Preparing
Soldiers for Responsibility, Integrity and Transparency in the Dutch Armed
Forces. Exploring the Realm of Dilemma Training[1].
Contribution
to the JSCOPE 2000 Conference “Moral Considerations in Military Decision
Making”.
By
Prof. A.H.M. (Fred)van
Iersel, Dr Th.A. (Ted) van Baarda and Dr D. (Desiree)Verweij
Introduction
In
1999, the Dutch Minister of Defense, Mr. Frank de Grave, promised the Dutch
parliament that he would take steps to improve the quality of training
in ethical dilemmas in the military as an organization. The reasons
are obvious. The Dutch Armed Forces are deeply involved in military operations
of all kinds. Military Operations Other than War, in particular,lead
to new practices and new moral experiences for Dutch soldiers. These new
practices and experiences in the context of ‘peace operations’ all have
ethical implications. The awareness of these ethical implications
has been triggered by critical incidents like the fall of Srebrenica. Apart
from the fact that, as the UN has now stated,[2]
the fall itself cannot be attributed to Dutchbat, there still were many
complex choices for Dutchbat to make with far-reaching ethical and political
implications. Through these types of critical incidents, which also occur
in other Armed Forces, the awareness of the relevance of ethics for military
practice has certainly been greatly enhanced. There is a need for
a deeper exploration of these ethical issues. In fact there is a need to
prepare soldiers to take up responsibility. These are the main considerations
behind the recent establishment of an office for “ethics and the military”
at the Netherlands Defense College at Rijswijk, in September 1999. Together
with everyone who has a task with regard to ethics in the armed forces,
and especially together with staff members for ethics at the Royal Military
Academy of the RNLA and the RNLAF, and staff members of the Academy of
the Royal Dutch Navy (Den Helder), the Office for Ethics and the Military
will try to stimulate ethical reflection throughout the Dutch Military.
The
following paper addresses some of the main issues related to the improvement
of
dilemma training in this area. Its purpose is to describe and
discusssome of the basic issues related to relatively ‘new’ military
practices of the Dutch armed forces, especially in military operations
other than war. This corresponds with the political priority given
to these issues. We think it is necessary to describe these issues and
discuss them with the Netherlands’ partners in international cooperation,
in order to create opportunities to develop mechanisms for compatibility
of ethical standards within alliances involving the Dutch Armed Forces.
Of course, the descriptions and discussions are only roughly sketched in
the context of this paper. The new start being made in the area of ethics
requires that open discussions are held about the assumptions underlying
our ethical approach.
In
this paper, we offer a set of workable definitions for ‘ethics’, ‘corporate
ethics’, ‘professional ethics’ and ‘military ethics’. The first section
deals with these definitions.
The
third section deals with policy dilemmas regarding the integration of ethics
into a military organization.
The
fourth and final section offers some elaborations of consequences for ethical
training and education given to the Dutch military.
Concerning
the terminology of this paper, we have attempted to consistently use the
phrase ‘ethics in the context of the military organization’. We
think that the term ‘military ethics’ is a legitimate one. But for the
problems we are dealing with under the present circumstances, this terminology
is somewhat unclear. ‘Military ethics’ calls forth the question whether
it focuses on the legitimacy of military practices, in which case there
is a risk of assimilation of ethics into its context, or that it - on the
contrary- focuses on moral criticism (e.g. through discussion about cases),
in which case its acceptance and effectiveness within the military will
be under constant pressure. As with business ethics, there are two varieties
of ethics in the context of the military: one focusing on the legitimacy
of any military practice as it is; and another on independent judgment
from an external perspective, which may result in criticism without respect
to the moral sensibility of soldiers and their willingness to consider
and handle ethical challenges. In the context of this paper, we want to
avoid any kind of conflict between the two types of business ethics.
In the present circumstances, both approaches are far too limited,
given that a new ethical framework for military practices in military operations
other than war is urgently required. We therefore focus on ‘ethics in the
context of the military’, thus concentrating on the position and role of
ethics with regard to the military. We hope that, through this approach,
both the substance and the functions of ethics in the military can be treated
properly.
