Where the national interest lies

The history of mankind is replete with instances where nations have justified their atrocities, plundering and ruthless exploitation in the name of the national interest. The national interest is presented as an abstract phenomenon, devoid of any class context. In reality, what we define as the national interest turns out to be the class interest of a group of people living in a certain country. The group protects its class interest under the garb of this national interest.

We have seen much debate on our vibrant media over the issue of the national interest. But only few can explain the term. If the meaning of the national interest is to benefit the majority of people in a country, then every policy that serves the public should be declared in the interest of the nation. But the policies of states fly in the face of this concept. If we analyse the history of nations using this particular definition, we will conclude that their policies were, in fact, anti-national.

For instance, when the Spanish and Portuguese ruling elite were plundering the riches of the Incas, the Aztecs and other nations of Central and South America to satiate their gargantuan appetite for the accumulation of wealth, the people in their home countries were at the mercy of an obscurantist clergy that was burning people alive in the name of driving out evil spirits besides accusing the sagacious minds of the time of necromancy in a bid to protect their castles of superstition and orthodoxy.

The looted riches led to the mushrooming of fascinating castles, invincible tall forts, towering churches and colourful shining palaces and enabled the ruling elite to venture out in search of new sea routes. But such naked exploitation of the native Americans’ lands, committed in the name of the faith of the people, did not alleviate the miseries of the emaciated souls in the two states.

France and Britain also carried out ruthless exploitation in the name of serving the national interest and wiped out several tribes and communities in North America, North Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa and various parts of the world. The French colonial masters imposed their culture and language on a number of colonies held by them. The British ruling elite ignited famines in Ireland, Bengal, Orissa and Bihar and plundered the natural resources of its colonies.

Interestingly, when the wealth of the entire world was concentrated in Paris and London, the urban areas of these imperialist countries were booming with slums and shanty towns where the wretched working class was condemned to a sub-human existence. What was looted in the name of the national interest across the globe was adding to the pomp and glory of the English and French ruling elite that had little time to ponder over the hardships of the haggard masses who constituted an overwhelming majority in their societies.

Did the chopping of millions of black hands in Congo by Belgium enrich the working class of that European country or a tiny oligarchy? Was the colonisation of six African states by Germany and Italy – which was carried out in the name of national honour – aimed at creating luxuries for the ruling elite of the two countries or for the people of the two fascist states? Do historical facts support the claim that the Russification of Central Asia and the ruthless plundering of Russian colonies by the Tsarists brought prosperity to the Russian peasantry? From Ivan the Terrible to Tsar Nicholas, the ruling oligarchy may have conquered thousands of miles of territory, constructing magnificent churches to celebrate such victories. But this expansion did not save millions of Russians, whose mortal enemies – abject poverty, homelessness and extreme cold – would always lurk around in search of a chance to attack them.

In modern times, ideas of democracy, a free world and our way of life were used as an extension of the national interest. The Western, capitalist world swung into action to bring about democracy across the world through nuclear bombs, cluster toys, nerve gases and chemical weapons. The B-52, Patriot missiles and the Mother of All Bombs were used to acquaint people with the noble idea of democracy, freedom, human rights and the pious, Western way of life. In the process, seven million souls were decimated in Vietnam, one million in Laos, three million in the Korean Peninsula, over a million in Iraq and two million in Afghanistan. The list could go on and on.

This was all done in the name of the national interest. Washington pumped around $3 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan’s wars alone. This must have benefited a myriad of companies, ranging from arms to oil companies. But this still constitutes a tiny minority in a country of around 300 million. Meanwhile, the nation’s education sector received just $102.3 billion while federal transportation was allocated $85 billion in the 2015 budget while military spending – serving less than two million Americans – snatched a lion’s share of $601 billion.

In the UK – where the lack of council houses for the white working class has led to the rise of ultra-racist groups – the government is pumping billions of dollars into Trident missiles to appease a few arms manufacturers and nuclear lobby while the handicapped are being advised to work. Benefits are being taken away from the vast majority of people that it enjoyed in the past.

Poverty-stricken India – with 400 million people below the poverty line – is planning to spend a whopping $200 billion on arms by 2050, which could be used to pull millions out of poverty. Pakistan, with over 40 million people living in abject poverty, has also been pumping billions of dollars into arms and defence for decades. No wonder the two South Asian nuclear states find themselves at the bottom of the Human Development Index. Does the national interest of the two countries lie in accumulating lethal tools of destruction to benefit a few or does it lie in ridding millions of abject poverty?

The writer is a Karachi-based freelance journalist.

Email: egalitarianism444@gmail.com