The national interest.

Introduction.
This paper has the main purpose of making a critical analysis from the following
question: How solid was Hans Morgenthau's concept of respect for ideological
diversity and cultural pluralism of states after the cold war given the construction of
the foreign policy of the United States and Great Britain in the face of this issue? It is
important to emphasize that it will be analyzed whether the foreign policy of both
countries was mainly based on one of Morgenthau's concepts about the national
interest in order to provide clarity on the subject. Likewise, if these events are
relevant to understand several events that we live in today or if they contributed to
the construction of the world order of the twentieth century. In order to focus on the
main idea of the work and have a good understanding of the subject, we must first
define and explain Hans Morgenthau's realistic concepts. Second, the foreign
policies of the United States and the United Kingdom will be analyzed in the face of
the ideological diversity and cultural pluralism of States after the cold war; and,
finally, a critical analysis will be carried out that aims to answer the initial question.

Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace.

Before we begin to answer the question of the work, we must understand the
theoretical concepts of which Morgenthau speaks in his text. Hans Morgenthau
presents six principles or concepts of political realism: The first concept that the
author proposes is "Realism assumes that politics, like all society, obeys the
objective laws that take root in nature" (Morgenthau, 1986, p.12). Within this concept
the author explains that there are laws that govern life in society, they have always
existed, and these laws are completely necessary for any improvement that is
required to be made; This is why the laws of politics must be objective and rational
with reality.

Second, "The main element that allows political realism to find its way in the
landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of
power." (Morgenthau, 1986, p.13). We can summarize this concept in that the
foreign policy of States is based on national interest, that is, power itself; However, it
is much deeper than that. To act in favor of the national interest, one must have a
link between reason and the understanding of the facts of the international political
reality, in addition to taking into account what are the motivations of statesmen to
act, since these motivations are key to understanding how their foreign policy is
oriented. In other words, the understanding of the international political reality must
be transferred to a successful political act that benefits the national interest of the
State itself.

On the other hand, "Realism assumes that its key concept of interest defined as
power is an objective category of universal validity, but does not give the concept an
immutable meaning." (Morgenthau, 1986, p.19). Morgenthau explains how people's
actions are motivated by their own interests and that the same thing happens when it
comes to understanding power in international relations, since being able to
encompass anything that maintains control over men. In other words, it will be in the
interests of states to preserve and increase power, because it "encompasses social
relations that serve that end from physical violence to the more subtle bond by which
one mind controls another." (Morgenthau, 1986, p.20).

On the other hand, "Political realism knows the moral significance of political action.
He is also aware of the inevitable tension between moral precepts and the
requirements of successful political action." (Morgenthau, 1986, p.21). Within this
concept, Morgenthau explains that moral principles cannot be applied to states
universally but must be extended through concrete circumstances. Fifth, Morgenthau
tells us that "Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular
nation with the moral precepts that govern the universe." (Morgenthau, 1986, p.22)
In this concept, which is the one that will occupy us most in this work, the author
basically refers to the fact that States respect the ideological diversity and cultural
pluralism of States, since, otherwise, there would be a distortion of judgment that
would lead to the destruction of nations and civilizations. Finally, "The difference,
then, between political realism and other schools of thought is profound"
(Morgenthau, 1986, p.22) Within this concept, Morgenthau refers to the fact that the
political sphere is independent of the moral, legal or economic, since political
parameters cannot be subordinated.

United States.
As mentioned above, this part of the paper will observe the way in which the United
States constructs its foreign policy after the cold war and will carry out an analysis
that allows us to understand whether or not the key concepts provided by Hans
Morgenthau are fulfilled. First of all, let's do a little review of history. We are well
aware that at the end of the Second World War there were a number of agreements
and commitments between nations to ensure that States would be responsible -
especially those within the United Nations - for creating peace to end the terrors of
war. After that, the United States was willing to give funds to restore the economy of
Europe, since, as a result of the two world wars, this continent was completely
destroyed; Europe had been the main client of the United States and if they did not
recover economically, there would be no income for the American State. This is how
the Marshall Plan was created in 1947, it was an economic and technological aid
plan that sought to rebuild Europe.

On the other hand, we cannot forget that, through the Truman doctrine, the United
States used for the first time the theory of containment and, in addition, created the
military alliance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which aimed to
contain communist expansion in Europe; these are, perhaps, the most important
events that the United States carries out within this ideological war, since a truce or a
victory on the part of the communists could not be taken as an option. "I believe that
the policy of the United States should be to support free peoples who are resisting
attempts at aggression by armed minorities or outside pressure." (S.F., p.5), former
President Harry Truman said in a speech to Congress in 1947.
Now, if we analyze Truman's words we can understand that the United States,
through its speeches, intended not only to make neoliberal economic aid, but also to
be a contributor in military, technological and industrial issues with its neighboring
countries and allies. The northern country sought to offer itself as a lifeline by
presenting a new economic model that would include accepting its ideological model;
the Americans made sure that their foreign policy protected their national interest,
which would be to increase their power and expand it throughout Europe, taking
advantage of the fact that Britain was in decline as a power. In these words, we can
affirm that the concepts proposed by Morgenthau are fulfilled within the American
State, especially the concept number two and number three. However, how to
understand the concept number five? We well know that the cold war was an indirect
confrontation between the two powers of the bipolar order to see who could
ideologically control the European continent, so it is clear that the ideological
diversity and cultural pluralism of the States was never respected. And after the cold
war?

