Whose interest is the National Interest ?

Résumé du document

The national interest is a term frequently used in politics and international relations, usually in speeches by politicians who are referring to their state's foreign policies. However, the literature of international relations provides an incredible array of definitions and interpretations of what the national interest is and of whom it represents the interests of. This essay aims to discuss this literature with reference to finding whose interest the national interest actually is

Extraits

[...] Whether the nation thought this was in their interest is highly debatable, but the demonstrations before and during the Vietnam War would certainly lend weight to the argument that they did not. Secondly, with the main objective of the US national interest during the Cold War being survival, why would the country risk an arms race when a single missile from an aggressor could destroy an entire city? (Reynold, 1971) The Vietnam debate offers just one good example of the term “national interest” being used (or misused) by politicians in major speeches. [...]

[...] If they disagreed strongly with the party's representation of the nation's interests, they would not ascend to government. Nonetheless, the Euro issue highlights the confusion over the meaning of national interest and of whom it represents. Clinton (1986) argues that this confusion of meaning and justification for use arises from a lack of conceptual clarity (Little & Smith, 1991). Clinton makes two divisions of the term “national interest” that is used national interest” and “state interests”. Taking each in turn, national interest” sees a “real common good that in the long run benefits all those within the community of a nation's society, in their role as members of the whole, if not always in their capacity of members of a subgroup”. [...]

[...] Thus, the informed public also believe intervention to be part of their national interests, and can force these interests through, even if not backed by some leaders and experts: American people clearly think that their interests include certain values and their promotion abroad such as opposition to ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. A democratic definition of the national interest does not accept the distinction between a morality- based and an interest-based foreign policy. Moral values are simply intangible interests. Leaders and experts may point out the costs of indulging these values. But if an informed public disagrees, experts cannot deny the legitimacy of public opinion.” (p. 23-24) Peregrine Worsthorne (1999) puts the justification of intervention rather more crudely, describing that the national interest “lies merely in not feeling guilty”. [...]

[...] In exploring the literature on international relations, the focus has been on attempting to find whose interest is the national interest. Given the range of interpretations on what is meant by the national interest it is unsurprising that no clear answer can be found to the question. It appears that different groups have their interests accounted for every time the phrase “national interest” is used. On Vietnam, many people in the US felt it was not in their interests to be involved in the region yet the decision was taken on national interests terms, based on long-term power ambitions. [...]

[...] In other words, national interest” aims to provide for the interest of the nation's people. By contrast, Clinton labels “state interests” as being a number of narrower goals, which act to build national interest” by maintaining or increasing the state's power. These may include access to airspace, recognising the existence of a state, or negotiating new trade partners. Clinton concludes the differentiation, “Each state has one overall national interest; it possesses many particular state interests, and it must pick and choose among them. [...]