I
Corporate ethics and professional ethics[4]
Corporate
ethics (or business ethics) and professional ethics are forms of
applied ethics. The latter term, ethics, can be defined as reflection on
and explication of morality, which means reflection on the values
and normsof a certain group of people in a certain period of time. In a
further elaboration of this definition, values can be defined
as ‘ideals’, as the ‘objectives one strives after’, and norms
as ‘rules orguidelines to act upon’ (Verweij 1999). On the basis of this
definition, corporate ethics and professional ethics can be described
respectively as reflection on and explication of the morality (values and
norms) of a certain corporation or organization and of a
certain profession.
Since
the term 'corporate ethics' is frequently used by the Dutch military, we
will devote special attention to this concept, and we will argue that corporate
ethics cannot be detached from professional ethics.
Van
Luijk, Professor of Corporate Ethics at Nijenrode University and Chairman
of the Executive Committee of European Business Ethics (EBEN), describes
corporate ethics as the institutionalized discussion on norms
and values in corporate situations with the goal of creating
links that are relevant to all parties involved. This implies, according
to van Luijk, that corporate ethics demands vigilance with regard
to the values and norms of a corporation and calls on the
genuine readiness of all parties involved, to discuss matters (van Luijk
1989).
The
application of this description to military organizations implies
that ethics in the context of the military demands vigilance with
regard to the values and norms that are inherent in the activities
performed by a military organization, and in addition to that, demands
a genuine readiness to exchange thoughts on this subject.
Our
society has increasingly become a service society. Through this development
there is a growing mutual dependence amongst individuals. Practically all
actions that are carried out have consequences for others. This
also holds for corporations. Corporations are selling services, as
opposed to selling products. The military “sells” a service, which is combat
capability.
This
means that actions (effects of management decisions) have
consequences both inside and outside the corporation.
The
corporation enters into relations with different individuals, groups and
institutions. This relation with other individuals and their institutions
indicates the ethical dimension. There are many others involved
in a corporation and, as a consequence, there are many interests
to take into account. In publications on corporate ethics
it is maintained that corporate ethics exists on different levels.
Corporate
ethics is about:
A.
The corporation or organization in relation to its personnel.
In
this respect, one can think of matters such as safe work, fair wages,
prevention of discrimination and sexual harassment, the development
of moral consciousness among the personnel etcetera;
B.
The corporation or organization in relation to its customers and
the services that are rendered.
In
this respect one can think of matters such as giving good and
reliable information, rendering qualitatively good services etcetera;
C.
The corporation or organization in relation to society.
In
this respect, one can think of the image of the corporation
in society caused by the composition of its personnel, the attitude towards
the environment, products, sincerity in image-building etcetera (A corporation
is part of the society in which it operates).
According
to several authors, the most interesting questions can be
found at the intersections of the different levels. This has everything
to do with the fact that corporate ethics and professional ethics coincide
in practice. However, this does not imply that the two concepts are indistinguishable.
The difference between corporate ethics and professional ethics is mostly
seen as the difference between the individual professional and the
company as a whole. In other words, professional ethics is concerned
with the moral aspects (values and norms) of the attitudes and actions
of a professional; corporate ethics is concerned with the moral aspects
(values and norms) that play a role in the activities of the company
as a whole. This difference is also referred to as the difference between
organizational ethics and personal ethics. This distinction is mainly
a difference between two perspectives from which one can
look at ethics. In relation to military organizations, this difference
implies that military corporate ethics can be seen as
a part of military management science, and military professional
ethics as a part of the military education and training. This means that
corporate ethics aims at responsible conduct of business and professional
ethics at personal education and the actual professional
practice of the individual soldier. However, as mentioned earlier, professional
ethics and corporate ethics coincide in practice; moreover, they have to
coincide so that policy formulation can become effective. This can
be made clear by the example of policy formulation of a corporationwith
reference to women and immigrants (corporate ethics). This policy formulation
has to be put into practice, on the shop floor, by the individual military
leader (professional ethics). The policy of the military is that more women
and immigrants should join up (because it aims to mirror society to some
extent, and because an important part of the workforce would otherwise
not be utilized). However, if at the grass-roots level in the military,
military leaders talk and think about women as "chicks who can absolutely
not do what real men can do" and about immigrants as "blacks who happen
to be lazy by nature", then the formulated policy has little effect and
will be stymied by the prejudices of individuals on the shop floor.
