Argument: Aggressive foreign policy is not legitimate foreign policy

Foreign policy is legitimate when it is peaceful and based upon mutual respect. It is no surprise that the most controversial foreign policy actions are those that are aggressive whether this is invading another state such as the Iraq war, attempting humanitarian intervention as in Kosovo, or engaging in clandestine actions such as Iran-Contra. This is because there is a powerful norm against aggressive action in international relations in order to maintain stability.

Undermining states by circumventing censorship is simply a new method of engaging in aggressive actions against another state. NATO has accepted that cyber operations can be considered to constitute an armed conflict, [1] so it is increasingly accepted that actions on the internet can be aggressive action. Indeed “If such cyber operations are intended to coerce the government… the operation may constitute a prohibited ‘intervention’”. [2] While no one would argue that this policy will create a war it is not a very big step from considering cyber attacks to be armed conflict to considering undermining states through circumventing censorship to be an aggressive action.

[1] Bowcott, Owen, “Rules of cyberwar: don't target nuclear plants or hospitals, says Nato manual”, The Guardian, 18 March 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/rules-cyberwarfare-nato-manual

[2] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p.17. http://ccdcoe.org/249.html

Candidate 1: "Advancing national interests

A nation’s foreign policy should be primarily concerned with advancing the national interest. By the national interest we mean promoting the interest of the nation as a whole rather than any of its subnational groups; whether this is building up the state's military power to protect its citizens through alliances or military bases, benefiting the nation's economy through trade deals, or encouraging the creation of friendly governments around the globe. [1] Circumventing censorship helps obtain this last objective for democracies by encouraging peoples in autocracies to find their own voice and push for democracy; a system of government that is more compatible to other democracies. Ultimately this will also provide other benefits; friendly governments with similar political systems are more likely to create trade agreements with each other so providing economic benefits, in the 1990s the volume of trade between a democracy and autocracy was on average 40% less than two democracies. [2] Equally importantly democracies do not fight other democracies so helping to create stability. [3]

[1] Realism emphasises the alliances bit, Liberalism the economic self interest, and constructivists spreading values. Walt, Stephen M, “International Relations: One World, Many Theories”, Foreign Policy, Spring 1998, http://83.143.248.39/faculty/mtzankova/POS%20102%20Readings/Walt_International%20Relations_One%20World,%20Many%20Theories.pdf

[2] Mansfield, Edward D., et al., “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf p.318

[3] Rousseau, David L., et al., “Assessing the Dayadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918-88”, The American Political Science Review, Vol.90, No.3, http://people.duke.edu/~gelpi/democ.peace.pdf p.515"
Candidate 2: "Proclamations that there can be no interference in another state are simply attempts by elites to cling on to power by preventing any help reaching those campaigning for democracy. These declarations, even the UN Charter, are negotiated, written, and signed by the leaders of governments not their people so favour those who are already in power. Something cannot be considered illegitimate just because it is supported by the status quo."
Candidate 3: "Governments do not have a monopoly on the knowledge of what is best for their people and even the people may themselves make a mistake when deciding on whether to be an open society. Thus even if it appears that many people support censorship it may be legitimate to undermine it. In particular is people have never had a chance to experience life without that censorship how can they be considered to be making an informed choice when deciding to live with censorship?"
Candidate 4: "It is legitimate to enable freedom

Circumventing censorship is a cost effective method of promoting freedom. When a country has refused to recognise the right to freedom of expression of its own people and indeed is actively stopping them from exercising this right then it is legitimate for other countries to step in to act as an enabler of those rights. By circumventing censorship so the freedom of expression is returned to those that have had their voice stripped from them. Doing this costs the state that is acting almost nothing; thus Britain’s Foreign Office is devoting a mere £1.5million to promoting expression online, [1] and yet the benefits for those who it helps can be considerable by helping them to publicise and organise themselves by providing a platform. The small cost should be compared to the benefit of keeping activists one step ahead of the authorities by, for example providing software that helps make sure online communication is anonymous, which can save lives.

[1] “William Hague promises £1.5m to promote freedom of expression online”, BBC News, 30 April 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17895456"
Candidate 5: "It is domestic not international legitimacy that matters

What matters for a state when it comes to foreign policy, and therefore with helping to circumvent censorship, is whether the policy is considered legitimate domestically. Since a government's legitimacy is domestically derived from the support of its people if they support the policy then it is legitimate. While it is often not considered a top priority people in democracies usually support promoting human rights and spreading democracy around the world. [1]

[1] Stevenson, Kirsten, “Strong support for democracy promotion in national opinion ballot”, Foreign Policy Association, 23 October 2012, http://www.fpa.org/features/index.cfm?act=feature&amp;announcement_id=175"
Candidate 6: "It is legitimate to undermine illegitimate governments to promote human rights

Autocratic governments that breach their people’s human rights have no legitimacy domestically as they do not represent the people or protect their interests. They also have no international legitimacy, as they are violating their obligations that they have signed up to through various international agreements such as the universal declaration of human rights [1] and the international covenant on civil and political rights [2] which oblige states to respect their citizen’s human rights. Other states therefore are legitimate in acting for the people of the repressed state to undermine their government and take up their cause. By imposing censorship the government is violating its people's freedom of expression which that government has promised to uphold therefore it is right that other governments should endeavour to uphold that standard. It was therefore right for the west to undermine the USSR and the communist governments of Eastern Europe through radio broadcasts such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, they gained immense audiences, a third of urban adults in the USSR and almost half of East Europeans with these sources often being considered more credible. [3]

[1] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III), http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3712c.html

[2] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3aa0.html

[3] Johnson, A. Ross, and Parta, R. Eugene, “Cold War International Broadcasting: Lessons Learned”, Briefing to the Rancho Mirage Seminar, http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Communicating_with_the_World_of_Islam_A_Ross_Johnson_53.pdf p.54"
Candidate 7: "The NATO manual does specifically state “network intrusions, the deletion or destruction of data… computer network exploitation, and data theft do not amount to a non-international armed conflict.” [1] Instead it has to be persistent, and be carried out by organised armed groups; likely not criteria that would be ever satisfied by undermining censorship.

[1] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp.87-88. http://ccdcoe.org/249.html"
Candidate 8: "If a regime is so intolerant as to threaten its citizens for using lines of communication that have been opened by another country then that country is clearly in need of greater openness towards freedom of expression and information. This is something that undermining censorship achieves. Clearly in a few cases the attempt to circumvent censorship may be used by the government but the creation of the path to circumvent censorship alone shows that foreign governments are watching. Even the most repressive regimes are less likely to use force when they know the outside world is watching."

The NATO manual does specifically state “network intrusions, the deletion or destruction of data… computer network exploitation, and data theft do not amount to a non-international armed conflict.” [1] Instead it has to be persistent, and be carried out by organised armed groups; likely not criteria that would be ever satisfied by undermining censorship.

[1] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp.87-88. http://ccdcoe.org/249.html
