The “national interests” are the goals set forth by the administration of the country. These are goals and issues that are prioritized and considered with every national and international decision. When nations evaluate their national interests they do so through developing the four P’s Power, Peace, Prosperity, and Principle. The 4 P’s are the values that comprise a national interest. Power represents the capability to use force to preserve independence and provide self-defense. Large amounts of power allow states to exert force through the use of physical force to promote their own self-interests and national interests. Power is also exemplified by the amount of influence at the disposal of any given nation. In the US’ case, Power relates to not only military power but also international perception from foreign nations. Peace lies at the core of all 4 goals, because they all seek to achieve it. Peace represents the achievement or pursuit of civility between nations. Peace is pursued through the process of international diplomacy among nations.
Diplomacy promotes the creation of agreements and treaties to achieve shared objectives, such as the creation of the UN. Promoting the stimulation and growth of the economic system of the nation is at the forefront of pursuing Prosperity. The pursuit of economic prosperity includes the establishment of trade treaties with other countries, much like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Principles are the values that a nation stands for or “exemplifies”. The American example of Principles would be our democratic idealism. In theory, America strives to preserve democratic institutions, but in practice democratic values are not always highly valued. Principles can be the stated reason for certain political actions taking place, such as a war to spread democracy.
During the Cold War years, America officially entered the Vietnam War after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and soon began a decade long conflict in the region. The Vietnam War was a proxy war fought between America along with the South Vietnamese(representing Democracy) versus the North Vietnamese Communist regime. American foreign policy under the leadership of Presidents Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and later Richard Nixon, consisted of continuing occupation and training in the region to push the North Vietnamese leadership out of office. Military operations in the region were unsuccessful and costly for the American forces, largely in part to bad security intelligence of the region and its conditions, foreign policy based on non-evidence based assumptions, underestimation of North Vietnamese nationalism, and a lack of support from the American people.
127 our experts are availableright now
Not only did millions of Vietnamese casualties occur over this time period, but the Vietnam War also took the lives of thousands of American soldiers. The war also dragged on longer than necessary and failed to accomplish the spread of democracy in the area. The North Vietnamese took the region, eventually spreading to Laos and Cambodia. America traded power through influence, economic prosperity/security, and peace in Asia to uphold US principles. American interests in Vietnam stemmed from a desire for power and influence in Asia and a desire to limit Soviet political support abroad. The US government prioritized Power and Principle over Prosperity and Peace.
The national interest of Power was bolstered through increases in military spending and investment, but at the same time Power suffered due to America’s failure internationally. In some ways, America’s failure to secure the region hurt other countries perception of American Power overall. The national interest of Prosperity was ignored in pursuit of democratic Principle. The American economy suffered from stagflation due to the large financial toll of Vietnamese war efforts under Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration. As a result, the American economy failed to recover under late into Reagan’s presidency. A major reason for America’s role in Vietnam resulted from the American Principle of containment of Communism through the spread of democracy. The spread of democracy, through force, signified the need for military presence in the region.
I completely disagree with America’s decision during the Vietnam War because the conflict and international embarrass were avoidable. Three national interest principles were destroyed in the pursuit of principle, but what good are principles without the power/influence to enforce them, the economy to finance/invest in them, or peaceful relations to promote them. Aforementioned negatives of these policies exemplify why America should never have involved themselves. A positive of US foreign policy during the Cold War is that it solidified the importance of formulating an informed and evidence based decision making process when pursuing policy abroad.
Another Cold War-era example of national interests conflicting is in America’s foreign policy regarding Cuba. From 1934 to 1959, America supported Fulgencio Batista, a military dictator who rose to power after committing a coup in 1939. Batista was a supported of criminal activity and commonly turned a blind-eye to crime in Cuba, but he was also a supporter of America’s presence in Latin America. Leading a Cuban-backed revolution against Batista, Fidel Castro sought to overthrow the dictator and create change in Cuban politics. Castro was radicalized and did not have the immediate fervor for American influence in Cuba, eventually seeking assistance from the Soviet Union.
