On Embassies, Platforms, and Something Called National Interests

El Mercurio, Friday, June 12, 2020

Juan Pablo Toro V.

The measure by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to order the closure of five embassies has caused a great uproar. Those who believe that state officials have a monopoly on international relations (when there are many actors today) and minimize the importance of digital diplomacy (as telecommuting advances in all fields) apparently cannot conceive that countries can occasionally recalibrate their presence based on new realities.

On the other hand, Argentine President Alberto Fernández announces a bill that aims to establish the limits of the continental shelf, which, as we know, infringes on Chilean territories and contravenes the 1984 Treaty. On this point, there is no former foreign minister who disagrees that Fernández’s maneuver, which adds to recurrent political slights, is unacceptable.

Thus, in one case, the lack of consensus on what is called ‘state foreign policy’ is evident, while in the other, it seems that such unanimity has never been lost. What all this speaks to is the need for a clear point of reference to navigate the world, which must be defined by national interest.

It is a concept developed in the mid-twentieth century by Hans Morgenthau that appeals to the integrity of a country’s territory, its institutions, and its culture. Over time, this definition has expanded to include global realities, as a country’s interests can be far from its soil, as those who depend on international trade and require cooperation to promote them know well.

While there are national interests that evolve over time, others remain constant. The maintenance of territorial integrity, political independence, or integration with the world are examples of enduring interests. What changes is the context in which they interact. Guided by a foreign relations strategy, diplomats should be individuals with a clear vision of national interests and be capable of promoting them in a specific international arena, even seeking certain margins of stability for them. For this, they can utilize embassies or new means.

When there are opposing interests, as with Argentina, they will seek solutions through political and non-violent means. When they see regions of the world that present new dynamics, they will identify opportunities and direct our presence there based on resources that are always limited.

Foreign policy cannot be based on abstractions or on the assumption of the good intentions of others; national interests are the beginning and the end. It would be a good time for Chile to define what these are and how it will promote them in this decade that begins with nothing less than a global pandemic.

Juan Pablo Toro V.
Executive Director, AthenaLab