I named my site after the appropriate foremost pursuits of good government, which ought to serve as the principles guiding state behaviour. Domestically, the state’s purpose is to protect the natural rights of its citizens, recognising their equality under the law and treating them justly. Rights are universal and belong to man qua man — everyone has the right to property, freedom of contract, first possession, self-defence, and restitution.1 The state lacks legitimacy when it cannot protect its citizens from domestic and foreign threats to their opportunity for self-determination.
Pursuit of the national interest must be the state’s driving force in crafting foreign policy. The state has a moral duty to do what is best for its citizens — an obligation which does not extend beyond its borders. Man’s actions are bound by morality because of his natural capacity for reason, unique among the animal kingdom and bestowed by god. The state is unfettered by moral constraints in the international realm because its capabilities are not divinely ordained; it exists partially by consent of those living within its borders, who expect it to serve and protect them. Were a state to treat the welfare of foreign
subjects citizens as of similar value to its own, it would inherently neglect its raison d’État. Cardinal Richelieu summarised that point adeptly:
“Man is immortal, his salvation is hereafter. The state has no immortality, its salvation is now or never.”2
It is therefore imperative for the state to have a clear definition of what the national interests are. This sounds like a no-brainer but has increasingly become a trend in the modern international system, the nature of which is more ambiguous than it ever has been. The rise of intergovernmental and supranational entities like the United Nations, UN Security Council, and European Union has, along with other factors like the liberalisation of social norms, advances in technology and media, and spread of nuclear weapons, obfuscated governments’ ability to discern their national interest.
Pursuit of the national interest often disposes the state to making unsavoury decisions in the eyes of their observers, like when a crusading democracy quietly backs a totalitarian autocracy for the benefits it receives from the relationship. In international relations, the ends justify the means by which they are achieved. Where there is neither a conflict with the national interest nor a great cost to the state, it should be a secondary objective to support justice and individual liberty abroad. Such is a risky endeavour; as it often necessitates a disturbance of stability. Stability, not peace, must be the objective of states participating in the international system because it is through stable order that states are most free to pursue their interests. “Peace” is too ambitious a goal and is incompatible with human nature; nothing is going to please everyone.
* * *
I have boundless ambition to do, not to be. My life is dedicated to my country; I aspire to attain the level of influence that can improve my country’s standing on the global stage and strengthen the domestic institutions which make it unique. The United States, cast from gold, has become misshapen and lost its lustre — we need to recast our government through the hearth of justice and interests.
“Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.”