Harmonizing interests and values: an application for international affairs

Shahab Sabahi
Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

On May 1st 2012, Janos Martonyi Hungary’s foreign minister gave a quasi-exclusive lecture in the centre for European Study, Chulalongkorn University – Thailand. How Hungary would respond to the forces from the world order shift was the main topic of his lectured. He initially outlined the current world’s powers structure and analyzed the possible shapes of the world structure through evolutionary process. Although he tried to not speculate the future, he ended the lecture with contemplating the possible positions of Hungary in the new world order and supported his hypothesises with the effect of Hungary’s recent foreign policies in regional and national level.

“Value-Based Foreign Policy” was the core of Hungary’s doctrine, Dr. Martonyi’s pointed out. By the “Value-Based Foreign Policy”, he meant that Hungary’s goals would not be selected on an ad hoc basis, but would be a function of the important value sources such as the UN Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty, the Treaty on the European Union and of course Hungary’s constitution.

Commitments are the prime source of values. As the definition suggests, a value-based approach requires policies are formulated within the framework of commitments made at the first place. As the number of commitments rises, policy choices become narrow.

It raises a question and I got it for Mr. Martonyi. How does Hungary harmonize her national interests and values if there would be a conflict between them? Today it is the case of the European Union, from Greece, Italy to Spain. As a competent politician, he answered my question that the value based approach, in the realm of foreign policy,  should not inherently limit Hungary’s relations with countries that do not fully respect the values her country adhere to. He continued that the competition between values and interests would be a perpetual challenge for societies. In effect it means that policy choice again remains a contextual, and values except core values such as human rights, can be altered.     

Concerning international relations, it would be an easy task to rhetorically speak on an international objective, but adopting a collective policy to reach that objective would be hard. Individual nation’s interests and contexts influence nation’s response to policies. Certainly the social structures and relations are manmade and the values (again except the core values such as human rights) are open to reasoned critique about what is the most reasonable to do. Should a commitment to manmade values be treated in completely contextual terms? Or should interests and values be harmonized before thinking about commitments?     

To harmonize interests and values, general practice is to run a pros and cons analysis which is conforming to rationality and reality of the relevant circumstances. If there would not be institutional humps, this approach creates value based interests which would be an optimistic outcome.  Priorities and institutions may cause deeper interests and values divergence which jeopardize the success of the harmonization process.  In fact, commitments beyond the core values, unlike options, bound the ability of adaptation and decrease the resilience level.

So a value-based policy is only a catchphrase, if one misses to recognize the origin of values. It reminds me this quote “G. Kennan believed that language helped make policy and that vague, expansive language would lead to vague, expansive policy” (Ideas Man by Nicholas Thompson)