JUANITA DZIFA SENANU-AMEVIN
MSC POLITICAL SCIENCE- Geopolitics,
Democracy Promotion, or Cultural Identity?
AUTUMN SEMSTER, 2017
Table of content
DOES THE NATIONAL
INTEREST CHANGE OVER TIME?
“National interests are permanent conditions which
provide policy makers with a rational guide to their tasks: they are fixed,
politically bipartisan and always transcend changes in government” (Burchill, 2005, p. 36). The opening
quote clearly sets the tone of the thesis of this essay which is that the
national interest does not change over time. For an effective elaboration of
the stated thesis, the paper has been segmented into five sections. Having
already defined national interest, the first and obviously the introductory
section begins with an overview of the concept and briefly explains national
interest in the eyes of Political Realism, here-in-after referred to as Realism.
The second section discusses in detail the arguments making up the thesis. The
third section of this essay will identify a few of the dissenting views on this
thesis put forward by liberals and constructivists. In last paragraphs, the
penultimate section of the essay re-echoes its stance by responding to the few
dissenting views. By way of conclusion, the fifth and last section of this
essay summarizes the stance of this paper in one paragraph.
Insight into ‘National Interest’
National interest is generally viewed as the behaviour of states rooted
in the pursuit, protection and promotion of certain interests based on the assessment
of the current situation. In international politics, every country’s foreign
policy is driven by what it perceives to be its national interest. According to
‘The meaning of
national interest is survival-the protection of physical, political and
cultural identity against encroachments by other nation-states’
The national interest is an often debated and slippery concept that is
used to both describe and prescribe foreign policy. It has been used by
statesmen and scholars since the 17th century to describe the
aspirations and goals of sovereign entities in the international arena. The
national interest is a controversial and an ambiguous term that has no
universal definition but primarily serves as the “language of state action” (Weldes, 1999,
The national interest is a concept used by political actors to whip support for
their policies and to shape political behaviour. Thus, the national interest is
used to explain, justify, oppose or propose policies and actions against other
states. Analytically it is used to measure the adequacy of past, present and
future foreign policies of states (Burchill, 2005). As already noted
above, the national interest is a nebulous term in international politics.
Hence, for an in-depth examination of the question under discussion, there is
the need to employ the assumptions of an international political theory that
can help explain the elements of national interest. An international political
theory primarily explains international-political outcomes, analyses concepts
such as national interest, and clarifies the economic and foreign policies of
states (Waltz, 1979). There are several
International theories, they include, liberalism, social constructivism,
Marxism, post-colonial theory etc. All these theories account for world
politics and explain various ideas in international relations but in different
ways. However, the most important international theory that provides almost a
perfect discussion on national interest is Realism. In International Relations, Realism is defined
as “A tradition of analysis that stresses the imperatives states face to pursue
a power politics of the national interest” (Burchill, et al., 2005, p. 30). Realism portrays
National interest as a key concept which when defined in terms of power sets politics apart as an independent
realm of action and makes a theory of politics thinkable. Realists define the
national interest in terms of strategic and economic potentials because
international politics is understood to be a struggle for power among states. Realism
argues that national interest contains two elements, one that is logically
required and in that sense necessary, and one that is variable and determined
by circumstances (Burchill, 2005, p. 36).
National Interest and Realism
succeeding paragraphs, the paper contextualises the concept and makes a better
sense of the question by drawing on the assumption of all the varieties of
realism to substantiate the stance that the national interest does not change
and foremost, the desire to possess and utilize power is an unchanging interest
of states. It is the view of realists and this essay that states are led
by human beings who have an innate desire for power and seek to enjoy an
advantage over others and to avoid domination by others. As units in the international system, states
always compete for power and dominance over each other. Thus, while some states
seek power to pray on one another, others also strive to gain power at all
times to ensure that other states do not exploit them. This makes the struggle
for power an all-time interest to be pursued because ‘States are almost always
better off with more rather than less power. In short, states do not become
status quo powers until they completely dominate the system’ (Mearsheimer,
2001, p. 31).
