Does Foreign Policy Represent National Interest
Foreign policy is firmly grounded in regional diversity. Actors and sub-groups from different domestic territories try to equate their region's interests with that of the nation, meaning that these competing special interests and not an overarching unanimous national interest determine foreign policy (Trubowitz, 1998). By highlighting these rifts, this essay argues that although foreign policies are theoretically designed to promote a country's national interest, they really advance the agenda of sub-groups. In order to support this claim and show precedence, the United States of America's trading relations will be analysed along with the influence of their cotton subsidies over shaping foreign policy objectives.
A state's two main objectives are to ensure its survival and protect its domestic interests, but "competing visions of national interest" differ on how to spend the country's resources towards achieving those goals (Trubowitz, 1998: 5). To afford the analysis more specificity and prove that foreign policy represents the interests of dominant actors and sub-groups within a state and not the whole state, this essay narrows its conceptual view to Miriam Elman's claim that "domestic institutional choices rather than international determinants [...] explain [...] state foreign policy" (Hey, 2003: 7). For example, North American policy priorities show drastic variations in behaviour according to the geographical territory in question. The industrial Northeast and the agrarian South of the United States lobby for their sector-specific interests, and given their economic stake are then able to persuade politicians to make foreign policy decisions that account for their interests (Turbowitz, 1998: 5).
Exploring these trade relations further, the importance of the Southern states when determining the outcome of political elections gives them a unique influence over politicians, and consequently places their interests high on the political agenda - this
A state's two main objectives are to ensure its survival and protect its domestic interests, but "competing visions of national interest" differ on how to spend the country's resources towards achieving those goals (Trubowitz, 1998: 5). To afford the analysis more specificity and prove that foreign policy represents the interests of dominant actors and sub-groups within a state and not the whole state, this essay narrows its conceptual view to Miriam Elman's claim that "domestic institutional choices rather than international determinants [...] explain [...] state foreign policy" (Hey, 2003: 7). For example, North American policy priorities show drastic variations in behaviour according to the geographical territory in question. The industrial Northeast and the agrarian South of the United States lobby for their sector-specific interests, and given their economic stake are then able to persuade politicians to make foreign policy decisions that account for their interests (Turbowitz, 1998: 5).
Exploring these trade relations further, the importance of the Southern states when determining the outcome of political elections gives them a unique influence over politicians, and consequently places their interests high on the political agenda - this