UNDERSTANDING NATIONAL INTERESTS

“In pursuit of national interests, there are no permanent enemies or allies but permanent
interests”

(a) Define national interest, various types and examples of national interests and (b) roles
of national interests in the formulation of the country’s foreign policy.

National interests which are often regarded as the staple ingredient of foreign policy should be
clearly outlined and understood by a nation pursuing it thereof. The term of “national interest” has
been used by statesman and scholars since the founding the nation-states to describe the aspiration
and goals of sovereign entities in the international area (Neuchterlein, 1976). Brooking Institute
(1953) explains national interest as “the general and continuing ends for which a nation acts.”
Lerche and Said (1963) defines national interests as the general long term and continuing purpose
which the state, the nation and the government all see themselves as serving. Van Dyke (1962)
sees national interest as an interest which the states seek to protect or achieve in relation to each
other. It means desires on the part of sovereign states. This Van Dyke definition mainly refers to
national interest as an action rather than a logic. According to Dawn (2010) they are the vital
interests of a state of which survival is the first and foremost interest. A state’s independence and
territorial integrity come above all other interests. If the state disappears, then no other interest
remains. The supreme duty of the state is, therefore, to maintain itself. Morgenthau (1951) asserts
that the meaning of national interest is survival, the protection of physical, political and cultural
identity against encroachments by other nation-states. National interests which also expresses
national will constitute the leitmotif of the national question (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2014), often used
in crafting the foreign policy of a nation. During the Renaissance, Niccolò Machiavelli, Jean
Bodin, Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbes gave prominence to the concept of national interest.
They all believed that a state’s political behaviour should be subject to concerns of national
interest. Moreover, they elaborated on the rationale for taking the national interest into account in
the development of foreign policy (Riaz-Ud-Din, 2015). The aforesaid definitions therefore make
up the conceptual discourse of national interests.
 Various Types and Examples of National Interests

Both Morgenthau (1951) and Dinesh (2010) agree that there are six types of national interests. It
is Thomas W. Robinson who is originally believed to have classified national interests into six
broad categories, viz, primary interest, secondary interest, permanent interest, variable interest,
general interest and specific interest (Sharma and Sharma, 2000). These are as follows:

1. The Primary Interests:

These are those interests in respect of which no nation can compromise. It includes the preservation
of physical, political and cultural identity of the state against possible encroachments by other
states. A state has to defend these at all costs. No compromise of these is possible.

2. Secondary Interests:

These are less important than the primary interests. Secondary Interests are quite vital for the
existence of the state. This includes the protection of the citizens abroad and ensuring of diplomatic
immunities for the diplomatic staff. For instance, it is under this interest that the state establishes
embassies and consulates with friendly countries, issuing of diplomatic and service passports to
members of the diplomatic corp as well as assuring the observance of Diplomatic Privileges and
Immunities as outlined by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. According to
Mundenga and Kamidza (2015) the recalling of the Nigerian Ambassador by the authorities was
interpreted as an example of diplomatic retaliation to the country-wide xenophobic attacks that
had emerged in South Africa. This exemplifies the state’s mandate and obligation to protect its
citizens in any foreign land. In 1945, the United States had to join the Second World War because
the Lusitania carrying 28 American nationals had been sank in a German naval campaign.

3. Permanent Interests:

These refer to the relatively constant long-term interests of the state. These are subject to very slow
changes. The US interest to preserve its spheres of influence and to maintain freedom of navigation
in all the oceans is the examples of such interests. It is the permanent interest of the superpowers
that preside over the Security Council namely, the United Kingdom, the United States, France,
China and Russia to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

4. Variable Interests:

Such interests are those interests of a nation which are considered vital for national good in a given
set of circumstances. In this sense these can diverge from both primary and permanent interests.
The variable interests are largely determined by “the cross currents of personalities, public opinion,
sectional interests, partisan politics and political and moral folkways.”

