National interest and foreign policy

National interest and foreign policy are intertwined, and they are decisive for the future of any nation. That’s what we’re going to discuss here.

Introduction

Today, I want to speak to you about the relationship between national interest and foreign policy. This relation comes into the spotlight during special events. Then, we see how members of the government defend a specific foreign policy or measure in the international realm on the base of national interest.

I discussed what national interest is on another occasion, and I don’t want to go over it again.

So, this time, I want to discuss how the national interest shapes the foreign policy of any State. In addition to this, I’m going to address who designs the foreign policy.

The meaning of foreign policy

First of all, it’s essential to define what foreign policy is. In this respect, we have to remind that politics has two different spheres: the domestic and the external. The reason for this is simple. It’s due to territoriality. Borders set the difference between the inner world of a political community and the external domain in which relations with other political units take place. Hence, they are different realms, and for this reason, they are the space in which different kinds of policies operate. In this regard, policies are the implementation of the decisions of rulers. And these decisions develop in these realms depending on their goals. Domestic policies have to do with those measures aimed at the inner sphere of the polity. And foreign policies are the execution of decisions intended to achieve specific goals in the international realm.

In general, we can say that foreign policy is the management of the State’s foreign affairs. It intends to manage the State’s interactions with other actors on the international stage. So, it has to do with the external relations of the State. We know the domain of the foreign policy, but now we need to know its content, that is, what determines it. That leads us to the relation between national interest and foreign policy.

The national interest in foreign policy

National interest is crucial in the shape of foreign policy. That is because it represents the interest of the State, and for this reason, it is the guideline for its policy abroad. This is fundamental because it helps adapt the State action in the international realm according to its interest. It defines the grand strategy of any nation, and it reflects on its foreign policy.

However, we can’t overlook the fact that national interest has strategic implications in the international sphere. The State doesn’t operate alone, but it has to deal with other countries that have their interests and try to protect them. For this reason, the State takes into account the international environment and the unequal distribution of capabilities. Due to its limited resources, it has its priorities to protect the national interest. And we can see how it reflects in its strategy.

The geopolitical conditions affect the interactions between countries, and it makes every State adapt its foreign policy to a specific situation. So, the foreign policy responds to the national interest, and it has two dimensions: the strategic side and the tactical side.

Therefore, the national interest settles the guideline for foreign policy by defining the primary goals. These goals always are the survival of the State, and they set the strategy. It’s important to keep in mind that the strategy deals with these goals. It doesn’t have to do with its implementation because that’s a tactical matter. At this point, we find out that foreign policy is the strategy in action. Its design is the adaptation of the strategy to the specific context in which it has to work.

Foreign policy is the execution of the national strategy to achieve the State’s goals, namely, its survival. There may be more goals apart from survival, but this is universal for all polities. In sum, survival is the core of the national interest. Consequently, foreign policy operates on a tactical level to develop the strategy in specific circumstances. It adapts the strategy to the international context in which the State has to deal with other actors. The precise situation in which the State is involved becomes decisive for the execution of the strategy.

On the tactical level, there are many considerations to take into account because many variables intervene. Most of them are beyond the State’s control, and usually, it can’t predict them. Information is scarce, and resources are limited. Besides this, not always other actors’ intentions are clear. Indeed, they use a combination of means to hide them. Although their national interest is almost clear for everyone, they have to maneuver all the time in a hostile and competitive environment to take advantage of rivals’ weaknesses. It includes another handicap, such as the lack of enough information that makes States make decisions without being sure if they are the best. That leads States to a permanent adaptation of their foreign policies to face successfully challenges posed by their competitors.

The permanent dilemma of any State on the tactical level decision-making process is how to be coherent. That means how to implement the strategy correctly. And this dilemma revolves around the different options they come upon their way. What is the best choice to preserve the national interest? In other words, their main concern is over tactical decisions regarding their strategic goals. Although foreign policy entails a general direction in the development of foreign affairs, the tactical level is always problematic due to its dynamism. It isn’t always clear on this level where the national interest is. Or what tactical decision is the best for the preservation of the national interest. The information available is incomplete, and they have to take on risks.

In brief, foreign policy is the execution of the State strategy to protect its national interest. Now, it’s time to see who is in charge of defining the national interest, and the foreign policy.

Factors that shape national interest and foreign policy

The definition of national interest is by no means automatic, as it were a mechanism determined only by material and objective factors. Naturally, we can’t deny the influence of variables such as territory, borders, location, distances, raw materials available, population, and many more. Nevertheless, the human factor is even more important insofar as people make decisions. And these decisions, despite the influence of different factors, are the result of human assessments. Therefore, human intervention represents the subjective dimension of this process of definition of the national interest. And it affects the design of the foreign policy, besides its execution critically.

At this point, I have to speak about subjective perception and how it affects decisions. The information available mediates much of the process of assessing a specific situation. However, there is another element, and it’s the way people in charge interpret that situation. In some way, this dimension of the matter leads us to a speculative field. The mindset, experience, knowledge, personal traits, and other subjective elements may influence in some degree. Furthermore, humans are not perfect, and they make mistakes even when they enjoy a privileged position with a broader perspective of the situation compared with the rest.

Anyways, these circumstances may look a handicap to understand the design of the foreign policy. Nevertheless, any human works in a specific environment, and what surrounds them provides an array of different options. They make their choice based on these possibilities. Despite the role of subjectivity in the decision-making process, every human being occupies a place in the world. That’s valid in geographical, but also in social and political terms. It influences critically on the final choice, besides the previous experiences. For this reason, the foreign policy, as well as the national interest, is the result of a complex mixture of objective and subjective elements.

Who defines national interest and foreign policy?

This reflection leads us to the question of who makes decisions. It’s an important matter because it has to do at the same time with how they define the national interest and foreign policy. So, when we say who, we’re saying how too.

National interest and foreign policy are issues related to critical areas of any political community. If these issues don’t have the necessary attention, they might put national security at risk. That explains why those power structures that organize the polity play a leading role in defining the national interest, and shaping the foreign policy. They constitute institutions that are not revocable, and their existence is not debatable. Indeed, depending on the country and its political regime, they enjoy a considerable degree of autonomy. Then, it makes us conclude they have their interests, and in the long run, they are their survival.

What institutions are we talking about? I refer to the diplomatic corps, the military, and intelligence agencies. Regarding the foreign affairs of the State, these institutions play a vital role in the definition of national interest. And, in this way, they contribute decisively to the design of the foreign policy. To do so, they not only take into account the material and factual conditions of the State in the international domain, but they also consider their position in the social structure and the domestic field. Insofar as they enjoy considerable autonomy, they determine the foreign policy according to their needs in these two fields, the domestic and international. They belong to the ruling elite, and as an exclusive social group, their interests are quite different than the rest members of society. So, the national interest responds to this reality. Indeed, the national interest identifies with the good of this elite. And the foreign policy represents the strategy to protect that interest on the global stage.

Question of the day

Question of the day! How much influence do you think the foreign policy has in the daily life of citizens? Post your opinion in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.

Bibliography used:

Strayer, Joseph, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State

Strayer, Joseph, Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives of History

Gilbert, Felix (ed.), The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze

Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European States: AD 990-1992

Mann, Michael, The Sources of Social Power

Poggi, Gianfranco, The Development of the Modern State

Anderson, M. S., The Origins of the Modern European State System 1494-1618

Spruyt, Hendrik, The Sovereign State and its Competitors

Le Goff, Jacques, La Baja Edad Media

Giddens, Anthony, The Nation-State and violence

Disclosure: Some of these links are affiliate links where I’ll earn a small commission if you make a purchase at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.