The Global Interest and the National Interest

Americans are very quick to move out of a dialectical concept of the relation between the national interest and the global interest. Very large majorities of Americans readily endorse arguments that make a bridge between the national and the global interest by saying that serving the global interest ultimately serves the national interest.

In a November 2006 WPO/KN poll a large majority agreed with the statement (71%) "The United States should look beyond its own self-interest and do what's best for the world as a whole, because in the long run this will probably help make the kind of world that is best for the US," while just one in four (25%) disagreed.[18]

In the October 2006 WPO/KN poll only 16% said the United States "should not worry about what others think, but just think in terms of what is best for the U.S., because the world is a rough place." Rather 79% said "the United States should think in terms of being a good neighbor with other countries, because cooperative relationships are ultimately in the best interests of the United States."[19]

Underlying the support for a US foreign policy that does not adhere to a narrow definition of US national interests is a widespread perception that the world has become highly interdependent. This perception leads Americans to be quite responsive to arguments that make a bridge between national values and global values, especially in a long-term framework. For example in PIPA's October 1999 survey, an overwhelming 78% agreed with the following:

Because the world is so interconnected today, the US should participate in efforts to maintain peace, protect human rights, and promote economic development. Such efforts serve US interests because they help to create a more stable world that is less apt to have wars and is better for the growth of trade and other US goals.

Counter-arguments that try to devalue the potential links between such efforts and national interests fare poorly. Only 39% agreed (58% disagreed) with the argument: It is nice to think that joining in international efforts makes a more stable world. But in fact, the world is so big and complex that such efforts only make a minimal difference with little benefit to the US. Therefore, it is not really in the US interest to participate in them.[20]

Bridging arguments have been very popular when applied specifically to UN peacekeeping. In a July 1994 PIPA poll, 75% agreed with the statement, "When thinking about things like UN peacekeeping, whenever it can, the US should look beyond its own self-interest and do what's best for the world as a whole, because in the long run this will probably help make the kind of world that is best for the US."

In the June 1996 PIPA poll, 78% agreed (50% strongly) that the US should contribute to UN peacekeeping because: "if we allow things like genocide or the mass killings of civilians to go unaddressed, it is more apt to spread and create more instability in the world so that eventually our interests would be affected." When such arguments were used, support for sending US troops to Bosnia was quite robust.[21]

Perhaps the strongest bridging argument related to security concerns is based on the classical principle of collective security. Most Americans strongly embrace the idea that the US should play its part in a system that guarantees that members will defend one another against aggression. While a specific instance may not be directly vital to US national interests, Americans seem to agree that it is necessary to uphold the collective security system that deters aggression in general, believing that such a system helps to maintain the kind of peaceful world that is conducive to US interests.[See above discussion of Collective Security inMultilateral Cooperation and International Institutions]

Bridging arguments have also been popular in support of foreign aid. In the November 2000 PIPA poll, 65% agreed that the US should give some foreign aid because "in the long run, helping Third World countries develop is in the economic interest of the US." In support of a program to reduce hunger in the world 64% found convincing the argument, "Because the world is so interconnected today, reducing hunger in the world ultimately serves US interests. It creates more political stability, and by promoting economic growth helps create more markets for US exports."[22]A majority also rejects the counter-arguments that giving foreign aid is not a good idea because it does not serve US interests.[23]

A large majority also favors giving aid to fight terrorism. A February 2007 Third Way poll found that 69 percent supported providing Ў°economic assistance to poor countries to prevent them from becoming terrorist havens,Ў± with 29 percent saying they strongly supported this approach as a thing that Ў°American could do to fight global terrorism.Ў±[24]

In March 2003, a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll asked how important Ў°increasing development assistance and humanitarian aid to nations in needЎ± was Ў°for protecting America and its people.Ў± Eighty-seven percent said it was important (16% extremely important, 26% very important).[25]

Majorities support increasing the emphasis on Ў°soft powerЎ± approaches to foreign policy in an effort to improve US and global security. In an October 2006 WPO/KN poll, respondents were presented a list of 17 approaches for improving US and global security and asked whether they would like to see their member of Congress place more or less emphasis on each approach. Majorities wanted to place greater emphasis on efforts to address humanitarian problems and promote economic development, including fighting the global spread of HIV/AIDS (68%), programs to stabilize countries at risk of conflict by helping them develop economically (58%), and building goodwill toward the US by providing food and medical assistance to people in poor countries (57%).[26]

⇐ Предыдущая234567891011Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: