Covert Actions: Moral and Ethical Considerations
Covert acts are aimed to entice the support of people, non-state actors, or foreign governments while the sponsor government keeps the entire operation secret. This excludes regular law enforcement and military operations, as well as counter-espionage and counter-intelligence measures. There has been a nagging question about the moral and legal justification of this phenomenon, which has taken numerous forms such as political, economic, propagandist, and paramilitary actions. Yet, whether the decision was unethical, unlawful, or not, the success of the covert operation is frequently cited as a measure of justification. A covert action is supposed to remain hidden from the public eye; in fact it should be non-existent. After WWII, Americans perceived covert actions with the mentality of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ In current times though, invasive journalism, memoirs, whistle blowers, leaks, and defectors all pose a threat to the sanctity and secrecy of cover activities. The critical issue to remember is that within a given period, covert actions are disclosed. This directs the reader to the fundamental question of “What will happen if (or when) it gets to the public?” Based on this question, are covert activities moral or ethically legitimate? (Daugherty, 2010).
Covert Actions and Just War Theory
A number of scholars have argued that covert actions should be considered based on the Just War Theory. This doctrine endeavors to look into the reasons behind the covert action, and the manner in which it is carried out. It further provides that the action is deemed moral when embarked on by the legitimate authorities, and when it is seen to be a just cause, as in self defense when a country faces imminent danger. Covert actions must only chase a legitimate purpose, be a last resort, and be carried out proportionately to the threat at hand. In addition, there must be a real prospect to succeed with the least harm to innocent humans, with the consequences being evaluated to ensure that the intervention doesn’t result in more suffering graver than the evil intended to be eliminated from the onset (Downes, Alexander & Lilley, 2010)..
The Nature of Covert Actions and Their Impact
The nature of the enemy targeted by the covert action is critical, raising the issue of legitimate aim and just cause. An action directed towards a hostile government will be easily accepted by the population, compared to a democratic or neutral target. When used as an instrument of engaging in dialogue to create peace, cover actions are justifiable and appears naturally moral, though this may not always work since democracy is best if imposed from the inside. There are cases where the U.S. has used covert actions to impose authoritarian regimes, like in Guatemala, Indonesia, and Chile, where the citizens experienced fierce oppression and human right violations. Typically, covert activities have been seen to have made greater contributions to suffering in many countries than in the US quest for democracy. Unfortunately, the goals for undertaking cover actions have leaned more towards fulfilling their interests for power rather than to democratic goals. However, since a covert-action does not remain a secret forever, the goals of the program must be compatible the values of the American citizen and interests, as well as those of foreign policy. In this case, the American citizens will view it as a valuable objective when the program comes to public knowledge (Prados, 2012).
References
Daugherty, William J. (2010). Covert Action: Strengths and Weaknesses, in The Oxford Handbook of National Security Intelligence, Loch K. Johnson, 1-13.
Downes, Alexander B. & Lilley, Mary Lauren. (2010). Overt Peace, Covert War?: Covert Intervention and the Democratic Peace, Security Studies, 19:2, 266-306.
Prados, John. (2012). The Continuing Quandary of Covert Operations, Journal of National Security, 5:2, 359-372.
