 |
| The Hippocratic Oath in Greek and Latin published in Frankfurt in 1595 in Apud Andreae Wecheli heredes by Claudium Marnium, & Ioan. Aubrium (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Since my
retirement from the U.S. Foreign Service in September 2012, I have been
involved in a number of projects that have interested me for decades. One of
the most important, though, is the development of a code of ethical conduct for
the U.S. Foreign Service, a project I’m working on in conjunction with a number
of my colleagues, both active and retired.
As might be
imagined, such a project has provoked much discussion. One topic of interest is
the question of which should come first, the development of a professional
ethics code, or a definition of the profession. While there are a number of
definitions of diplomacy, it has not to my satisfaction (and many of my
colleagues) been clearly defined as a profession. This is in all likelihood due
to the American experience from colonial times when talented amateurs were sent
abroad to represent the new nation’s interests in European courts. It is also
seen in the modern practice of rewarding political loyalists with ambassadorial
posts in some of the more desirable embassies.
That this
practice will continue into the indefinite future is undeniable; it is much a
part of the country’s political DNA. But, in the dangerous age in which we
currently live, whether those named to represent the country are political
loyalists or career government servants, if we are to maintain America’s
position in the world, there must be a professional framework within which they
operate.
This will
require, I’ll be the first to admit, a clear definition of diplomacy as a
profession; one which must be understood by all who practice it. But, the
question at hand is: must we define the profession before we have a code of
ethical conduct that guides and shapes the activities of diplomatic
practitioners?
Reasonable
people can, and will, disagree on this point. Based, though, on my 30 years as
a practicing diplomat and 20 years before that as a career army officer, my own
bias is for a code of ethical conduct based on universally-accepted core values
as a guide to clearly defining the profession. I see no reason that these two
tasks cannot be undertaken simultaneously, but I firmly believe that priority
should be given to the ethical code. I offer two historical examples in support
of this view.
The Hippocratic Oath Preceded Development of the Profession
of Medicine.
While the
Hippocratic Oath, believed to have been written by Hippocrates, or one of his
students, in Ionic Greek in the 5th century BC, is often
misunderstood, and is not in its original form sworn to by modern physicians,
its core values continue to guide the practice of medicine around the world.
Hippocrates is widely regarded as the father of western medicine. While there
were healers at the time the oath was
written, one has to concede that the definition of medicine as a profession has
undergone dramatic change since the 5th century.
Following is
a rough translation of the oath:
I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to
witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my
judgment, the following Oath and agreement:
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in
common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his
children as my own brothers, to teach them this art; and that by my teaching, I
will impart a knowledge of this art to my own sons, and to my teacher's sons,
and to disciples bound by an indenture and oath according to the medical laws,
and no others.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients
according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor
suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for
patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be
performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good
of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all
seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or men, be they
free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my
profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad,
I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and
practise my art, respected by all humanity and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse
be my life.
One can see
many of the practices of modern doctors in this ancient document. But, as
technology has advanced, the definition of the profession has accordingly been
modified.
The U.S. Constitution Can Be Considered a Code of Conduct
for a Nation
When the
Founding Fathers took up arms against King George in the 1700s, the definition
of the United States as a nation was only a vision. Since 1775, the nation has
undergone numerous changes, from the Articles of Confederation to the Civil War
to Manifest Destiny.
While not a
profession, the transformation of the fledgling former colony into one of the
world’s greatest powers was shaped by the Constitution, which is basically a code
of ethical conduct for a nation.
The Danger of Defining a Profession Without a Code of
Professional Conduct
One could, I
suppose, put together a panel of learned practitioners and come up with a
definition of modern American diplomacy that would satisfy everyone. It wouldn’t
be an easy task, but I’m willing to concede that it just might be possible. But, in the absence of a set of commonly
accepted and clearly understood core values enshrined in a code of ethical
conduct; a Hippocratic Oath for diplomats, there is a clear and present danger.
As
professional diplomats, like professional soldiers, we serve those who have
been elected by the people. But, it has always been the case that politicians
have a short-term focus, and in today’s toxic political climate it is the rule
rather than the exception. Politicians have, by and large, always viewed the
instruments of state power – and diplomacy is one of these instruments – as tools
to advance their specific political agenda. When the statesmen of this country,
in the main, were people who put the needs of the country writ large ahead of
partisan interests, this was workable – just barely. In the last several
decades, however, American politics has become a zero-sum, winner-take-all
game, with the prime goal it seems, winning elections and getting ahead of the
opposition.
International
relations, however, must be based on longer-term interests. Relations between and
among nations transcend specific elections. Diplomats, therefore, like
soldiers, must be professionally conditioned and educated to reconcile the
short-term requirements of the moment with the longer term needs of the nation
as administrations change, and the international landscape shifts. They must
have a framework within they endeavor to serve those in power in good faith,
but put the longer term interests of the nation first. After all, like
soldiers, we serve those elected to positions of authority, but we are the servants of the people.
As we
struggle to define diplomacy in the modern age, we would be well-served by a
code of ethical conduct, much as a doctor must work with the hospital
administration, which has issues of budget and politics to consider, but at the
same time, put the interests of patients first. As we develop an accepted
definition of our profession, we must be insulated from undue political
influence by a code of conduct that enjoins us from ‘doing harm.’
We can’t
afford to hide behind the argument that I have often heard that a code of
ethical conduct in unnecessary because the people we hire as diplomats are
already ethical, or that professional education throughout a career isn’t
needed because they’re already educated. If we take our oath to the
Constitution, which is administered to all new Foreign Service Officers,
seriously, we must back it up with an ethical code that reinforces that oath
throughout our careers.
This is an
argument that I predict will continue, and I’m prepared to listen to all points
of view. Mine as expressed here is my personal view. But, I would hope that all
who enter the fray would be willing to listen to counter views as well.
Your humble
and obedient servant.
No comments:
Post a Comment