NATIONAL INTEREST: DOCTRINE AND DYNAMICS
--> Posted on 2009-08-06 11:12:01 ByNational interest like self-interest needs no definition. It is understood and practiced with, and more often, beyond reason.
National interests are such collective interests as are specific to a nation-State. The national interest, often understood in terms of the French or raison d’état, or "reasons of state" refer to a country's goals and aspirations whether economic, military, or cultural, power and survival. The notion is important in international relations where pursuit of the national interest is the foundation of the realist school. Political reason becomes an overriding concern, as it is the country’s interests which justify political or diplomatic action that might otherwise be considered reprehensible.
Recent new directions in India's foreign policy have occasioned a serious debate and certain observers have raised such questions as "What is national interest? How is it determined? By whom? How to assess the validity of such determination?"
The United Nations Charter sanctifies the existence and entity of nation-States. Under the international law, nation states interact on-the principle of equal rights; in reality, they act according to their respective size and strength of power. Theoretically and in abstract law they shape their own destiny. In actual fact, they are swayed and guided by internal and external forces. Their actions are based on their national interests. The governments of the day must protect, promote and perpetuate their State. No definite answer as to why "national-interest" is the central question in the theory of State has emerged, though the debate on 'national interest' has been going on for decades:
Does the State act objectively or does it merely meet its contractual obligation to its citizens or country at large?
The debate has both theoretical and practical implications. Democrats and autocrats, alike, have used Rousseau's doctrine of the "general will" to build the edifice of the modern State. Is the "general will" the "will of all"? Does the State as a determining authority act nationally or internationally? Is it bound by international commitments or the national mandate only? Or the internal exigencies and other compulsions of the moment have the final say in its decisions?
Such dilemmas are central to the doctrine of National interest. Is national interest a solid collective mass or a plurality? Can it be better understood in terms of sectional, sub-national, and translational interests? Should national interest not include sociological and environmental, besides political-strategic, economic, and technological interests? Can the government alone determine and decide what is "in the national interest" or a larger framework of consensus building among the Opposition and people at large is required for deciding it.
Thucydides, the Greek historian ages ago, cited Pericles as saying that citizens are fair judges of public matters; "instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of action", he said, "we think it is an indispensable preliminary to any wise action." Can this ancient democratic dictum be practiced in a big democracy like India?
In the current Indian context, the Common Minimum Programme of the United Progressive Alliance adumbrates the foreign and defence policy of the government.
It lays emphasis on independent approach on regional and global issues "keeping in mind past traditions". It counsels the government to encourage multi-polarity and oppose unilateralism, to protect national interest in World Trade Organization negotiations, to modernize armed. forces, and to maintain-in a credible nuclear weapons programme. Other parties in Parliament also endorse this approach.
Yet, from time to time fierce differences among political parties and groups in Parliament arise and institutional arrangement for airing and resolving such differences is highly deficient. The External and other Ministries have Standing and Consultative Committees but they discuss such matters intermittently and inadequately. In British, Canadian, and Australian parliamentary systems similar committees have a far more complete role.
Indian political parties and members of Parliament themselves are to blame for malfunctioning of the committee system. There is hardly any research paraphernalia attached to these committees. They merely discuss drafts and suggest a few changes in their wording. For example, the President's Address to Parliament on February 25, 2005 articulated "the centrality of national interests" in the conduct of foreign policy and of "retaining our freedom of options". But no serious debate in Parliament or committee-level followed. The result is the current turmoil on government's decision to vote against Iran at IAEA in Vienna.
About CQ - Editorial Board - Be Our Partners - Terms Of Use - Privacy Policy - Contact Us
