National Interests and National Security Strategy: Setting the Right Priorities

摘要

The Clinton Administration's 1997 national security strategy statement to Congress, 'A National Security Strategy for A New Century,' is remarkable in that it embraces a wide range of competing national interests deemed as 'vital.' An obvious fault in this strategy statement is that it tries to acknowledge each and every interest across the domestic and international political spectrum, while failing to properly identify those that are truly vital. More so, it fails to elucidate a clear and concise national strategy to deal with them. The critical national interests that have been at the core of our nation's success and lasting durability - enhancing physical security, bolstering U.S. economic prosperity, and promoting democracy abroad are appropriately covered. There is, however, a lack of meaningful suggestions on how to achieve the plethora of ends desired. There is no discernable plan that ties all the 'ends' together with the appropriate 'means' to achieve those ends. In essence, the plan set forth is one of 'reactive' or 'just in time' diplomacy that has failed to take a hard look at the resources (means) in which to accomplish national goals (ends). National interests, as defined by the Clinton administration, fall into three categories. First, 'vital interests,' are those of broad overriding importance to the survival of the safety and vitality of the nation. Second, 'important national interests,' are those that do not affect our national well being and safety, but could affect our well being and the character of the world in which we live. Third, 'humanitarian interests,' are those that are values based (e.g., humanitarian actions and gross violations of human rights). An inherent flaw in the Administration's strategy is that it struggles to define what interests are vital, important, and humanitarian, and how to differentiate between competing interests in a prioritized manner that could achieve the end states desired.