Session 7: Great. Another Debate.

The debate in the realm of International Relations, over War and Peace, has been going on for centuries. It has manifested itself as a contention between “Intervention” and “Neutrality”; as a conflict between the ideas of expansion vs. the maintenance of the status quo and; as a debate trying to assert the necessity of international cooperation rather than international isolationism. Hans Morgenthau, while trying to analyze the United States’ foreign policy, partakes in yet another debate between Utopian ideals and Political Realism. In ‘Another “Great Debate”: The National Interests of the United States’, Morgenthau draws on the fundamental differences between the nature of man, society and politics in order to shed light on the continuous struggle for power, the self-interested nature of states and link between moral principles and politics.

Morgenthau identifies a scientific theory as one that attempts to bring order and meaning to “a mass of phenomena which without it would remain disconnected and unintelligible”. Realism maintains that the balance of power is one of the universal principles of politics – domestic as well as international. Morgenthau believes that rational outlines and hypotheses for analysis of world events need to be drawn in order to better understand. Therefore, trying to refute and replace the constant need, and hence, the struggle for security with what Morgenthau calls “humanitarian and pacifist traditions” must use facts rather than abstract principles. However, merely referencing and analyzing historical events is not sufficient. Morgenthau suggests that there needs to be a rational order and logic to the analysis. Morgenthau also acknowledges the fact that statesmen may engage in “public self-interpretation” in order to present a narrative of foreign policy that is appealing to the political support base on moral grounds. Widespread acceptance of these “moral” objectives of foreign policy is what the (American) public accepts as justification for the state interfering in the affairs of other nations.

National interest, as the key determinant of foreign policy has been considered problematic in the international political sphere.  The difficulty in defining what exactly these national interests are and the susceptibility of these interests to different interpretations has contributed to the argument against the realist perspective in IR. However, even though Morgenthau admits that the concept of a ‘nation state’ is a social construct; he believes that as long as the world is organized into these nation states, national interests will be the “last word” in world politics. In a world system, where competition between states is rampant, ensuring its survival is the states’ principle concern. Therefore, it is necessary to take measures to protect not only the territory of the state, but also to take great interest in safeguarding its politics from influence and culture from being lost. 

The interests of a nation however, cannot be taken in isolation from domestic and international politics. On a sub-national level, interest groups may attempt to influence national interests. Interest groups may manifest themselves in the form of religious minorities, ethnic identities and economic interests that endeavor to mold national interests to align with their own. The interests of “others” may also help shape national interests. This can be observed in the United States where a large proportion of the population is foreign-born. The inflow of ideologies and the mixing of cultures have had a significant impact on what is to be perceived as the ‘national interest’. Lastly, there is the existence of supranational interests which shapes domestic and foreign policies of states. Supranational bodies such as the United Nations and its subsidiary, IMF have sought to dictate the actions of states in conjunction with the interests of leading powers of these international organizations. 

Maintaining the balance of power within the international system has always been one of the United States’ prime agendas. Its advantage in the world system partially stems from how geographically isolated the state is. In addition, it also took a position of political isolationism and retreated from world politics, unless it was absolutely necessary for it to intervene.  The United States’ isolationist policy was pursued for propagation of its economic and political (domestic) national interests. However, the United States’ current position as an active global superpower gives credence to the fact that national interests are constantly changing. Furthermore, the changing balance of power within Asia as well as on a more global scale with the rise of China and the imminent withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, has raised alarm bells with the American foreign policy makers, who have begun to take measures to re-assert their authority in the international arena.