Interests, Values - Aesthetics?
Another way to look at what motivates countries ... and people
One of the most important parts of a diplomat’s job is to understand why the movers and shakers around you are acting as they are. It would be naive in the extreme for an Ambassador to take everything his or her hosts do at face value. Indeed, if you could do that, you wouldn’t need Ambassadors. The same goes for all of us, in whatever professional or personal world we live in.
As far as geopolitics goes right now, we’re all having to go through an interesting course in understanding motivations. While graphic Donald Trump memes are very seductive, the basic rules of geoplolitical gravity still apply, as I’ve set out in previous posts. In particular:
first of all, try to understand where your subject’s interests lie;
don’t assume that the leader’s personal or professional interests are the same as the organisation’s interests (or that, say, the party’s interests are the same as the country’s - any country’s, even your own);
don’t assume that your subject is mad or bad until you’ve exhausted all other options first (this one is particularly important at present); and
don’t fall for the “Great Power” fallacy that everything someone powerful does is intended and strategic, even if much of it may be. No one gets it right all the time and cock-up is often a better explanation than conspiracy.
I deliberately put interests at the top of the list, because if the last few weeks have told us anything, realism is the first rule of geopolitical gravity. Even a few weeks ago, this would have seemed odd to many people in the West, particularly (but not only) in Europe. By realism, we mean that states are driven primarily by the need to protect their own interests (essentially security and prosperity) and will do so mindful of their weight in the world, as defined by their own economic and military hard power and their ability to build alliances, to which their soft power may also contribute. Those in Europe who now doubt that they can continue to depend on US hard power are quickly realising that their ability to pursue as a “values-driven” foreign policy - all those carefully-negotiated portentous declarations - was always dependent on support from across the Atlantic. They too now have to focus on interests which is why, even with a raft of impressive new defence commitments coming out of Europe, the most serious response is still coming from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe which perceive their interests most directly threatened by Russia and the potential withdrawal of US support.
Even as we are obliged to look at interests, we shouldn’t make the mistake of assuming that national, institutional, professional and personal interests are necessarily identical. We should also try to separate out strategic interests from the tactics used to pursue them. Diplomats are, of course, often highly experienced negotiators. But not many will have been trained in negotiation as a tool in sales, though there are undoubtedly many times more salespeople in there world than there are diplomats. I’m fortunate in having tried both types of negotiation, and there’s much in President Trump’s style that I recall from my sales training, including alternating between good and bad cop, and (quite literally the most memorable part of the course) the trainer making deliberately for the door to demonstrate the power of walking away.
Having distinguished tactics from strategy, it is possible to see Trump’s approach as representing a perfectly rational understanding of the US national interest. You may or may not agree with him, but it would be foolish to suggest that there is no logic in his approach. Many commentators have argued, for example David Rundell here, that Trump sees China as the greatest threat to the US (interests and values) and seeks a resolution of the war in Ukraine which contributes to distancing Russia from China while reducing the economic cost to the US and even recovering some of it via his proposed minerals deal. However, that is not the whole story and, like any leader, he is doubtless formulating his policy with an eye on his domestic political position. It’s foolish to expect anything less.
Much the same applies to the Europeans. In the light of a threat from Russia and the potential withdrawal of US support, they have an interest in increasing their own defence capabilities, both in order to reassure Trump that they are prepared to pull their own weight and thereby discouraging the US from withdrawal, but also to hedge against a possible reduction in US support if, in the new unpredictable world, it comes to that. So far, so clear on interests.
The continued European expressions of solidarity for Ukraine are, however, less clear if taken at face value. A total Ukrainian victory and total Russian defeat was unrealistic from the outset, even with the extent of US support offered so far - which is clearly no longer available. However much the Europeans spend on defence, the fundamental equation won’t change. So what explains the European position now, especially in the light of Trump’s stated aim of stopping the conflict? From a point of national interest, Europeans want to pull the tug-of-war rope as far as they can in order to secure the best possible outcome for Ukraine, ie one in which as much of Ukraine as possible remains in the sphere of European/Western influence and Russian influence is kept at a distance, thereby enhancing European security. This in practice involves doing whatever it takes to keep the US engaged long enough for the best possible outcome to be achieved.
