may also appear in refraining from exploiting another state’s weakness for short-term gain. While such positions may not produce immediate results, they build long-term reputation and establish more stable relations. In an interconnected world, military power alone is no longer sufficient to guarantee influence; reputation and credibility have become part of the components of soft power.

Public opinion within states also plays an increasing role in pushing governments toward more consistent positions aligned with declared values. Societies today are more aware of global events and more capable of holding their governments accountable for foreign policy choices. This pressure creates space for ethical diplomacy, as decision-makers realize that a stark contradiction between principles and behavior may have negative repercussions domestically before internationally.

However, it is important to acknowledge that politics will remain a field of difficult choices. There is no diplomacy without negotiation, and no negotiation without compromise. The question is not whether politics can be entirely ethical, but rather to what extent the gap between principle and interest can be reduced. Ethical diplomacy is not an ideal formula, but a gradual path seeking to integrate humanitarian considerations into the heart of strategic calculations.

Ultimately, politics that is completely detached from ethics becomes a short-sighted practice that may achieve quick gains but plants the seeds of future crises. And politics that ignores reality in the name of idealism may find itself unable to protect the interests of its people. Between these two extremes moves the concept of ethical diplomacy, as an attempt to combine realism and values, necessity and conscience.

Can politics be practiced on principles? Perhaps not in the absolute sense that ignores complexity, but certainly it can be practiced with a minimum level of ethical commitment that prevents sliding into the logic of brute force. In a world of increasing cross-border crises—from conflicts to climate change—cooperation based on trust becomes more urgent than ever. And this trust is not built by power alone, but by the credibility of positions and their consistency with declared values. Here lies the possibility of ethical diplomacy—not as a distant dream, but as a difficult yet necessary choice in the course of international politics.