The
values that a corporation stands for -and claims to stand for- have to
be genuinely shared by those who implement corporation policies. This not
only applies to personnel in their home country, but also to tasks that
have to be carried out abroad. Corporate ethics can only be effective in
combination with professional ethics. In other words, there should be a
connection in an organization between the ethics of that organization and
the ethics of the individual professionals employed there. This means that
general policy (corporate ethics) has to be implemented by individuals
who can genuinely subscribe to the policy and whose attitudes and actions
(personal ethics or professional ethics) demonstrate this fact. The development
of personal insights and personal judgements in this context are of the
utmost importance. However, the natural occurrence of these insights and
judgements cannot be taken for granted; they have to be developed and stimulated
in education and training.
II.
The realm of ethics in the military organization
In
this section, we will explore some aspects of ethics in the context of
military organizations which are relevant to the development of all types
of dilemma training.
II.I.
Relevance and impact of ethics in a military organization
The
first consideration is: why should there be any such thing as ethics
in the context of a military organization at all (in itself a question
for both meta-ethics, philosophy of law and politics)? At the meta-ethical
level decisions should be made on how ethics in the context of military
organizations relates to social and political ethics, to business ethics
and organizational ethics, and to professional ethics. At the level of
philosophy of law, decisions should be made as to how the legal responsibilities
of soldiers are related to moral responsibilities. While law can be regarded
as codified ethics, ethics can also function as a source of criticism with
regard to positive law. Apart from that, international law itself shows
both a rapid development and a lot of lacunas when it comes down to military
operations other than war, which puts the military at risk of being confronted
with extra ethical dilemmas.
At
the political level, decisions should be made regarding the relation between
political accountability of the Minister of Defense as opposed to the accountability
of the military as an organization and in terms of the individual soldier.
In any democratic constitutional state, the government is responsible for
the military organization. It needs to follow a principle of legality:
the legal use of force is what distinguishes the Armed Forces from criminals.
Consequently, politicians have the ethical and legal duty to ensure that
all missions they select for the military are - and remain - legal.
A
democratic government is politically controlled by a parliament.
And of course this is the way it should be in a constitutional state. However,
as many veterans from countries throughout the world know all too well,
more often than not military failures are the orphans of political ethics:
ex post facto, the responsibility for failures is laid upon the shoulders
of the military. It is no luxury to underline the political and ethical
responsibilities of the political elite which sends troops into an area
in crisis or actual conflict.
One
example of the need for clarity in this area is the legitimacy of
multiculturalization in the military organization: should it be implemented
- in an ethical sense - because it is a just goal to strive for at the
level of personal ethics? Should it be pursued for reasons of political
desirability? Or should it be pursued to get enough personnel for the Dutch
armed forces in the near future? All views may have some legitimacy, but
which legitimization is ethically most valid? The answer to this
question may affect the type of multiculturalization and implementation
selected.
From
the point of view of military organization, various questions arise. Can
politicians be prevented from embracing the ethical responsibility of the
military for deceitful reasons, such as avoiding political accountability?
And if so, how? On the other hand, if a military organization has its
own ethical responsibility as a moral subject, how can one avoid Sun Tsu’s
problem of unjust interference in genuine military responsibility?[5]
Once
again this dilemma can only be dealt with adequately if there is a valid
and democratically accepted model of both relating and distinguishing political,
legal, moral and managerial responsibilities.
II.II.
Who is responsible?
The
second question is, whose responsibility is ethics in the context
of a military organization: do these ethics primarily apply to
the behavior and leadership of officers, or is it also about non-commissioned
officers; or is it maybe even about any private soldier? Both the individual
soldier and the military as organization are confronted with the ethical
consequences of high degrees of decentralization during military
operations. Is there any such thing as a ‘strategic corporal’[6],
who in fact has a responsibility which transcends his rank? What are the
other implications of processes of decentralization during military operations?
Does
modern military technology imply an increase in responsibility for smaller
military units; and if so, how should this process be dealt with in the
first place? Military technology facilitates both a high degree of self-regulation
of the military in a crisis area, but at the same time it enables operational
decisions to be overruled by a higher level in the organization. What does
responsibility mean in such a complex context?
It
appears then that it is very important to distinguish four dimensions
of responsibility: the political, the legal, the managerial and moral responsibility.
Only when these types of responsibilities have been distinguished can they
be interrelated again in a clear way.[7]
II.III.
