This in turn relates to the question of the ‘national interest’. We
have seen the difficulty in defining a nation – e.g. can it be assumed
that the English have the same interests as the Welsh? Similarly
professional politicians may experience much more satisfaction from
being part of a powerful state than a simple peasant might. Again if,
say, in the nineteenth century, British investors’ rights in some Latin
American country are safeguarded at the loss of a number of sailors’
lives, does the safeguarding of one group’s (relatively large) income
justify the loss of several poor men’s lives? The ‘national interest’,
then, may obscure domestic conflicts of interest by wrapping them in
the national flag.
To describe national policy making in terms of individuals making
choices may be a vast oversimplification, as Allison’s (1987) work
makes clear. He analysed the Cuban missile crisis, in which the
United States was faced by a Soviet attempt to install ballistic missiles
in sites in Cuba. He showed how not only the president and the
secretary of state were involved in the decision-making process, but
also the perceptions of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the
professional military, the US representative at the UN and others.
Assumptions about the motives of the other ‘side’ and the reactions
of potential allies, and the electorate, were also seen to be crucial.
Allison argues that for a full picture of the foreign policy process,
decision making must be seen as part of processes of organisational
decision making and of political bargaining. More recently, similar
arguments could be applied to the Bush administration’s decision to
invade Iraq in 2003.
Politics beyond the state: international institutions
The United Nations General Assembly is in many ways an uncon-
vincing ‘world parliament’ since it is based on the equal repre-
sentation of giant countries (in population terms) like Brazil and
Russia with mini-states like the Gambia and Luxembourg. Nor can a
body which allowed dictators like ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier of Haiti or
General Amin of Uganda to misrepresent the populations they
terrorised be seen to possess great legitimacy. The Security Council
can be seen as a potential world ‘government’. Its inclusion of
Permanent Members (USA, China, Russia, Britain and France – each
SYSTEMS 41