National Interest: From Abstraction to Strategy

by Michael G. Roskin

The student new to international relations is often at first intoxicated by the concept of "national interest." It seems crisp, clear, what's good for the nation as a whole in international affairs. (What's good for the nation as a whole in domestic affairs is the public interest.) National interest lies at the very heart of the military and diplomatic professions and leads to the formulation of a national strategy and of the calculation of the power necessary to support that strategy. Upon reflection, however, one realizes how hard it is to turn concepts of national interest into working strategy. It requires one to perceive the world with undistorted clarity and even to anticipate the second- and third-order effects of policies. Few are so gifted. Instead of bringing clarity and cohesion, many quarrel over what the national interest is in any given situation. The author of this monograph will argue that the concept of national interest still has utility, not as an objective fact but as a philosophical argument in favor of limiting the number of crusades a country may be inclined to undertake. "National interest" traces its roots at least back to the pessimistic realism of Machiavelli in the 15th century.1 As such, it represents a repudiation of earlier Western sources in Hellenic idealism, Judeo-Christian biblical morality, and the teachings of medieval churchmen such as Thomas Aquinas. You may have splendid moral goals, argued Machiavelli, but without sufficient power and the willingness to use it, you will accomplish nothing. Machiavelli's overriding Italian unification and liberation from foreign occupiers. Nothing could be more moral than the interest of the Italian state; therefore seemingly immoral ends could be employed for its attainment. Power rather than morality is the crux of this school.

24 pages, Paperback

Published May 31, 1994