The content or substance of ethics in the context of a military organization:
Ethical dilemmas
Dilemmas
should be a central features of ethics in the context of a military organization
for a very obvious reason. People know how to make simple choices; handling
dilemmas however is a different business. According to the Canadian Armed
Forces, there are three types of dilemmas: (1) you are unsure of the right
thing to do; (2) two or more values may be in conflict, e.g. honesty versus
duty to obey orders; (3) harm may be caused, no matter what you do.[8]
Also
in Dutch military organizations one can discern these three types of cases:
(1) cases of moral uncertainty (not knowing how to act); (2) choices
between two or more conflicting goods or obligations; and (3) choices
between alternatives which all have adverse indirect (unintentional) effects.
The
first category may not be a dilemma in the strict sense - when there is
a choice of two alternatives both of which have adverse consequences -
but rather a complex ethical problem; in everyday military discourse, though,
it is often referred to as a dilemma. From the point of view of ethics,
themes like courage, responsibility, integrity and leadership are closely
linked with this type of problem.
The
second category affects, for example, specific professions within a military
organization such as doctors, psychologists, or social workers. Such individuals
have their own professional code of conduct which is not always compatible
with military obligations. These cases demand a hierarchy of values,
as the Canadian approach rightly points out. The validity of this approach
has been proven by S. Toulmin; in his approach, a moral argument is more
valid as it has more interrelatedness to higher values.[9]
The
third category contains classical dilemmas for any military organization[10].
One might even say that the core of ethics in the context of a military
organization is about weighing indirect effects and about doing
so in a split second. The moral arguments about collateral damage during
the NATO air strikes in the Kosovo crisis illustrate how closely the principle
of indirect effect (‘collateral damage’) is linked with other ethical principles,
like the last resort principle and the principles of proportionality and
discrimination.
II.
IV. Casuistry in the context of ethical research
The
fourth aspect regards methods in the area of ethics in the context
of a military organization: how should research in this area be
carried out? The development of ethics as an academic discipline during
the last fifty years has shown that it is practice which challenges ethical
theory and even provokes the developments of new values, norms and virtues.
This implies that casuistry as a research strategy may be very fruitful,
also in the area of ethics in the context of the military organization.
However Stephen Toulmin’s warning regarding the Abuse of Casuistry[11]
should be taken into account: casuistry cannot replace moral argumentation
on the basis of ethical theory. Also one should never forget that case
studies more often than not are either proactive arguments or reconstructions
of moral arguments in the context of post-factum self-evaluations. Neither
case necessarily reflects the way people reason when making rapid decisions
in the middle of a crisis situation.
However
no research strategy can be adequate if it is not grounded in ethical theory.
The word ethical theory in itself may easily be misunderstood. To put it
in terms of classical Greek philosophy, ethical theory is not about ‘
epistèmè’ (scientific knowledge), nor about technè
or poièsis (technical knowledge about ways of producing a
result). On the contrary, it is about
‘phronèsis’,
the type of knowledge related to the legitimacy of ends people should strive
for and means they should use, especially in circumstances which cannot
be completely assessed.[14]
Note that this is a general description of situations which require leadership,
which is why it often is considered to be not just an intellectual virtue,
but a moral one - omnis virtus moralis debet esse prudens (each
moral virtue should be prudent). Morality implies rationality [15].
Well then, ethical theory means ‘a normative framework of concepts, based
on analyses and interpretations of and discussions about earlier practices’.
To
say that casuistry should be related to ethical theory does not imply that
ethics in the context of the military organization would lose its practical
orientation, and its purposes and objectives - let alone that all soldiers
should be ethicists! It does mean, however, that, especially in the context
of research, casuistry should be related to the theoretical framework,
based on earlier analyses and practices. And it also means that differences
in context between earlier practices and new practices should be taken
into account within the research. For example, the ethical meaning of ‘nuclear
deterrence’ during the Cold War may significantly differ from the ethical
meaning of nuclear deterrence as a general or multipolar deterrence in
the post-Cold War era. Ethical theory of bipolar nuclear deterrence and
case studies about nuclear crises, like the Cuba crisis, are relevant to
any future type of ethical theory of nuclear deterrence, but the differences
in context should be taken into account as well.
Because
ethical theory in itself is intrinsically pluralistic, any attempt to relate
casuistry to theory will add essential dimensions to ethical reflections.
For example, it makes a difference if one approaches multipolar deterrence
from a utilitarian point of view, or from the point of view of Kantian
deontology. Both approaches raise new aspects of ethical decision-making.