5. The General Interests:

General interests of a nation refer to those positive conditions which apply to a large number of
nations or in several specified fields such as economic, trade, diplomatic relations etc. To maintain
international peace is a general interest of all the nations. Similar is the case of disarmament and
arms control. These are usually vindicated through ratifying international protocols of common
interest and converging at multilateral institutions. General interests form the basis of regional
blocs such as the African Union, the European Union, Arab League and the like.

6. Specific Interests:

These are the logical outgrowths of the general interests and these are defined in terms of time and
space. To secure the economic rights of the Third World countries through the securing of a New
International Economic Order is a specific interest of India and other developing countries.
Essential part of the framework of general interests for Kosovo is the consolidation of democracy
in South Eastern Europe (Marleku, 2013). Specifically, vital national interests are conditions that
are strictly necessary to safeguard and enhance Americans’ survival and well-being in a free and
secure nation. From this perspective, we can identify five American vital national interests:
preventing the use and slowing the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
destruction, securing nuclear weapons and materials, and preventing proliferation of intermediate
and long-range delivery systems for nuclear weapons; maintaining a balance of power in Europe
and Asia that promotes peace and stability with a continuing U.S. leadership role; preventing large-
scale or sustained terrorist attacks on the American Homeland; ensuring energy security; and
assuring the stability of the international economy. (Allison et al, 2011).
 Roles of national interests in the formulation of the country’s foreign policy.

Interest is the perennial standard by which political action must be judged and directed.
Morgenthau (1948), wrote emphasizing that the objectives of a foreign policy must be defined in
terms of the national interest. He maintained that foreign policy must be determined in the light of
possible usurpation by subnational, other national and supranational interests which are serious
constraints on the national interests. According to Stolberg (2010), national interest is the overall
objectives of the country related to international relation such as the principles, perceptions and
practicalities that together shape a state’s foreign policy. Sharma and Sharma (2000) demystified
a foreign policy claiming to operate in the national interest must have some reference to the
physical, political and cultural entity called the nation. The foreign policy is the sum total of the
principles, the interests and objectives which a state formulates in conducting its relations with
other states (Frankel, 1968). During the Renaissance, Niccolò Machiavelli, Jean Bodin, Hugo
Grotius and Thomas Hobbes gave prominence to the concept of national interest. They all believed
that a state’s political behaviour should be subject to concerns of national interest. Moreover, they
elaborated on the rationale for taking the national interest into account in the development of
foreign policy (Riaz-Ud-Din, 2015). National interests can be used in two different ways. First, as
a criterion to assess what is at stake in any given situation and to evaluate what course of action is
best, and second as a justification for decision taken.

Protecting territorial integrity and successful overcoming challenges of the transition as well as the
protection of country’s citizens abroad is one of the roles of national interest CUF (2013). Taking
example for Kosovo, one of the small states foreign policy behaviors which political pundits
identified is to rely on superpowers mostly for protection, partnerships and resources (Hey, 2003).
According to Keohane (1969), small power usually recognize that it cannot obtain security by use
of its own capabilities, for this reason it must rely fundamentally on the aid of other larger states
to do so. Typically, small states seeks alliances in order to increase their security on the basis of
the major power guarantees to protect their territories and populations against military aggression
(Krause & Singer, 2001). Kosovo wanted to maintain strong and permanent relationships with the
United States of America.
Establishing trade relations with other nations. According to the GoN (2004), Namibia is a member
of the Cotonou Agreement that, for now, offers preferential and non-reciprocal access for nearly
all Namibian products to the EU market. Similarly, the country is a beneficiary under the Africa
Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which affords duty and quota free access for some 7,000
products to the US market, especially textiles. The AGOA initiative is aimed at encouraging US
trade with and investment in Africa by removing certain quotas that were previously used as
barriers to textile and garment imports from African countries. Currently, Namibia, together with
its SACU partners, is engaged in negotiations with the USA to establish a US-SACU Free Trade
Area. This holds forth the potential to effectively make the access afforded under AGOA a
permanent arrangement. We have also just concluded the re-negotiations of the Southern Africa
Customs Union (SACU) Agreement, which were aimed at the democratisation of the institutions
and administrative procedures for revenue collection and sharing. Furthermore, in an effort to
prime the country’s growth of international exports, Namibia is playing an active role as a member
of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC). In this regard, the fast-tracking of the
implementation of the SADC Free Trade Area is an important agenda item for our economic
diplomacy. Also the ironing out of some of the existing problems regarding customs regulation
between Angola and Namibia, which are currently affecting the flow of trade between our two
fraternal countries, is receiving our urgent attention. Therefore, our diplomatic representatives in
Angola and in other SADC as well as SACU member countries have been enjoined to actively
press for progress, in this regard.

