definition:
the
National Interest
"A
national interest is a public good of concern to all or most Americans; a
vital interest is one which they are willing to expend blood and treasure to
defend. National interests usually combine security and material
concerns, on the one hand, and moral and ethical concerns on the other."
source:
Samuel P. Huntington, "The Erosion of American National Interests," Foreign
Affairs (Sept./Oct. 1997): 35.
The
two major schools of thought which guide to differing visions of what, in
general, constitutes the best framework for assessing purported national
interests are idealism and realism.
Major Schools of Thought on the
U.S. National Interest:
Idealism
Idealism:
When the US presents its actions as designed to promote a general
good for humanity, not just the good of the US, it is explaining its policy
within the tradition of Idealism. Idealists
contend that by doing what is good for humanity, we do what is good for
ourselves, too.
Historically, idealists have emphasized the potential for
humans to make rational choices to change the world they live in, have
believed in the concept of progress, and have worked to construct global
institutions to express universal norms and to enforce international law.
In
American experience, many different foreign policy objectives have been
fashioned to fit the tenets of this tradition. In different eras, we
have set out to engage in the:
- Promotion
of democracy
- promotion
of capitalism
- promotion
of a world free from communism
- promotion
of a drug-free world
- promotion
of the protection of individuals' human rights
- eradication
of terrorists and the "axis of evil" supporting them
Examples:
Many U.S. presidents clearly can be characterized as explaining their
policies through use of the rhetoric of idealism:
Woodrow
Wilson: "make the world safe for democracy"
Jimmy
Carter: the US as a beacon of human rights
Ronald
Reagan: the U.S. must stop the Evil Empire
George
W. Bush: launches a "crusade" against terrorism, and declares (November
6, 2003) the promotion
of democracy in the Middle East to be fundamental.
In
each case, the ideal value they pursued was made a lens through which actual
policies undertaken were judged. In
the contemporary U.S., William Kristol, an editor of the Weekly
Standard, is among the most influential advocates of this approach.
Kristol's
most influential and major work in this vein is:
William
Kristol and Robert Kagan, Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in
American Foreign and Defense Policy (San Francisco, CA: Encounter
Books, 2000): 3-24.
Major
Schools of Thought on the U.S. National Interest:
Realism
The
origins of this approach lie deep in the political philosophy of N.
Machiavelli and T. Hobbes.
Each
viewed the world beyond the borders of any state as anarchic, lawless.
This focus on the "real" condition of the world finds all states
without any mechanism to enforce moral / ideal standards.
It is a jungle, where the law of the jungle prevails.
In
the US since the publication of the works of Hans Morgenthau, (Politics
Among Nations, 1949), realists have believed that in such a world the
national interest of all states, the U.S. included, must be:
"national interest = the accumulation of power"
Examples:
The Nixon Presidency, in its 1972 opening to China can be characterized as
"realist." In contemporary
America, the thought of Henry Kissinger most persuasively makes the
realists' case. John
Mearsheimer (U. Chicago) also has mounted a realist critique of the use of
war against terrorists and states like Iraq. Referring to the
"idyllic illusion" of harmony of interests among states,
Mearsheimer argues that the present age is shaped by forces largely similar
to all previous times.
Mearsheimer's
major recent work is: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001).