It is clear that relations between States, since their conception, have strictly been privileging their own interests, being defined as national interests. The goals of their foreign policy have always been the subject of those interests. In this view, the more tangible results a State achieves in fulfilling its national interests, the more political institutions of that State are proclaimed as successful, giving political leaders a glorious place in the history of the country. Evidences show there have not been any reactions from the country nor questions raised on whether those results have been achieved to the detriment of other states/nations. On the contrary, those governments and political institutions not only put their names in history, but also in the education system, academia. Scholars have systematically used them as a source of inspiration to all the people, especially to the young generations of the country. Basically, from history to the present days, the history of intra-States relations revolves around this axis.
The future is born in the present
It is well known, especially over the last hundred years and from time to time, that States have developed relationships by shaping them in a way that protects them and, subsequently, and could build peace, sustainable development while globalization progresses rapidly from one decade to another. Information technology has broken down all boundaries and human rights as well as fundamental freedoms are no longer “internal national issues”. Moreover, democracy, as a desired system, is almost recognized and accepted throughout the world despite the differences that nations have in terms of the level of economic, cultural, educational development and other areas of life. These relationships also imply parts of common interests. In fact, looking carefully at the common interests of the States, we observe that over the past two centuries, many scholars, statesmen, and philosophers have published their work and called for peace, increasing collective responsibility for stopping military actions and wars. Thus, we are not bringing here any new content about the interests of the States. This study intends to treat them as a whole, classifying and analysing them and suggest States new approaches on the relations they develop between them. In addition, we are trying to shape the hierarchy of interests of the States based on some new concepts of future intra-States Political Platforms because the future should be planted today, little by little but in a safe and certain way.
Within this approach, let us mention here tangible previous achievements at the international level such as international law, and UN bodies as well as many other international and regional organizations around the world. These are achievements that demonstrate common and collective interests in the interest of all States. At first sight, one may judge these organizations as ineffective, full of bureaucracy and powerless decision-making, etc., but they have been set up thanks to visionary leaders and the elite of politicians inspired by the ideas of common interests, which remain an extremely major objective of all mankind. As history shows, they certainly have not been achieved at once, but they have taken and will require a time span of hundreds of years, as they are implemented step by step, and often with collisions and backwards. They have been and will be a great work of responsible politicians, especially those who run the great powers of our planet.
Hierarchy of interests of States
States, in addition to the national interests, which are defined as sacred, major, high and non-negotiable, have progressed much further towards the other principle, that of non-interference in internal affairs. Despite the increasing role and activity of international organizations and the UN, in fact, States have built and defended their sovereignty, especially when joint activities affect national interests. On all aspects at the international level, States have developed international and common activities but strictly based on their interests. Intra-States relationships, as reality shows, mostly do not consider the interests of other states. On the contrary, they act to protect their interests, extending their influence in all aspects in the region, or larger, depending on their power. They have been historically expending their territories by force and nowadays this action is unfortunately still on the ground. The objective has been always to maximize their profits. (There is another aspect of those States’ actions: investments from powerful countries have brought benefits from host countries such as job creation, absorption of new technologies, especially in less developed countries and regions). This kind of interest in relations between States will continue to prevail for hundreds and hundreds of years. But the time has come to think, to approach, and later to act with the widest possible content towards common interests.
Considering the history of intra-States, the interests of States can be classified as follows:
At the first group of interests, we can place the actions of States to maximize their interests. States, using all the means at their disposal such as diplomacy, culture, economic-commercial power and investment, including military action, etc., aim to entirely fulfil their interests. This is an approach that comes from the long history of intra-States relationships, which is still followed by many States as well as supported by scholars, analysts and academics who feed this policy.
At the second group of interests, we can place the interests that States intend to meet according to the win-win principle. This group includes the interests of the States as above, but in the meantime, they try to take into account the interests of other States in order to reach balance in their complex relations. In fact, this action of the States has played a useful role in history which, for several times, has resulted to peace and stability in the region and in the world. The famous Balance of Powers Policy[1] is the core of those actions. But, on the other hand, precisely because on the basis of these interests relies the balance between them, intra-States relations cannot be stable for a long time. The reason is that the balance / equilibrium found changes from time to time as the weight of States changes in international relations. Consequently, a new balance must be restored, which often comes through clashes, economic sanctions or wars.