Ensuring economic development and growth. Naturally, in charting the course of rapid economic
growth and development and thereby achieving poverty reduction or improving the welfare of the
broad majority of the Namibian people, the government and the business community would have
to generate and inject substantial investment into the economy, which investment will enable the
country to achieve an average annual GDP growth of six to eight per cent. But, experience over
the past 14 years of our sovereign existence has shown that notwithstanding Namibia’s fairly high
rates of domestic savings, internally generated investment capital has not played a critical role in
the financing of the country’s productive growth or industrial development. Foreign investment,
which means not only capital but also technology, managerial and technical skills, as well as
established access to foreign markets, is crucial. The targeting and mobilisation of these vital,
externally-sourced inputs are the national interests mirrored in the foreign policy. Therefore, to
meet this challenge, many developing countries have turned their attention to their foreign
missions abroad. They now charge their ambassadors and subordinates to engage considerably in
economic promotional activity. Indeed, the need to attract and use foreign investment to spur
economic growth and development is now widely recognised as being very central to the drive to
eradicate poverty.

Nigeria's legacy as an ex-British colony, combined with its energy-producing role in the global
economy, predisposed Nigeria to be pro-Western on most issues despite the desire to maintain a
non-aligned status to avoid neo-colonialism. In 1990 this pro-Western posture was reinforced by
Nigeria's "economic diplomacy," which involved negotiating trade concessions, attracting foreign
investors, and rescheduling debt repayment to Western creditors. Third, the country's membership
in and commitment to several international organizations, such as the United Nations and bodies
also affected foreign policy positions. This reflects the general interest as Nigeria which has
perceived itself as the "giant" of Africa and the potential leader of the black race. Thus, Nigerian
external relations have emphasized African issues, which have become the avowed cornerstone of
foreign policy (US Library of Congress, n.d). Therefore the formulation of bilateral relations in
country’s foreign policy should therefore be reflective of particular national interests.

“We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not. We cannot refuse to participate in
global markets if we want to prosper. We cannot ignore new political ideas in other countries if
we want to innovate. We cannot turn our back on conflicts and violations of human rights within
other countries if we want still to be secure. On the eve of a new millennium we are now in a new
world. We need new rules for international cooperation and new rules of organizing our
international institutions” (Blair 1999).The doctrine of the international community, as Blair
understood it, made intervention in Bosnia and in Kosovo both possible and necessary. Blair’s
principle of “international community” meant, that people all over the world shared a common
community. So everyone was responsible for everyone else internationally, just as they were at
more local levels. Blair tried to sell his message to the Americans by referring to their “values”
which he claimed Britain shared and by arguing that the spread of those values in the world was
vital to their own national interest. “In the end, values and interests merge. If we can establish and
spread the values of liberty, the rule of law, human rights and an open society then it is in our
national interests too. The spread of our values makes us safer” (Blair 1999: 112). It is interesting
to note that this position, which became known as the Blair doctrine, was echoed by Bill Clinton
in his state of the union address in January 2000 (Clinton 2000; Friedman 1999: 42). Globalization,
Bill Clinton (2000) declared, was “the central reality of our time”, a revolution “that is tearing
down barriers and building new networks among nations and among individuals” (Clinton 2000).
It was this doctrine that carried Blair’s 24 Ursula Lehmkuhl commitment to support the United
States in one of its most severe crisis, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September
11, 2001. Hence this corroboration attests that it is the permanent interest to the United States and
United Kingdom to spread globalization as well as to stop international terrorism.