We think it is useful to teach soldiers how to apply these different perspectives
in given cases, provided it is done in a systematic way.
II.V.
Space-related conditions: Context of implementation
The
fifth aspect refers to the functions and roles of ethics in a military
organization: where is the best context to implement ethics in the
military organization in such a way that it has positive effects on professional
attitudes and military behavior? Ethical awareness in a military organization
is especially raised by critical incidents with ethical implications and
consequences, in wartime operations as well as in military operations other
than war. From this observation, it is only a small step to conclude that
the proof of the pudding is in the eating: the entire focus on ethics in
a military organization should result in a reduction of the risk of critical
incidents with ethical implications (which often have political consequences).
II.VI.
Time-related conditions
The
sixth aspect concerns the time when the conditions for an effective
focus on ethics in the context of a military organization can be created,
and the role education can and should play here. Well then, if one wants
to reduce the risk, one has to start with controlling risk-related processes
in a military organization. By this we mean recruiting, selection, education
and training of personnel. In relation to ethics in the context of a military
organization, there must be a special focus on the processes of codification
of values within the military organization, the instruments for implementation
of values, the instruments for maintenance of values, and the retrospective
evaluation of values (“lessons learned from an ethical perspective”). A
special focus on the reduction of risks in these areas means:
-
the establishment of values which accepted by society and are at the same
time valid from an academic point of view, as well as being applicable
to a military organization;
-
the implementation of values within a military organization - its structure,
cultures and primary processes - to make sure that measures for prevention
are taken;
-
the maintenance of values in operational situations, which in itself is
difficult because one also has to avoid any type of ethical policing; and
finally:
-
the evaluation of the values themselves and their functioning.
The
aspects of establishment of values and their implementation, maintenance
and evaluation are in fact interrelated. In the daily practice of the military,
one cannot fruitfully separate one of these parts of the chain of policies
which may make ethics an effective force within the Armed Forces.
II.VII.
Ethics: A functional perspective
Although
all aspects will eventually require our attention, we give priority to
a functional perspective on ethics and its role in a military organization.
Therefore this paper now turns to addressing the role of ethics in a military
organization, especially through an analysis of its functions and its domain.
From there, some conclusions may be drawn as to the content and methods
of ethics in the context of a military organization and the education therein.
III.
Dealing with ethics in a military organization
In
the third section of this paper we will try to sketch out an outline for
a strategy of improving dilemma training by relating it to its context,
which is expressed by the seven aspects mentioned above.
III.I
The nature of ethical dilemmas
Ethical
dilemmas in the military may occur anywhere: in the barracks, on the battlefield
and in the context of military operations other than war. In the context
of this paper, it is impossible to discuss all of these different contexts,
so we will focus on the relatively new context of military operations other
than war.
Ethical
dilemmas often become apparent in operational situations. This holds for
wars as well as for Military Operations Other Than War. This does not mean
that they are exclusively or even primarily operational by nature; they
may have strategic and tactical dimensions and may even be strategic or
tactical in origin. Ethical dilemmas may be generated by strategic or tactical
choices or of course, by the unforeseen actions of conflicting parties
in a crisis area. Whatever the origin of the ethical dilemmas, every approach
towards an ethical dilemma should deal with the practical operational setting
in which they must be resolved. A logically occurring complication is that
one cannot stop the operational process until the ethical dilemma has been
solved. Therefore a very important problem to be addressed in this paper
is: under what conditions can ethics in the context of a military organization
contribute to the quality of military performance without interrupting
military operations? Under what conditions can ethics be (or become) an
effective instrument in the prevention of tragedies at theaters of war
which result from insufficient preparation for confronting ethical dilemmas?
We want to explore answers by sketching the landscape of policy dilemmas
regarding the functions and role of ethics in Dutch military organizations.
Basically the idea is firstly that management cycles such as modern quality
care systems can also be applied to the development and implementation
of ethics. Secondly, the focus on ethics in a military organization can
be much more effective when it is dealt with in current management cycles
within the military, at different stages and levels of the organization.
III.II.
Dealing with the dynamic nature of values and virtues
In
recent decades, values in the Netherlands have evolved to an amazing extent. [16]
Cultural modernization in its various manifestations (for example, secularization,
individualization, pluralization, multiculturalization, increasing permissiveness)
does not stop at the threshold of a military organization. It enters the
military organization through the changing characteristics of its personnel.
