Complicity and the moral dimension of foreign policy

The contrasting approaches toward the behavior of China and Israel

“Complicity” is a concern that flows from of the moral dimension of U.S. foreign policy. This dimension is codified in a wide array of laws that say: things that the United States does with other countries (export arms, technology, natural resources, conduct trade, train foreign militaries, etc.) should not contribute to bad behavior (human rights violations, humanitarian suffering, terrorist financing, arms proliferation, etc.).

One goal of these laws it deter or prevent such bad behavior. Another is to punish governments who engage in bad behavior. A third is to ensure that, if the countries insist on behaving badly, Americans are not complicit in it.

A good recent example is the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. This bipartisan bill bans the import of goods made under forced labor conditions by Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities who have been subject to crimes against humanity and genocide by the People’s Republic of China.

The authors of this legislation were very clear that shielding Americans from complicity in Uyghur forced labor was one of their aims. Representative Jim McGovern said, “Many U.S., international, and Chinese corporations are complicit in the exploitation of forced labor and these products continue to make their way into global supply chains and our country.” Senator Marco Rubio said, our bill “protects U.S. consumers from unknowing complicity in Uyghur forced labor.” Senator Jeff Merkley said this law will “protect American consumers from being unwitting accomplices in these horrors.”

This measure comes in the context of a larger effort by Congress and the Biden Administration to decouple or de-risk from China, with numerous proposals to limit or end exposure by U.S. taxpayers, investors, retirees, exporters and consumers to the “malign behavior” of the Chinese Communist Party. In short, to end complicity.

Should complicity be a concern in regard to the Israel/Hamas war?

Hamas launched a horrific and brutal terrorist attack that killed more than 1,300 Israeli civilians and took some 150 hostages. The United States lists Hamas as a terrorist group. The United States has no relationship with Hamas and no leverage over their behavior, other than the punitive aspects of terrorist-related sanctions.

The Israeli government’s military response against Hamas included a promise from its defense minister to commit war crimes. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations Secretary General, Human Rights Watch, and Doctors Without Borders, among others, have called on both sides to respect the law of armed conflict and to protect civilians. Initial actions by the Israeli government, including the evacuation order and restrictions on access to food, water and medicine have heightened concerns about violations of international humanitarian law.

The United States annually provides Israel with $3.3 billion in military aid. A good portion of Israeli Defense Force’s arsenal is financed by the United States. It is fair to say that any violations of the laws of armed conflict that occur during Israel’s military response to Hamas will involve equipment paid for by American taxpayers and made by American workers.

Is there complicity? Let’s apply the Uyghur forced labor formula: if we do activity A (trade) with country B (China), then we must make sure it doesn’t abet proscribed behavior C (forced labor). In this case it would read: if we do activity A (provide military aid) to country B (Israel), then we must make sure it doesn’t abet a proscribed act (war crimes).

Many Members of Congress are consistent in applying this principle. On October 13, 55 House Members (including Rep. McGovern, author of the Uyghur forced labor bill) wrote a letter to President Biden urging him to communicate to the government of Israel that its “response in Gaza must be carried out according to international law and take all due measures to limit harm to innocent civilians” while noting that “Israel has the right to defend its people and respond to these vicious [Hamas] attacks”

Curiously, the letter was signed by only Democrats. Despite the bipartisan nature of the legislative efforts to end complicity with China’s violations of international law, no Republican decided to attach their name in extending this principle to Israel’s military response.

This raises the question: when politicians talk about ending American complicity with something, are they referring to the bad behavior or the country doing the bad behavior?  Is it the WHAT or the WHO?

When the United States acts to penalize the government of China for acting in contravention of international law and norms, are we doing so because of the bad behavior (the WHAT), or because we don’t like their government or the party that controls it (the WHO)?  Likewise, if we decline to insist that Israel abide by its international law obligations, are we saying that bad behavior doesn’t really bother us? Or are we saying the rules shouldn’t apply to Israel because it is an ally?

When considering the moral dimension of U.S. foreign policy, is it acceptable to operate with built-in exemptions from the rules for allies because they are allies? If so, what message does this send to other countries when we insist that they abide by the rules? And if they see our insistence as driven by politics over principle, doesn’t that corrode the basis for having rules in the first place?

I think the current situation provides an opportunity to think deeply about what complicity means, and whether and how we apply universal principles universally. There is an abundance of reasons why we don’t. But there are also long-term costs because we don’t.