From the ongoing presentation, it is therefore safe to deduce that there is no foreign policy in the
world that is devoid of its national interests but they form the basis in which a country should
interact with others in economic ties, diplomatic intercourse, military cooperation, cultural
convergence and a lot more variables.

References

Allison et al (2011) Russia and US National Interests. Washington DC: Centre for the National
Interest.

Blair, Tony (1999), Speech by the Prime Minister at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, 10 November
1999, http://tna.europarchive.org/20040927225014/http://www.pm.gov.uk/print/page1070.asp 10
March 2016.

Brookings Institute (1953). Major Problems of United States’ Foreign Policy. Washington
D.C: The Brookings Institution.
Clinton, Bill, “The State of the Union” (27 January 2000),
http://www.insidepolitics.org/speeches/clinton00.htm 10 March 2016.

Close Up Foundation (2013) National Interest and the tools of Foreign Policy, www.clsoeup.org.
9 March 2016.

Dawn (2010). National Interests and Diplomacy. http://www.dawn.com/news/846325/national-

interests-and-diplomacy 10 March 2016.

Frankel, J. (1968). The Making of Foreign Policy, London: Oxford University Press.

Friedman, T L. (1999), “A Manifesto for the Fast World,” New York Times Magazine (28 March
1999), p 42.

Government of Namibia. (2004) Namibia’s Foreign Policy and Diplomacy Management, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs. March 2014.

Hussain, Z.Z. (2011). The Effects of Domestic Politics on Foreign Policy Decision Making. In
Rajaratnam, School of International Studies

Hey, J. (2003). Small States in World Politics: Explaining Foreign Policy Behaviour. Colorado:
Lynne Rienner.

Keohane,O. R (1969) Lilliputians Dilemma: Small States in International Politics. Vol 32, No 2,
International Organizations, pp. 291-310.

Krause, V. & Singer, D. (2001). Minor Powers, Alliance, and Armed Conflict: Some Preliminary
Patterns. in Reiter, E. & Gartner, H. (Eds.), Small States and Alliances. (pp. 15-25). New York:
Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.

Marleku, A (2013) National Interest and Foreign Policy: The Case of Kosovo. Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences. Vol 4, No. 3, pp 415-419.

Lerche, C and Said A (1963). Concepts of International Politics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Morgenthau, Hans J. (1948) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 2d ed.,
rev. & enl. New York: Knopf.
Morgenthau, H. J (1951) In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical Examination of American
Foreign Policy. New York: Knopf.

Mundenga, T and Kamidza, R (2015). War against Makwerekwere in South Africa: The Nexus
between Post-Apartheid Foreign Policy and Socio-Economic Developmental Challenges.
Unpublished paper submitted for Peer Review.

Neuchterlein, D. (1976) National Interest and Foreign Policy: A Conceptual Framework for
Analysis and Decision-Making, Vol. 2, No. 3, British Journal of International Studies. p. 246.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2014). The Zimbabwe National Question Post-July 31, 2013 Electoral
Outcome, Zimbabwe Journal of Political Economy, Zimbabwe Democracy Institute, Vol 1, No. 1

Riaz-Ud-Din (2015). The National Interest. World Times, http://jworldtimes.com/jwt2015/css-

exclusive/css-special/the-national-interest/ 10 March 2016.

Sharma, U and Sharma, S. K (2000). Principles and Theory in Political Science. New Delhi:
Atlantic Publishers and Distributors (P) Ltd.

Stolberg A. G (2010).

US Library of Congress (n.d) Foreign Relations. http://countrystudies.us/nigeria/80.htm 11 March

2015.

Van Dyke, V (1962) Values and Interests. American Political Science Review 56:567–576