The third group of interests is related to the action of the States which, before building the platform for the fulfilment of their interests, study and analyze in depth and consider very carefully the interests of partner States. Their partners are required to do the same. In the next step, during the negotiations, they build, in a transparent way, their Political Platform at bilateral or multilateral relations. Perhaps it is not superfluous to quote that history has shown and shows that such examples demonstrating these kinds of intra-States relations have constituted a success for those States as well as a model for others. It is also evident that scholars of international relations as well as progressive diplomacy are working hard together on this approach of interests, but the journey is still very long.
There is another group, which we could call the fourth group of interests which means the action of States not only take into account the interests of other states, but they rely on the common interests between them for the whole region or a wider grouping of States. Starting with the common interests of environmental protection, climate change, and protection against pandemics, information technology, some branches of international economic cooperation, or the fight against poverty and education, this group of interests will be the future of intra-States relations with the conditions that States must gradually not only enlarge them as number of interests, but also include them right now in their agenda of political platforms.
Format of Political Platforms
Analyzing the above issues, it seems we have shaped also the political platforms of the States in their intra-States relations. Here we will deal a little more with their content and, comparatively, with the platforms of international organizations. A diplomat or specialist who works in UN bodies or its agencies feels he works on common interests; therefore he is in the service of all humanity. As for the States, they seem to be actors playing on both sides: while supporting the common interests of UN programs, they show a great attention to the fulfilment of their national interests. This relationship of interests expressed by members States at UN sessions constitutes a long story of relations between international organizations, in particular the UN, which promote and protect the common interest and, States that defend their national interests. This clash between common and national interests is ultimately endorsed by the States themselves. This means that if we want the UN to play its supranational role in the interests of all, the States themselves must be democratized in their attitudes towards the relationship of national and common interests. Meanwhile, in the tribunes of international organizations, led by common interests, the clash with the national interests of States will certainly continue by the intention that the common interests must be increasingly progressed continuously.
In the context of this approach, let us continue with the contribution of States in their intra-States relationships to the strengthening of common interests. The idea is how States can do more to make progress considering the common interest much more than the national ones. We are with the opinion that once States identify those interests, it is up to them to classify them and build strategic development programs.
If bilateral or plurilateral negotiations start from the point of common interests, they can of course go much further to achieve national interests than vice versa. In the case of, for example, the construction of the US-Mexico border wall, the recent clash between Turkey and Greece over the exclusive economic zone, the conflict in Ukraine, unresolved issues in the Balkans, the longstanding Pakistan-India conflict over Kashmir, or more recently, the resurgence of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, etc., makes it clear that intra-States relations are still driven by the first group of interests followed with difficulty by the second one. Unfortunately, there are many examples in today’s World that show these types of political platforms dominating today’s relations between States.
According to this analysis we can say that the other two groups of our classification (third and fourth), for the time we live, are still far away from being considered by the States. A new approach is therefore required in order for the last two groups to regain first and second places. The implementation of this approach certainly depends on several factors, in particular the will of the politics. The actions of politicians on the ground are largely driven by their political goals inspired by overly narrow national interests, so they suffer from a lack of vision to go beyond their ambitions at the bilateral and global level. Therefore, Political Platforms can be effective and are most likely to be implemented during the negotiation process; both parties must include in a very transparent and honest way the hierarchy of their interests and the actions that must be taken. Although negotiations under the second group of interests will continue to be on the negotiating table for a long time to come, States must gradually abandon this policy of negotiation. We say gradually because States cannot immediately give up their national interests as they are established based on these interests and live thanks to their consolidation. Second, less democratic countries have trouble understanding that “mine can be ours”. Therefore, this will be a long road to be taken by all nations. The creators of ideas and the profiled academic world play an essential role in achieving success internationally, which also means national ones. But we suggest in this brief study that States on bilateral front have a lot in their hands to make progress until the third and fourth group of interests take the place of the first and second groups, throughout the actions of them. This should also be the real contribution of States to enhance the role of the UN and other international organizations.
In conclusion, the purpose of this study is to draw the attention of political institutions as well as decision makers at all levels that, before the negotiations are drafted as political platforms, it is very necessary those to be consisted of not only by one part (as they have been drafted historically along with all the issues, items and problems that States agree to discuss at the negotiating tables), but also by another part, which talks about the principles. This first part should be built based on the hierarchy of interests of the States. Therefore, it is up to the States to consider this classification and build their political platforms. States, gradually, negotiation after negotiation as process, can overcome the issues discussed based on the second group of interests into the third one anticipating the fourth group which should be the future of intra-States relationships.
[1] Concept developed in the book Diplomacy and Promoting Democracy – Understanding the World of Tomorrow; chapter Culture, Politics and Diplomacy
