National Interests – American and Other

Every government – elected by, forced upon or stolen from the people – operates according to its own national interests and priorities. Ours include defending our homeland and people, meeting treaty obligations, and preserving our way of life by engaging in commerce and political relations around the world. Building national missile defenses, for example, would be in America’s national interest.

Every government – elected by, forced upon or stolen from the people – operates according to its own national interests and priorities. Ours include defending our homeland and people, meeting treaty obligations, and preserving our way of life by engaging in commerce and political relations around the world. Building national missile defenses, for example, would be in America’s national interest.

Taiwan, India, Pakistan and Syria operate according to the priorities of their national leadership, (and OPEC according to its membership) but you wouldn’t know that by listening to the President of the United States of late. Mr. Clinton has become a common scold. And governments from the democratic to the despotic have rebuffed him. We say that without pleasure.

Before the election in Taiwan – in which over 80% of the electorate voted – Mr. Clinton warned both the dictatorship of the PRC and the Taiwanese people not to do anything that would upset delicate mainland-island relations. The Taiwanese demonstrated their priorities convincingly by electing the candidate whose view of Taiwan’s national interest differs substantially from that of Mr. Clinton.

Mr. Clinton went to India – the world’s largest democracy – offered to mediate Kashmir and said India needs to give up its nuclear capabilities, control pollution, and spread the wealth of its burgeoning middle class. In a remarkable show of diplomatic defiance, the Indian PM used his state dinner toast to tell Mr. Clinton that India rejected his view of their national interest. So he went to Pakistan – a corrupt military dictatorship – and told them to give up their nuclear weapons and stop supporting violence in Kashmir. The President allowed no public statement to characterize what the Pakistani government thought of his view of their national interest.

Then Syria. Mr. Clinton told the dictator Assad that Syria needs peace and has to move toward Israel’s position because this is Syria’s last best chance to have him mediate the conflict. All Syria had to do to get the Golan AND American cash, was… Well, never mind what it was because the Syrians clearly didn’t agree and Mr. Clinton went home empty-handed. [Not that we care. We believe the only way to a secure, durable Israeli-Syrian peace is for the Syrians to meet the Israelis and hammer it out. If Mr. Assad was well enough to go to Geneva, Tel Aviv should be a cinch. ]

The OPEC oil ministers are still arguing their interests, but rest assured our Energy Secretary’s whining is not going to sway many people.

The fact is that each country does what its leaders determine to be in their national interest. We don’t have to like their priorities – often we don’t. But diplomacy is the art of dealing with the reality presented by other countries, not simply telling them what to do and how much we will pay them if they do it. The President – and by extension America – was demeaned by Mr. Clinton’s insistence that he knew better than they what they need, and that we can deliver it. A) We don’t; and B) We can’t.