Castro consolidated power by eliminating political opponents, especially those affiliated with Batista, before setting his sights on policy change in Cuba. This upset American officials who repeatedly attempted to replace Castro with Batista-affiliates that would be more malleable to US policies. A year after his rise to power, America imposed economic sanctions and then in 1961 initiated the Bay of Pigs mission in an attempt to replace Castro with Batista-supporters. Which led to the Cuban-missile crisis and the eventual breaking down of US-Cuban relations thereafter. In this sense, the US prioritized Power/Influence and Prosperity over Principle and Peace. Power/Influence was the main concern of the US government when trying to keep Batista in control. Prosperity was concerned in preserving Batista’s power because he supported US trade efforts and economic investment/exploitation in the region.
On the other hand, American Principles were ignored as America ignored Batista’s dictatorial rule in order to benefit from the Cuban economy, effectively undercutting democratic values. In terms of Peace, Peace was not directly the focus of America’s involvement in the area, instead the furtherment of Peace was the excuse used for American occupation in Latin America. The positives to US-Cuban foreign policy is that for a period of time it led to increased economic activity in America and abroad. A negative to this policy is that they led to the currently strained relationship between the US and Cuba. I do not agree with the US’ foreign policy in Cuba because these negatively affected US-Cuban relations, ultimately, cutting off a source of investment. I feel the current tension between the states could’ve been avoided if the US chose to work cooperatively with Castro.
The first post-Cold War example of the 4 P’s of national interests coming into conflict showcases itself in US dealings with Russia, namely the ratification of START. Following the Cold War, the US and Russian governments attempted to address old Cold War tensions through the establishment of treaties addressing nuclear arms. The first START(Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was signed in 1991 by President H.W. Bush and Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev and was subsequently ratified by the US Senate and the Russian Duma. What START I stipulated was that the US reduce its nuclear arms from 13,000 to 6,000 and for Russia’s 11,000 nuclear missiles be reduced to the same amount. Other aspects of the agreement limited the growth and expansion of new nuclear missiles and facilities. Following START I, START II was signed in 1993 by the leaders of both Russia and the US, and was later ratified by the US Senate in 1996 but was not ratified by the Russian Duma. The Duma’s rejection of the treaty was as a result of the US’ expansion of NATO and the American withdrawal from the ABM program of SALT I. What followed the failure of SALT II was the passing Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions during the Bush administration, which contained additional agreements for nuclear reductions over a ten year period. In 2010, President Obama headed New SALT whereas long-range nuclear missiles will be cut to 1550 for both countries.
So what did the US trade-off for the SALT agreements? In terms of national interests, the US gave up Power and Principle. Power was traded in the form of decommissioning nuclear arms and facilities. In other words, the personification of US Power during the Cold War was its amount of nuclear weapons and its influence in foreign governments. Without an edge in nuclear capability over Russia, America effectively lost some of its leverage against Russia. As it stands, this was one of the main criticisms of START by the US Senate because many Senators felt that America was actually giving up more in terms of Power than Russia was. In relation to START II, these criticisms reappeared again during President Carter’s administration because of Carter-Senate tensions. Less nuclear arms/military power translated, in terms of national interest, to less international influence through the threat of force. This benefit to this tradeoff of Power is that it allowed for America to secure some actual progress towards peace with Russia, but a potential negative is that America conceding its nuclear advantage in the international sphere and temporarily decreased its military influence in the 1990s. Luckily this negative was offset by the expansion of NATO whereas the US also increased utilization of NATO for peacekeeping and military tactics.
American Principles were largely ignored in pursuit of the national interest of Peace. America tends to stand for democracy, liberty, and pro-human rights but in some instances America will enter into diplomatic talks and joint endeavors with nations that exhibit policies in conflict with American Principles. Entering START and New START provide examples of the US foregoing Principle and instead prioritizing Peace. Up until the signing of START I, Russia endorsed the spread of Communism, which directly contradicts American democratic Principles. To detractors of START and subsequent policies, America’s participation in cooperative efforts with Russia so soon after the Cold War’s conclusion was contradictory to American Cold War rhetoric and principles. Foregoing US Principles in order to achieve another aspect of national interests is not foreign for the US government. I agree with America’s decision to prioritize Peace over Power and Principle. This is because through diplomacy to achieve Peace, Prosperity through trade can be achieved. Economic prosperity is an essential avenue to reaching heightened levels of Power, through financial investment in military weapons and defenses.
Another post-Cold War example that signifies a conflict of American national interests is America’s refusal to sign onto to the International Criminal Court. The Clinton administration initially supported the idea of a permanent international court to process and convict war crimes on the merits of bolstering US foreign policy and promoting peace/conflict resolution but Congress did not feel the same. Detractors questioned the courts motives and the merits of an International Criminal Court having jurisdiction over American citizens who are bound by the US Constitution. In other words, the ICC and their processing courts directly conflicted with US Constitutional precedent especially because the court did not reserve the right of “fair and speedy trials” or “a jury of one’s peers” to defendants during court proceedings. Another criticism of the ICC was that it had the potential to be used to specifically target American soldiers and affiliated organizations for political reasons, instead of in the pursuit of peace. For this reason, President Bush pushed for legislation that would link financial support and military assistance to those countries that followed America in refusal of the ICC.
Another common US criticism of the ICC, is that it is ineffective in catching a large portion of human rights violators and is largely incapable of doing its job correctly. In relation to national interests, Bush administration prioritized Power and Principle over the interests of Peace and Prosperity. In this case, Power was reserved by the US through its rejection to sign on to another international organization therefore refusing to offer a portion of US sovereignty. The US decided to keep its sovereign right to process its own citizens without the inclusion of other nations. Principle was prioritized because joining the ICC would have meant undermining the US Constitution, the written document embodying all legal Principle in the United States.
The Constitution is the basis of all laws within the US and the ICC’s framework directly undercuts US legal precedent. The US government traded a spot in the ICC for greater sovereignty and control over its courts and military/government personnel. A positive aspect of this decision would be that the US can seek to prosecute war crimes done by US citizens, on the basis of the US Constitution. Ultimately, allowing for speedier and less politicized trials of the accused. On the other hand, a negative aspect of the US’ decision is that it set a damaging tone in the global political sphere due to America’s role as a hegemon. Smaller nations that look to the US for guidance, soon followed and resigned their signatures from the organization.
Overall, I disagree with the US’ decision because of the global ramifications it presented. Other nations, more likely to commit human rights violations, remove themselves and their associated protections as a result of the US’ decision. On top of that, the US’ unwillingness to sign on can appear suspicious internationally, as if the US government has something to hide.
In my opinion, Prosperity is the most important objective because prosperity provides the necessary resources to support the other four Ps. Currently, Prosperity cannot be achieved alone because of the interdependent nature of the global political/economic system. Therefore, Peace is required in tandem to achieve cooperation economically. Without economic prosperity a nation hardly can support or grow a strong military equipped with the necessary equipment and weaponry. Prosperity’s benefit to all of the other objectives is what makes it the most important Principle. Power is next in line by importance. It is imperative that governments have Power to enforce the rules within a particular state. Without power, enforcing laws, negotiating treaties, and trade deals is more difficult. As stated previously, Power also represents a nation’s ability to influence other nations and their actions. Power is imperative to protecting the US’ interests and investments abroad.
Peace is less important than Prosperity and Power because it is practically unachievable.
Peace is always chased by powerful nations but never gained or lasting. The arrival of a global economy and the ease of communication offers an easier path to peace due to every state’s interdependence especially economically. In the case of prosperity, economic booms are now contingent on cooperation and dependence on other states actor and may occasionally lead to certain states agreeing to limit their power principle for a more prosperous trade deal. Overall, Principle is the least important of the national interest facets.Principles are the beliefs and values we stand for, but I do not feel that values should heavily dictate the actions of a nation. Wars fought on principle alone are difficult subjects because in cases, such as America spreading democracy across Asia, infringes on the sovereignty of other states. Principle is the least important because it is the least tangible defense for a nation’s actions, the moral/philosophical reasoning for actions cannot be accurately measured or agreed upon by the masses and instead creates more debate/friction than is necessary.