As a consequence, the Dutch Armed Forces attempt to function along civilian
lines wherever possible. The strictly military approach is adopted only
in as far as it is necessary from the point of view of its effectiveness.
Also
a military organization has to deal with the whole range of expressions
of ethical modernization. The development of an interplay with the mechanism
of cultural generalization can also be helpful to a military organization.
Within a military organization, the decision to adopt human rights as a
set of integrative values helps both to legitimize diversity within the
military organization and to regulate the relations between different cultures
within the military organization. Moreover the implementation and maintenance
of human rights are of increasing importance as part of military missions.
Human rights can be related to the responsibility of the military organization
ad extra. Human rights are therefore very attractive to the military
organization as an integrative set of values, since they can be used to
integrate the military’s responsibilities ad intra and ad extra.
Any task related to the implementation of human rights in the context of
military operations other than war gains credibility and therefore effectiveness
when human rights are taken seriously within the Dutch Armed Forces as
well.
From
the military organization’s point of view there are two major, related
policy dilemmas. Firstly, there is no consensus at all about a hierarchy
of human rights; neither ethics nor politics offer a clear means of tackling
this problem. For the military, this is not very practical, because it
needs clarity in order to be able to translate values into instructions.
Secondly, the integration of values - of which human rights are only one
example - is relatively abstract in nature. This is therefore of little
practical assistance to the individual soldier in an operational setting,
let alone when he is confronted with a new ethical dilemma. Now what should
the military organization do? Should it develop its own ethical standards
as a kind of normative professionalism and impose these values on its personnel,
or should it primarily stimulate and support the personal responsibility
of soldiers?
If
the first option is chosen, how can a military culture be prevented from
developing a ‘Kadaver Disziplin’ in which obedience is not limited by ethical
values? After all it is not the state’s task to function as a moralist.
However, as an employer, the state can and should inform its military employees
about their legal obligations - for example with regard to the Geneva Convention
- and it should help its employees to shape their own conscience, for example
through dilemma training.
If
the second option is chosen, how can conscience - which should be followed
at all times and under all circumstances - be prevented from having an
anarchistic effect within the organization? This would certainly be the
case if it offers a legitimacy to individualism in situations where a collective
approach and group cohesion are required. Moral values, of course, should
be based on the individual. Ultimately they cannot be imposed on soldiers.
However, political ethics and military corporate ethics - like codes of
conduct and military professional ethics (e.g. as expressed by Amnesty
International’s working groups for the military), may support the normative
framework needed for a hierarchy of values based on the individual. These
forms of ethics should not be seen as instruments for imposing unacceptable
pressure on the soldier’s personal conscience. Nor should they be regarded
as a substitute for the personal moral conscience of the soldier. Integrity
is always based in a person’s conscience. In spite of this principle, rather
than because of it, the shaping of conscience should be supported by professional
ethics and organizational ethics. Models for ethical decision-making may
have their function and role in the formation of an individual’s conscience.
III.III.
Codification of moral values
Sooner
or later ethical values can and should reach a phase of codification. They
may be expressed in laws or ethical codes of conduct. With regard to this
codification of values, ethics is subject to a current management dilemma,
namely the choice between a top-down development of values versus bottom-up
development. As any military organization is (and must be) intrinsically
hierarchical in nature, the dilemma becomes even more salient. The dilemma
can be formulated as follows: does the military organization prefer a high
ethical standard coupled with a low acceptance of this standard (caused
by imposition of the standard from above)? How can it increase the acceptance
of the imposed standard? On the other hand, if ethical standards are being
developed in a bottom-up strategy, how can the risk of an adverse outcome
(lower standard plus higher acceptance) be avoided?
Various
strategies have been followed within the Dutch Armed Forces. The Dutch
Army and Navy have both opted for a top-down approach and are still endeavoring
to get their codes of conduct accepted. The Dutch Air Force has chosen
a combination of top-down and bottom-up strategies by discussing a first
draft of the code with all of its personnel and adapting it afterwards.
All three parts of the Armed Forces also asked ethical experts to comment
on the drafts in an early stage of development.
