3.3 National Interest in context
3.3.1 A critical exploration of the definitional debate
79
would preserve and improve the state’s power and not misuse it in a way that would weaken the state” (Morgenthau, 1951:27). The decisions that a statesman make in relation to military intervention should be followed by the ability and need to utilise resources efficiently and effectively in order to achieve the set out national objectives.
80
reflection of the synthesis of objective and subjective approaches and regardless of the type of government in a given state, decisions are made by a selected few individuals.
The term national interest has a variety of meanings, some of which are not in any way conciliatory. There has not been any academic agreement as to what the term means and the existing literatures do not suggest any clear-cut classification of its various uses. In Beard’s (1934:586) view, national interest is an aggregation that is assembled. It is a combined sum of a nation’s objectives. However, George and Keohane argue that national interest cannot be a total of individual interests because of the fact that due to their differences, interests cannot be added or an average cannot be made out of them and they can at most be “a synthesis of interplay of forces, in which individual interests are an inherent part” (George and Keohane, 1980:131).
In some scholars’ views the concept of national interest has a significant inclination towards the political process of society. As Vertzbeger observes, “the decision making process in which the foreign policy goals result from bargaining among the needs and wants of the various groups regardless of whether democratic or authoritarian procedures are employed”
and whatever policy makers decide becomes the substantive content of national interest (Vertzberger, 1998:57). It is in this regard that national interest can always change whenever the requirements and aspirations of a nation change; thereby, the concept becomes incapable of serving as a standard of judgement for policy formulation and implementation (Van Nieuwkerk, 2004:74). Another meaning of national interest lies in the public’s interest in
“maintaining an arena open to free and fair political competition of all interest groups” and all special interests shall act according to one common interest (Lippman, 1947:75). Here we can deduce that that national interest under this definition remains dependent on the balance
81
of forces in a given polity and the governing rules of its political system. It cannot however serve for the comparison of foreign policies across national boundaries and time (Lippman, 1947:75).
Kramer (2002:133) takes a normative approach when he defined national interest as those preferences of decision makers taking into consideration that policy makers are regularly replaced and national interest changes with how these policy makers bring in new ideas on the formulation of policy. Nuechterlein (2000:55) sees national interest as “the perceived needs and desires of some sovereign state comprising its external environment”. However, in Aron’s view, “national interest depends on the type of the regime” (Aron, 2003:277). The fact that different regimes have different ends would mean that these regimes would require different policies to promote these ends (Aron, 2003:277). However, it cannot be ruled out that whenever there has been a replacement of a regime in one way or the other, there is likelihood that the national interest may be adjusted and refocused.
Nye points out that the term national interest is synonymous with public interest constituting the sum of all particular interests within a society. Nye observes that “in a democracy, national interest is simply what citizens say it is; it is broader than vital strategic interests, though they are a crucial part” (Nye, 1998:51). As one of its functions, national interest can guide the political debate and guide decision makers with the framework of the terms of the debate. It should be realised that the “utility of national interest is not any formula that can provide answers to all complex issues of foreign policy” (Nye, 1998:51). Instead, the decision maker is supposed to as a variety of questions that would assist him or her in making informed decisions. Such questions include: How can current developments affect our nation’s power? To what extent are our state’s vital interests under threat? Which of our
82
nation’s interests are secondary and how much resources can we commit in order to defend them? If we must compromise the secondary interests of our nation, what sorts of deals are acceptable? (Sheenhan, 2000: 70). An important point to take into account is the fact that decision makers do not arrive at the same answers to the questions because these claimed interests can be potentially justified by making comparison to those national interests of other states in the global system (George and Keohane, 1980:140). This being the case, national interest influences those in leadership positions to take decisions which are in line with the international political environment. It needs to be pointed out that the concept of national interest will continue to be extensively used by political actors.
A case in point is when Condoleezza Rice wrote during America’s 2000 campaign that Washington must act in line with its national interest and the interests of the international community. What Condoleezza Rice might have been referring to was in reference to the circumstantial thinking about foreign policy and contemporary global politics. Because of globalisation, the interaction among nation states tends to shape their respective policies towards their international relations (Vertzberger, 1998:185). Thus, broader interests can be incorporated into a “far sighted” concept of the national interest which “can include different goals shared by other states as well and values such as human rights and democracy’
(Vertzberger, 1998:185). Thus, a better informed political debate is the only way in which states can broadly and narrowly define national interests (Nye, 1998:36-50). Consequently the concept of national interest appears so complex to comprehend. With power as a yardstick, Morgenthau argues that at times national interest can lead states into formulating and implementing aggressive foreign policies whist giving superficial justification to national egoism (Morgenthau, 1951:18). As suggested by Nye, national interest must be superseded
83
by “international interests” or “world order” approaches, “which go beyond the inherent selfishness of national interest” (Nye, 1998:36-50).
Morgenthau also noted that national interest “lies in the obligation to protect and promote the good of the society” (1951:18). The yardstick in this definition seems to be that the “common good is above and prior to any policy decision and policy makers have a responsibility to bring their actions into conformity with higher shared interest” (Morgenthau, 1951:18).
However, what remains of controversy is where the common good and common interest lies.
In order to comprehend the locus of the common good one has to take note of the fact that what determines the common good is either the interaction of interest groups or the public opinion poll answers. In light of the above, it is of huge importance for political leaders to discuss the formulation of policy broadly since a common good can be identified by making an assessment of what leads to the best possible benefit for society. This process can be done through an initial identification of the principles of the regime and adopting public policies that will advance those principles (Nye, 1998: 35, 45). The two fundamental assumptions that Nye made are that there are some values which are more worthy than others and that society is not value neutral. He emphasized this when he said that “in the international realm, a nation’s interest lies in its ability to safeguard the common good of the society and continue its search for the public interest unhindered by outside threats” (1998:35).
What Nye seems to suggest is that a foreign policy guided by the national interest would effectively guard against foreign threats and this would provide a peaceful environment that brings opportunities in the course of the country’s international relations.
84