"National Interest’ Is the Most Important Factor in the Formation of Any Foreign Policy. Evaluate This Claim".
"National interest’ is the most important factor in the formation of any foreign policy. Evaluate this claim".
___________________________________________________________________
It would seem a self-evident claim that national interest must play a significant part, if not a central one, in the formation of any state's foreign policy. This claim could be made because it would appear natural that the role of the state, in any situation, is primarily to further the interests of the society and people that it represents. This is the basis of its legitimacy and the reason of its very existence. This paper will explore the extent to which it can be said that states pursue national interests in their foreign policy formation, regardless of whether the outcome of the foreign policy pursued does in fact lead to benefits or advantages created for the national population in question. Foreign policies examined over the course of this paper will include economic policy, national security policy, and policies that fall under the category of humanitarian intervention in other countries. It will be argued that for the majority of the time, and in most situations (but certainly not all situations), foreign policy seeks to benefit the national government responsible for its creation, and the national society that it represents. In this sense, national interest can indeed be said to be an important and omnipresent factor in the considerations of foreign policy creation.
Primarily it is essential to define the term ‘national interest’ and how it will be interpreted throughout this paper. Clinton (1986) argues there is a difference between the ‘national interest’ (of a society and its citizens) and ‘national interests’ – which he describes as the number of ‘narrower goals which serve the broader end of the national interest by maintaining or increasing the power of the state’ (p.50). These narrower goals may include access to warm-water ports, rights to military bases on
___________________________________________________________________
It would seem a self-evident claim that national interest must play a significant part, if not a central one, in the formation of any state's foreign policy. This claim could be made because it would appear natural that the role of the state, in any situation, is primarily to further the interests of the society and people that it represents. This is the basis of its legitimacy and the reason of its very existence. This paper will explore the extent to which it can be said that states pursue national interests in their foreign policy formation, regardless of whether the outcome of the foreign policy pursued does in fact lead to benefits or advantages created for the national population in question. Foreign policies examined over the course of this paper will include economic policy, national security policy, and policies that fall under the category of humanitarian intervention in other countries. It will be argued that for the majority of the time, and in most situations (but certainly not all situations), foreign policy seeks to benefit the national government responsible for its creation, and the national society that it represents. In this sense, national interest can indeed be said to be an important and omnipresent factor in the considerations of foreign policy creation.
Primarily it is essential to define the term ‘national interest’ and how it will be interpreted throughout this paper. Clinton (1986) argues there is a difference between the ‘national interest’ (of a society and its citizens) and ‘national interests’ – which he describes as the number of ‘narrower goals which serve the broader end of the national interest by maintaining or increasing the power of the state’ (p.50). These narrower goals may include access to warm-water ports, rights to military bases on
Bibliography: Clinton, W. P. (1986) The national interest: normative foundations, in Little, R. and Smith, M. (Eds) (1991) Perspectives on World Politics (2nd edition). London: Routledge. Fukuyama, F. (2006) America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kennan, G. (1985) ‘Morality and Foreign Policy’, Foreign Affairs, 64 (2), pp.205-218. Krasner, S. D. (1978) Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and US Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Legg, K. R. and Morrison, J. F. (1971) The formulation of foreign policy objectives, in Little, R. and Smith, M. (Eds) (1991) Perspectives on World Politics (2nd edition). London: Routledge. Moravcsik, A. (1991) ‘Negotiating the Single European Act: National Interests and Conventional Statecraft in the European Community’, International Organization, 45 (1), pp.19-56. Nicholson, M. (2002) International Relations: A Concise Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Reus-Smit, C. (2008) International law, in Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (Eds) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (4th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reynolds, C. (1973) Theory and Explanation in International Politics. London: Robertson. Shimko, K. L. (2005) International Relations: Perspectives and Controversies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Strange, S. (1983) Cave! Hic dragones: A critique of regime analysis, in Krasner, S. (Ed) International Regimes. London: Cornell University Press. Vasquez, J. (1998) The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wallace, W. (1991) ‘Foreign Policy and National Identity in the United Kingdom’, International Affairs, 67 (1), pp.65-80. Watt, N. (2010) ‘Protests as UK Security put at Heart of Government’s Aid Policy’, The Guardian, Sunday August 29, 2010. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/29/protests-uk-security-aid-policy (accessed April 12, 2011).