This essay again
argues that, in an anarchic international system of independent states with no
central authority to guarantee their safety, security remains an unchanging
national interest: to all intents and purposes, security is a never-changing
national interest of countries because the international arena is a self-help
system with continual fear among states. In international politics states view
themselves as vulnerable and their peers as potential threats, and due to this,
security remains an all-time priority on the agenda of states. And whenever
necessary, states adopt diplomacy, balance power, form alliances and even go to
war against other countries to defend and maintain their security. This essay
agrees with realists that the international system is uncertain and as a result
‘The character of international politics changes as national
interdependence tightens or loosens. Yet even as relations vary, states have to
take care of themselves as best they can in an anarchic environment’ (Waltz, 2000, p. 18). Thus, the
security of the state may be endangered by aggressive behaviour of others as a
result, states strive as much as they can to look out for means to “deter and,
if need be, fend off an attack by others” (Frankel, 1970, p. 48).
importantly, the national interest of states is permanent because every state
strives at all times to maintain its sovereignty once attained. Maintaining
one’s territorial integrity and the autonomy of the domestic political order
remains a permanent national interest of states in the sense that, recognition
by their peers and intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations is
only extended to entities with territory and formal juridical autonomy. This
essay together with realists maintain that
current international system, sovereign autonomy and self-determination are
core values. The paper is not in dispute of the fact that states pursue some
basic social values, including, freedom, order, justice, and welfare. But in
the pursuit of these values they always make the protection of their existence
a major priority. Josef Stalin, a former head of state of the Soviet Union put
the point well during a war scare in 1927 when he posited that: “We can and
must build socialism in the Soviet Union But in order to do so we first of all
have to exist” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p. 38). In the words of
Mearsheimer, “Survival dominates other motives because, once a state is
conquered, it is unlikely to be in a position to pursue other aims” (2001, p. 30).
Further to the above, the interests of states to protect specific
national assets, such as strategic maritime routes, port access, and natural
resources is permanent and do not change with transient governments. This essay
strongly contends that every country has some assets that others desire and
will want to have control over. In order to prevent the scrambling of such
strategic assets and resources, states make it their permanent national
interests to secure them for their citizens. It must be stated that such
national interests are not open to political reinterpretation (Burchill,
2005, p. 27).
It is very much justified therefore, to argue that “The idea of interest is
indeed of the essence of politics and is unaffected by the circumstances of
time and place” (Morgenthau, 1985, p. 10).
the pursuit of economic prosperity remains an unchanging national interest of
states. It is the contention of this paper that countries perpetually pursue
economic prosperity to enhance the welfare of their citizenry. States secure
the allegiance of their citizens by catering for their economic interest. The
pursuit of such economic fortunes is again an all-time interest of states
because they use the acquired wealth to equip and empower their military forces
which in turn enhances their defence capabilities Mearsheimer, further
elaborate this position by arguing that, “greater economic prosperity
invariably means greater wealth, which has significant implications for
security, because wealth is the foundation of military power” (Mearsheimer,
2001, p. 38).
By way of discussing some dissenting views, the paper first considers the
contention by Liberals that the national interest of states changes over time
because states co-operate to create a market society as a means to promote
development and economic growth. Liberals assert that free trade and market
forces overwhelm social relations and change political actions culminating in
the change of the national interest of states (Burchill,
2005, p. 131).
For instance, they argue that previously, many states protected their
industries. However, in today’s world, all of such countries have gotten rid of
their protectionist policies to allow for free trade.
Another criticism of the position of this essay is one advanced by Constructivist
that national interests are determined through social interaction and as a
result they change as the experiences of social interactions vary over time. In
contrary to the thesis of this essay, Constructivists assert that the national
interest of states change over time due to the fact that such interests are
influenced by the social ideas of the day and as such, are regularly shaped and
reshaped through socialisation. According to Constructivist, shared ideas,
beliefs and values greatly impact on social and political action. Thus, to
them, social values and ideas shape both the social identities of political
actors and, in turn, the interests they express (Burchill,
2005, p. 193).