But again this isn’t the whole story. As with Trump’s position, there is a conflation of national, institutional and personal interests and values. In addition to ensuring their defence and keeping the US engaged, the European (including British) political, military and intellectual leadership is also motivated by a desire for continued relevance for their values and their professional positions in a new world order which is increasingly contested domestically as well as internationally. Having pursued their “soft power” policies under Western hegemony and with US support, they (rightly) see a realist world threatening not only the construct of national interests that they have developed since the end of the Cold War, but also their own professional futures within it. Just as the Eurozone leaders in countries not directly affected by the 2010s debt crisis needed the currency bloc to survive for their own political survival, so today the European mainstream seeks to preserve the “rules-based international order” without which their own positions will become increasingly challenged. No wonder they see Russia as an existential threat par excellence and use Cold War-like language to describe it. One suspects it will take some time to adjust to the new reality. Because, as we have argued before, with or without Trump in a multipolar world realist geopolitics is back and here to stay.
How can we make sense of the multiple forces which motivate what countries and people do? Humans are complex and not always transparent, so there’s no easy answer. That’s what makes diplomacy, and navigating daily life quite difficult. So any model can only enable us up to a certain point to break down what we see into parts and then look for more evidence as to whether the analysis makes sense and what we can do with it.
My preferred approach is to start with three questions:
interests: what are the key interests motivating a particular course of action, ie what does our subject seek to gain (or protect)? Can we distinguish institutional or national interests from personal ones? Does the individual have a conflict of interests, in which can we identify the (for the time being) dominant ones? In business, we talk about the “principal-agent” conflict when an executive acts in a way which may, for example, maximise his annual bonus at the expense of the company’s long-term prospects; in politics, party or personal interest is often
taken into account alongside the stated national interests.
values: what principles is the individual, company or country seeking to follow? How well are they aligned with national/corporate or personal interests? How far is our subject prepared to follow these values even when they conflict with interests? Do we see following our values as a (perhaps longer-term) interest in itself? Or are we back to a difference between the individual and the organisation, ie the individual’s values take priority over the organisation’s interests? In general, as a realist I’d say that we should not take values at face value, but seek to understand how they relate to, or are in conflict with, interests - and why.
aesthetics: this may seem a bit strange as the third pillar, but it can be a useful part of our analytical process. If interests relate to “what do I get"?” and values to “what do I believe?”, then aesthetics answers the question “what kind of a world do I like to live in?” Aesthetics in this sense is likely to reflect a combination of values and interests, but can often end up as a distinct driver. Take, for example, Brexit. You might have supported Brexit because you believe that it is in the country’s economic and security interests, or your own personal interests; or because you believe in values like sovereignty and democracy; or - here’s where aesthetics comes in - you want to live in a country which “feels more British” with, say, no EU flags flying, no metric measurements etc. Or you might have opposed Brexit becasuse you considered it against national interests, or the values of openness and cooperation, or because (aesthetics) you like the idea of living in a more modern, progressive, cosmopolitan Britain.
Aesthetics here, whether it’s a question of flag-flying national day parades, schoolchildren wearing smart uniforms, “progressive” symbolism or the dream constructed by an advertiser, is itself a strong motivator in many contexts, related to but distinct from interests and values. You might argue we’re talking about culture, and there is clearly a close connection. But by aesthetics we mean less a body of assumed ideas and behaviours and more a conscious desire to live in a certain atmosphere that gives the reassuring feeling that your interests and values are being respected. Aesthetics are often a key part of a political - or commercial - advertising pitch. It goes without saying that the aesthetics you have been pursuing may turn out to be misleading and, though it all looks good, neither your values nor your interests are really being secured. That’s when you may become disillusioned at what you’ve been sold and react accordingly. Thinking simply in terms of interests and values doesn’t quite capture this.
Whether you’re looking at today’s bewildering geopolitics or the way your school, company or family operates, you need to understand what motivates the key players - and to ask what really motivates you. Starting with interests, values and aesthetics can help.