After the Cold War we see several disputes, criticisms and questions about what the
new world order will look like, since the power of the Soviet Union had been in
decline shortly before losing the war against the United States. Krauthammer
(American political commentator) faithfully defended the idea that the United States
should employ a unilateralist policy with which it could use power to impose its vision
of world order. (Keersmaeker, 2016, p.188). If that's what a political commentator
thought, how did the agents of the American state think? Former President Bush had
a slightly more multilateral vision, which led him to have several discussions with
neoconservative critics, but there was a common point, the bipolar world order had
ended and the United States had remained not only the victorious country of the cold
war but also the most powerful state with the capacity to be the leader of the world
community. What was in the public debate was how big and stable was American
dominance? How should America lead the world? (Keersmaeker, 2016, p.188) and,
for the purpose of this essay, what handling would the United States give to states
with communist ideals considering that it had the responsibility to put international
relations in order? The Clinton administration's national security strategies paid little
attention to other powers since it only focused on warning of Russia's resurgence, all
with the intention of making an expansion of NATO in 1996 and 1997; They claimed
that relations with emerging powers were not cooperative and that therefore the
possibility of new great-power rivalries could not be excluded or denied.
(Keersmaeker, 2016, p.192) The strategy the United States was using was to
prevent a multipolarization within the world order.

Great Britain.
As far as Britain is concerned, we can look at how Britain began to decline and the
actions it took after the cold war. Let us remember that Great Britain was a
hegemonic power with global ambitions that was forced to redefine itself in several
aspects after the fall of its empire, the consolidation of the cold war and the fragility
that its economy had taken; the great power of the European continent had to limit its
ambitions, reduce expenses and strengthen its relationship with the United States in
order to contribute to Western security and the protection of the colonies. (Piella,
2017) When Britain strengthens its special relationship with the United States, it
does so as a strategy, since it was aware of its decline and that it was best to ally
with a fledgling superpower that was like-minded to continue its foreign policy
purposes. "Avoid confrontations in public, try to gain influence in private, openly
support the United States and manipulate in secret. These are the tactics of this type
of Alliance policy" (Melissen, 1990, p.230).

Great Britain was for a long time looking for a balance between national defense and
the means available to achieve those ends, however, the domestic and international
reality prevented it from fulfilling its objectives, that is why it is forced to redefine its
position to adapt it to the political reality; in Morgenthau's terms, we could say that,
when Britain strengthens its special relationship with the United States to redefine its
position in the world, it does so – mainly – to protect its national interest and recover
– or stop losing – its power and influence in the world. However, adopting such
drastic measures "definitively put an end to imperial pretensions, weakened the
capacity for influence and ended the strategic autonomy of the country." (Piella,
2017. p. 29).

Analysis.
Let's return to Morgenthau's concepts so that we can compare and analyze the way
in which both nations acted. The author's concepts are: 1) Obey the laws of human
nature. 2) Foreign policy is based on the national interest. 3) The interests of States
will be to preserve and increase power (it is not immutable and is not modified). 4)
Universal moral principles do not apply. 5) The political sphere is independent of the
moral, legal or economic. 6) Respects the ideological diversity and cultural pluralism
of States. Let's start with Britain. Considering that it had been one of the great
European powers and that its empire was collapsing while, at the same time, it had
an economic crisis in a period of wars; we can say that Britain had to have done a
thorough internal analysis to understand its own governance laws and understand
how to gradually modify them to improve its internal position. In addition, to ensure
that its foreign policy manages to reflect that national interest in order to retain
power; and, finally, within the sixth concept we can see that Britain behaved as a
neutral nation that was able to respect, in a certain imperialist way, cultural pluralism
and ideological diversity, despite being a special ally of the United States. That is to
say that they had their military interests with the Americans to be able to protect
themselves, but the manipulation they carried out on the United States, making it
reconsider some actions or make neutral proposals in the middle of agreements and
negotiations, gives us to understand that if it had strategic autonomy and economic
capacity, Great Britain would have played a much more neutral and more respectful
role in the face of diversity.

On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, the United States adheres very well to the
six concepts of Hans Morgenthau, since it obeys the laws that govern life in
American society, protects its national interest at all costs and seeks to increase its
power. However, the United States fails to comply with Morgenthau's sixth realistic
concept because it is clear that throughout the cold war, and even after it, they
sought to repress to the minimum those states – or agents of state – that had
ideological diversity and cultural pluralism. Even today we can see, implicitly, that
this disrespect is impregnated in the logic of American society, since it is evident that
in large cities where there is a large rate of immigrant population, which brings its
culture with it to the United States, there is discrimination because of its cultural
discrepancies.
Conclusion.
Taking into account the above, we can conclude that the six realistic concepts that
Hans Morgenthau gives us are accurate, because in difficult times States, when they
seek refuge or protection, instinctively resort to political realism. However, perhaps it
is a bit unrealistic to consider that States can come to respect ideological diversity
and cultural pluralism because, in my opinion, the theory of political realism is based
on the instinct to protect itself as a State, to avoid being conquered or repressed by
some other actor and, consequently, ideological diversity and cultural pluralism
cannot be respected since it would be an antagonist that can threaten self-safety.

References.

De Keersmaeker, G. (2016). Polarity, balance of power and International Relations

theory: Post-Cold War and the 19th Century compared. Springer.

Melissen, J. (1990). Cooperation and competition: relations between Britain and the
United States during the Cold War. Journal of Political Studies, (68), 227-250.

Piella, G. C. (2017). The End of an Empire: British Defense in the Cold War. General
Journal of the Navy, 272(1), 19-29.

Aceña, F., Rubio, M. F., Ramos, A. B., Arnes, P., Sánchez, A., Pérez, C., & Solis, M.
R. LA GUERRA FRIA.

Morgenthau, H. J., & Thompson, K. W. (1986). Politics among Nations: The

Struggle for Power and Peace (Vol. 6). Buenos Aires: Grupo Editor
Latinoamericano.