Last on this score is the view by Constructivist that state interests are
shaped by internationally shared norms and values that structure and give
meaning to international political life. Constructivists like Martha Finmore
contend that the national interests of states are defined in the context of
international norms and understandings about what is good and appropriate.
According to these Constructivists, normative context influences the behaviour
of decision-makers and of the mass publics who may choose and constrain those
decisionmakers. The normative context also changes over time, and as these
norms and values change, they create co-ordinated shifts in state interests and
behaviour across the system. Thus, countries adjust themselves to accept new
norms and values that may be set by international organisations and through interactions
with other states (Burchill, 2005).
In a response to the above criticisms, this paper asserts that, the national
interest of states does not change over time, rather the approaches chosen by
states to maintain these interests are varied constantly depending on the
structure and the prevailing-situations of the international system. Critics
point to the creation of institutions and established norms as some of the
things that influence states to change their national interests. However, it is
the position of this essay that these institutions only serve as the media
through which powerful states project their national interests. Realists
agree that states sometimes operate through institutions and benefit from doing
so. Nonetheless, it must be understood that powerful states create and shape
institutions so that they can maintain or increase their share of world power.
A clear instance is the veto power wielded by the permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council who were the victors of the Second World War
and founding fathers of the United Nations. The point must be stressed that
powerful states like the U.S usually get their way on issues they consider
important through international institutions. In times that they are not able
to secure their interests, they ignore the institution and do what they deem to
be in their own national interest (Mearsheimer, 2001, p. 216).Again, by way of
answering critics, it is important to state that, as long as states possess
unequal power, national interest remains a permanent goal in the sense that
states that have attained certain heights on the world stage will always make
it a point to maintain their status in the international system while the
have-nots will also continue to struggle to attain their desired status. Carr
and other Realists argue that some states are better off than others and these
countries will always defend and sustain their privileged position whiles the
have-nots, will struggle to change that situation. (Jackson &
Sørensen, 2012, p. 39).
In short, this paper admits that economic co-operation, social values
and international norms and other circumstances in the international system could affect the
direction of the national interest of states. However, these factors do not
change the national interest of countries. These assertions and many
others made by Constructivist and Liberals are problematic and inadequate to
reverse the position of this essay because both theories acknowledge the state
as an important actor in international politics. By far this paper has
succeeded in arguing that as long as the state remains the pre-eminent actor in
an anarchical international system where there is the need to exert influence,
maintain survival in order to pursue other goals, seek security to ward off
imminent attacks, pursue economic growth in order to secure the wellbeing of
the citizenry, and to secure strategic national assets, national interest
remains a permanent thing that political actors will continue to adopt
different means to achieve.
Burchill, S., 2005. The
National Interest in International Relations Theory. s.l.:s.n.
et al., 2005. Theories of international relations. 3 ed. London:
“Neoclassical realism and the national interest.” The Realism Reader (2014): 272.
Frankel, J., 1970. National
Interest. 1st ed. London: Pall Mall Press Ltd.
& Sørensen, G., 2012. Introduction to International Relations,
Theories and Approaches. 5 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
N., 2003. The tragic vision of politics: Ethics, interests and orders. 1st
ed. s.l.:Cambridge University Press.
Lobell, Steven E.,
Norrin M. Ripsman, and Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, eds. Neoclassical realism, the
state, and foreign policy. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Mearsheimer, J. J.,
2001. The tragedy of Great Power politics. 1st ed. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company.
Joachim. “In Defense of the National Interest a Critical Examination of
American Foreign Policy.” (1982).
Morgenthau, Hans J. “The Moral Dilemma
in Foreign Policy.” Yearbook of World Affairs 5.1 (1951): 12-36.
Morgenthau, H. J.,
1985. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle For Power And Peace. 6 ed.
New York: Knopf.
Waltz, K. N.,
1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
N., 2000. Structural realism after the Cold War. International Security, ,
25(1), pp. 5-41.
1999. Constructing National Interest: The United States and the Cuban
Missile Crisis. London: University of Minnesota Press.
The state of ‘having an interest’
can mean holding an objective
and/or subjective stake in
something, but also, crucially, being
affected either positively or negatively
by that stake. (Hirschman
1986, ch. 2).