National interests are “that which is deemed by a particular state (actor) to be a . . . desirable goal.”22 The goal is “what one values.”23 The attainment of this goal is something that the identify-ing actor believes will have a positive impact on itself. Realization of the interest could enhance the political, economic, security, environmental, and/or moral well being of a populace and the state (actor) or national enterprise to which they belong.24 This holds true within the territory of the ac-tor, as well as in any external relations that the actor may undertake outside of the administrative control of that actor.25
Interests should be ascertained without regard to their actual attainability. While they serve as a key component for policy, they do not absolutely mandate action by themselves. This is because the power of every actor in the international system is limited to some degree (e.g., by cost), thus likely requiring subordinate policy objectives to fall short of what the ideal interest might demand.
In the end, “governments never have the luxury of being able to serve all of their interests to the maximum degree. . . . To equate interests would require, either that the state underestimate and . . . lose sight of the full range of its real interests or that it sets goals well beyond its capabilities.”26
In order for the crafter of national interests to determine what types of resources to allocate in what amount toward the attainment of an interest, he must understand the categorization and de-termination of the intensity of the interest. This part of the crafting process is necessary to address key policy questions like: Which issues matter most? Why should people care? How much should the populace be willing to pay to deal with identified threats or take advantage of recognized op-portunities?27
The determination of priority—usually expressed in terms of the intensity of an interest—is crucial because, from the perspective of the policymaker, interests may very well come into con-flict with each other. This concon-flict could be over the resources that an actor would require to attain
the interests, including the time and attention of key decisionmakers.28 Such resources are likely to be limited in some manner for any decisionmaking body, thus requiring prioritization before the interest-crafting process is complete.
The most difficult problem in this part of the process is usually ascertaining the magnitude of the stake that an actor has in a specific interest and thus the intensity of his determination to pur-sue that interest. The leadership of the interest-crafting actor must address its desire to influence issues and events, both external and internal, its willingness to use any or all elements of national power to defend or advance certain interests in preference to others, and potentially its willingness to do so at the expense of other actors.29
Categorization is important not only because it serves as a framework for systematic evalua-tion of naevalua-tional interests, but also because it provides “a way to distinguish immediate from long-range” interest concerns using time as a basis.30 Identified academic sources used between two and four different categories of interests, and two National Security Strategies published during the Clinton administration used three categories.31 The categories are designed to delineate the differ-ent levels of intensity or order of priority for any respective interest.
The principal difference amongst these approaches is whether they use a separate category for survival interests, or whether they consider survival interests and vital interests essentially one and the same. “The major difference between a survival interest and a vital interest” is “in the nature and imminence of a military threat” to the actor.32 Both terms address the life of the actor, one deals with the imminent danger of death while the other is only potentially fatal. In this case, the time difference is the key.33 If one believes there are specific interests where the very survival or existence of the actor is at stake, then four categories are necessary.
For purposes of this assessment, using the work of Neuchterlein, Art, and the Commission on America’s National Interests, this study will use four categories of prioritization levels of intensity, from high to low (Survival, Vital, Important, Peripheral).
Survival.
Survival interests represent the single most important interests for any actor. This is the very essence of the actor’s existence—the protection of its citizens and institutions from attack by en-emies, both foreign and domestic. It addresses an imminent threat of attack and is an interest that cannot be compromised.34 If not attained, it will “bring costs that are catastrophic, or nearly so.”35 Whatever can be done would be done to ensure the survival of the actor, to include the use of military force.
Examples: Prevent, deter, and reduce the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons attacks on the interest-crafting actor (e.g., state) or its military forces abroad; Ensure the survival of allies and their active cooperation in shaping an international system in which the actor craft-ing the interest can thrive; Prevent the emergence of hostile major powers or failed states on the borders of the actor crafting the interest.36
Vital.
A vital interest exists when an issue is so important to an actor’s well-being that its leadership can only compromise to a certain point. Beyond that point, compromise is not possible because the potential harm to the actor would be intolerable.37 If the interest is achieved, it would bring great benefit to the actor; if denied, it would carry costs that are severe but not catastrophic.38 Such costs could severely prejudice but not strictly imperil the ability of the actor’s government to safeguard and enhance the well-being of its populace.39
Examples: Prevent the regional proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and de-livery systems; prevent the emergence of a regional hegemon in important regions; promote the well-being of allies and friends and protect them from external aggression.40
Important.
Important interests are significant but not crucial to the actor’s well-being. They could cause serious concern and harm to the actor’s overseas interests, and even though the result may be painful, would be much more likely to be resolved by compromise and negotiation than confron-tation.41 An important interest could increase an actor’s “economic well being and perhaps its security” and, thus, contribute to “making the international environment more congenial” to its overall interests. The potential value, as well as potential loss of these interests, would be moder-ate.42 Important interests differ from vital and survival interests in the degree of danger perceived to the actor and the amount of time available to find a peaceful solution to the issue.43
Examples: Promote pluralism, freedom, and democracy in strategically important state actors as much as feasible without destabilization; discourage massive human rights violations in foreign countries; prevent and, if possible at low cost, end conflicts in strategically less significant geo-graphic regions.44
Peripheral.
Peripheral interests neither involve a threat to the actor’s security or the well-being of its popu-lace, nor seriously affect the stability of the international system.45 They are desirable conditions, but ones with little direct impact on the ability of the actor to safeguard its populace.46
Examples: Promoting the economic interests of private citizens abroad;47 enlarging democracy everywhere for its own sake; preserving the territorial integrity or political constitution of other actors everywhere.48
As we recall from Chapter 2, when the very existence of a state actor is called into question, its interests can be framed in terms of four degrees of intensity—survival, vital, important, or peripheral. We need not repeat our discussion of those four categories here. Suffice it to say, once identified, the interests should be examined for legitimacy and political viability with the domes-tic audience. The policymaker must begin by identifying the potential stakes or interests that all relevant domestic actors have in the policy issue. These domestic actors could include specific ele-ments of the executive and legislative branches such as the relevant departele-ments and agen cies, the Executive Office of the President and Congress, think tanks, the media, interest groups, lobbies, and the general population. In some cases, the judicial branch of government may also have an interest. Different components of each actor may have a role to play that will mandate examina-tion. For example, in the case of Congress, one must assess not only the positions of the legislators themselves, but also the thinking of their staffs, both personal and committee, that can influence either the member or the process.49
Domestic Political Considerations.
Once the policymaker identifies the actors and their interests, he/she must analyze them to dis-cover shared, complementary, and diverging interests to determine potential domestic support or opposition and the reasons behind those positions. The policy must conform to both international law and domestic laws. A violation of either would automatically render the policy illegitimate.
Beyond that, the policymaker is looking for the effect—actual or perceived—of the issue under consideration on the group in ques tion, existing positions/policies, ideological stances, or other interests (for example, economic) that might be involved in even the slightest way with the issue.
An evaluation of domestic political viability would ask whether the identified audience, whether the entire nation or a separate domestic constituency, considering its own interests would be likely to support the policy. It is critical that the policymaker understand any specific issues that generate disagreement, as well as those policy components that catalyze strong support. An understand ing of why the domestic audience supports or opposes a policy or parts of a policy is critical to de-termining whether the policy will ultimately have the support required for execution. Leaving out of the analysis any constituency that potentially can influence the policy decisionmaking process creates risk to the ultimate policy approval authority and should be avoided.50