If
our suggestion in section III.II - implying that the individual is the
basis of integrity - is right, this may require that codes of conduct express
the paradox that organizational ethics actually compels each soldier to
follow his conscience. Also the code of conduct should express the intention
of the military to function as a learning organization, in which individual
professionals are also learning. Ethics should also be included within
the scope of lessons learned within the military. In a learning organization,
the codification of values is largely dependent on value development within
the new practices and experiences of the military. In other words, the
development of values within the military and their codification should
be conceived as interrelated dynamic processes. Of course this implies
a challenge to the military because it is not easy to be a learning organization
in a normative environment that is colored by international law and national
military penal law.
III.IV.Implementation
of values in a military organization
Up
until now Dutch military organizations have already made substantial investments
when it comes to ethical education and training for their soldiers. Yet
improving the quality of training models remains a relevant issue, due
to the diversity of ethical concepts in the context of a military organization,
and the diversity of concepts and training which cannot be explained by
differences between military units and their tasks. There are even considerable
differences in quantities of training and education which cannot be explained
by differences in organizational cultures. So there is enough to do in
order to reach an acceptable level of standardization of ethics within
Dutch military organizations.
Apart
from this, recruitment, selection and education should be supported by
styles of leadership which integrate the ethical component of leadership.
If not, organizational cultures as a context of military socialization
will nullify any attempt at putting ethical education into practice.
III.V.
Maintaining moral values
The
proof of the pudding is in the eating. That also applies to the function
of ethics in a military organization. But how can the military, as an organization,
actively promote values? Suppose that the values have been developed, codified,
and implemented, what more can a military organization do to promote putting
values into practice at the right moment and the right place, namely in
operational situations in conflict and crisis areas? Whose responsibility
is this: is it that of individual armed services personnel? Is it perhaps
the responsibility of commanding officers, since they must view a decrease
in value maintenance as a symptom of declining morale? Should the military
chaplaincy have a task in this and, if so, on what basis - since its task
is not that of an ethical police force within the military? Clear choices
need to be made here. If one takes conscience as the cornerstone of ethical
education in peacetime, one cannot deny personal responsibility in a crisis.
Here is where the role of the chaplaincy is crucial: if personal conscience
underlies all moral decisions, then the chaplaincy can be helpful in molding
it and also in giving guidance in practical situations, without imposing
its own values. In the Dutch Armed Forces the chaplaincy does indeed play
such a role. A very important presupposition to this is its independence
from the military hierarchy, which is based on the Dutch model of separation
between church and state.
IV
Some discussions
In
this fourth section we will explore further some central questions that
are crucial for the development of dilemma training in Dutch military organizations.
IV.I.
Focus of dilemma training
Ethical
dilemmas in the military are not restricted to the military alone. The
omnipresent CNN influences those back home - families, public opinion and
national politicians - to develop their own opinions about the routine
practice of military operations. This illustrates that there is a choice
to be made concerning the primary focus of dilemma training. Does a military
organization have to place its primary focus on internal relations
within the military organization (which means strengthening the identity
of the military organization) or should it consider its primary focus to
be the quality of military performance from the point of view of
society (meaning improving social acceptance). The former would
involve primarily internal quality control mechanisms with regard to ethical
standards. Dilemma training then means learning how to cope with dilemmas
when it comes down to people-handling etcetera. One important risk related
to this is the mechanism of covering up problems. If the focus is
on social acceptance, on the other hand, then there is always an external
quality control. This holds for communication with the media and for communication
with the local population in a crisis area. The local population in a crisis
area should be considered a stakeholder by peacekeeping forces, for reasons
of their long-term effectiveness. From this point of view, dilemma
training should demand a combination of preparing soldiers for responsibility
by training them to take responsibility at their own initiative in unforeseen
situations and teaching them how to handle public communication
about the actual choices that were made! In other words, the external focus
implies a communicative way of handling dilemmas, which has many consequences
for training and education models.
We
tend to think that the second focus is more adequate. After all, the Netherlands
Army doctrine for peace operations explicitly refers to the role of the
media during peace operations within its article about ethical dilemmas.
Handling ethical dilemmas in the military is not just about ‘what should
I do?’, it is also about giving an account: ‘why are you doing this’, or
‘why aren’t you doing that?’ Whether we like it or not, the work of the
Armed Forces during peace operations is open to public scrutiny. Consideration
should be given to how this affects the dilemma training model.
IV.II.
Ethics policies: Peripheral?
The
next question we need to discuss here is whether or not ethics is a peripheral
matter within a military organization. We argue that it is a central theme.
What should be the level of commitment to ethics within the military organization:
strategic, tactical and/or operational?
However
moral problems mostly become apparent in an operational situation. Therefore
the moral dimension of the operational situation is self-evident, whereas
the moral dimension of strategy and its development is often only clear
ex post facto.
Now
if ethical choices are to be successfully implemented in military organizations
- by which we mean both effective and efficient - then the strategic and
tactical level should be integrated from the very beginning of this process.
Thus,
there is an imminent dilemma between the visibility of the moral problems
andthe perceived degree of urgency with which they must be handled, on
the one hand, and the difficulty of handling them adequately (let alone
preventing them altogether) on the other. While this is not unique to moral
problems, it does reinforce the need to focus on the relationship between
strategy and ethics and between tactics and ethics.
There
is, of course, nothing new under the sun. The only problem is that although
this insight was considered to be quite normal in the era of bipolar nuclear
deterrence (now known as the Cold War) it has so far failed to function
in strategic and tactical planning in modern military operations other
than war.
This
does not negate the validity of education and training with an operational
focus, it simply means that the above-mentioned ‘strategic corporal’ may
be so overburdened that improved dilemma training may not suffice as a
strategy for preventing tragedies.
IV.III.
A path towards a strategy for dilemma training
The
special focus on risk reduction thus means that these activities
should be linked to each other. What is the use of ethical education if
there is no chance that the moral insights obtained will be put into practice?
That is why the establishment of values is necessary, for example through
codes of conducts. For if there are no clearly defined values within the
military organization, how then can they be implemented and maintained?
And if the ethical culture among military leaders denies the ethical component
of leadership, what is the use of training subordinate soldiers to cope
with ethical dilemmas? And, last but not least, if history did indeed repeat
itself, as the ancient Greek philosopher Polybe maintained, and if our
memory were more adequate, ethical training could focus on specific dos
and don’ts. But since history does not repeat itself, we
will have to accept a continuous learning process, accompanied by regular
evaluations of ethical ‘lessons learned’.
This
means that priority should be given to training in basic professional attitudes
with regard to three themes: responsibility, integrity and transparency
of moral choices.
We
realize that many of the assumptions, interpretations and policy
dilemmas described here require much greater elaboration. Still we hope
that this rough sketch will provide a fruitful basis for dialogue and discussion. [20]
E-mail
correspondence about this paper can be sent to: a.h.vanIersel@kub.nlor:
aviersel@worldonline.nl
Prof.
A.H.M. (Fred) van
Iersel has been
a staff member
for the Office for Ethics in the context of military organizations at the
Netherlands Defense College
since September
1, 1999.
He is also
Professor of Military Chaplaincy at the Tilburg Faculty of Theology of
Tilburg University, the Netherlands, and author of “Religion and Ethics
in the Context of the Armed Forces. Exploring the Road to the Renewal of
Military Chaplaincy” (Tilburg University Press, 1997).
Dr
Th.A. (Ted) van Baarda is a staff member for the
Office for
Ethics in the Context of the Military at the Netherlands Defense College
at Rijswijk, the Netherlands. He is also Director of Humanitarian Law Consultancy.
Dr
D. (Desiree) Verweij is Associate Professor in Philosophy at the Royal
Military Academy at Breda, the Netherlands.
November,
30th 1999
Luijk
van, H.J.L. (1989) 'Bedrijfsethiek: ter kennismaking' in Brand, A.F, Kimman,
E., Van Luijk, H.J.L. Wempe,J. (red.) Bedrijfsethiek in Nederland. Onderneming
en verantwoordelijkheid, Spectrum Utrecht;
Moelker,R,
Oosterhuis G.J. (1999), 'Meer dan een gewoon beroep!' Over de ontwikkelingen
in de militaire professie' in Born,H,Moelker,R. en Soeters, J., Krijgsmacht
en Samenleving , Tilburg University Press;
Verweij,
D. (1999), 'Waarom is ethiek van belang voor de krijgsmacht?' in: Born,
H.,Moelker, R en Soeters, J. Krijgsmacht en Samenleving , Tilburg University
Press;
Vijver,H.
(1996), Ethiek van de gastvrijheid. Een bedrijfsethiek voor de dienstverlening,
Van Gorcum Assen.