| Understanding and mitigating the consequences of clashing moral perceptions should be an important strategic goal of diplomacy and foreign policy. Personal interviews and primary documents about three cases of negotiation are used to illustrate the dangerous collision of different moral claims in the international arena, the mistakes made in handling this aspect of the negotiations, and the use of strategic moral diplomacy to successfully reframe conflict positions.; Strategic moral diplomacy grants the adversary's moral position within strategic parameters in order to reach political goals. The project first uses moral psychology and philosophy to question current claims of normative theory, constructivism, and rational choice. Next, a structured, focused comparison of three cases of entrenched conflict, and their eventual outcomes, reveals that an intelligent and pragmatic moral position, rather than the conventional image of enemy as evil, can reframe conflict situations to achieve strategic results. |
