Governments must consider the moral implications of their actions when formulating foreign policy

Greetings, all. I thank my opponent for this interesting topic, and hope to have a lot of fun with it. Before I begin, I would like to clarify a few things about the debate. First of all, we have not yet defined what government we are talking about. Are we referring to the US's government? Germany's government? Cuba's government? My opponent does refer to a "just government" in his arguments, and argues that we must uphold the national interest in order to be a just government. Therefore, until further notice, I will argue that a just government is one that upholds the national interest AND considers morality. (As opposed to simply upholding the national interest via my opponent's arguments) My opponent argues that protecting the national interest is incompatible with morality. This is false. I will show you during my attacks on his case. =============== CON's "A." Contention =============== My opponent makes the fallacious argument that morality and national security are mutually exclusive events. It is completely plausible to protect one's self while remaining morally correct. Consider the US's missile defense system. We have warned all other countries that they must be cleared to travel into our airspace, or else we will shoot them down. Are we protecting national security? Certainly. Are we being morally correct? Yes. We are holding our ground while refraining from engaging in morally incorrect activities. This is completely justified. My opponent would also do well to realize that the United States' invasion of Iraq was not the event that has spawned major attacks on the US. We did not invade Iraq until two years after the attacks on September 11, 2001. ============== Con's "B." Contention ============== It seems that my opponent is quite fond of his friend Oppenheim. However, both of them fall on false pretenses. They both assume that considering morality excludes the national interest. I am not arguing that the US should drop all of its national security goals in the goal of reaching morality, I am arguing that the US can protect its national security WHILE considering morality in its foreign policy. For example, economic sanctions have caused the deaths of millions around the globe. In Iraq, hundreds of thousands of children deaths have occurred as a result of recent foreign policy actions. I argue that more targeted sanctions should be used, upholding the national interest AND considering morality. The last time I checked, the US is considered the world's policeman ever since Theodore Roosevelt and the progressives. We have only been attacked on our soil one major time since, and have been quite effective at implementing peace elsewhere. Oppenheim's statement is false. =============== CON's "C." Contention =============== My opponent's opening premise to this argument is false. While I believe that there is a universal code of morality, I will not even need to use it in this debate. This is due to the fact that government is morality, according to its nation. The US government decides morality for the US, and the Cuban government decides what morality is for Cubans. What is a government but an agent of its societal members? Government implements laws and policies, and thus defines morality. Since the government represents the people, it acts as morality for the people. Therefore, morality is in the national interest because morality IS the national interest, the interest of society's members. The US is not going to stand by as, say, a Triad gang commits heinous crimes on US soil, because the US decides what is moral on US soil. Likewise, the US will try to assist those countries oppressed by Communism under the Truman Doctrine because the US has deemed Communism immoral. With that in mind, morality is in the national interest. The affirmative rests.