Permanent hatred & love lead to slavery

 Permanent hatred & love lead to slavery

While addressing the farewell ceremony, he advised his nation and said, "The nation that indulges towards another a habitual hatred or habitual fondness is in some degree a slave." (Washington's Farewell Address, 1796.) Washington cautioned his nation against forming permanent alliances or enemies, emphasizing the need to rely on emergent situations instead. He was well aware of the repercussions that arise from habitual animosity and affection. At the time, his nation had just emerged from centuries of slavery and colonial rule, having recently gained independence as the United States of America, with Washington serving as its 1st president. He provided a roadmap for the nation to follow, and adherence to this roadmap ultimately propelled America to become a global superpower. In contrast, nations that pursued an emotion-driven policy witnessed a significant decline in their respective countries. This article will thoroughly explore and discuss the different consequences of two different policies: emotion-driven foreign policy and interest-based foreign policy.

 

 History has witnessed numerous instances where nations that engaged in habitual hatred or fondness towards others faced dire consequences and experienced a form of subjugation. Hitler's and Mussolini's intense animosity resulted in their countries falling under the dominance of major powers. Similarly, Germany and Japan's excessive affection led to the devastating nuclear destruction of two major cities in Japan. Likewise, the perpetual enmity between India and Pakistan pushed both nations back by a century. The habitual animosity of Russia towards the USA led to the disintegration of the USSR. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein's animosity and the Taliban regime's hostility towards the USA resulted in the self-destruction of their own nations. Numerous examples exist worldwide that validate Washington's viewpoint. Conversely, states that pursued interest-based foreign policy witnessed a significant rise in their nations like China, America, Singapore, and the list goes on.

 

International relations are always founded on the principle of pursuing national interest rather than being driven by emotions. Allowing emotions to influence international relations and foreign policy can have detrimental effects on a nation's development and sustainability in the global arena. States that prioritize their national interest in international relations and foreign policy tend to thrive, whereas those whose foreign policy is guided by emotions often witness a decline in their country's standing. Former British Prime Minister Henry Palmerstone once stated, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and it is our duty to follow those interests." This sentiment was echoed by Henry Kissinger, who remarked, "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests." Any state in the world that acts in accordance with its interests rather than being driven by emotions has achieved success on the global stage. Conversely, states that allow emotions to dictate their actions have never found success in the international arena. Therefore, in the realm of international relations, it is crucial to restrain emotions and prioritize national interests; otherwise, a nation may become trapped in a cycle of animosity or affection, ultimately leading to its downfall.

 

A state's reliance on emotions in policymaking leads it down a path of subjugation, as emotions are influenced by two dominant forces: hatred and love. The enduring nature of these emotions exacerbates the situation, as a state that indulges in unwavering love or hatred towards another state becomes partially enslaved. If a state is perpetually infatuated with another state, it will unquestioningly obey that state's commands because love inherently requires sacrifice. Consequently, such a state might comply with orders or requests from its beloved counterpart that are highly detrimental to its own national interests, thereby compromising its sovereignty. The principle of love also rejects the involvement of third parties, leading a loving state to form alliances only with a select few like-minded states. A similar dynamic applies to hatred. When a state harbors unyielding hatred towards another state, it invests all its energy into denigrating that state. Meanwhile, the rest of the world progresses, while these states remain fixated on each other's downfall. In their animosity, such states forsake mutual benefits. Therefore, an emotion-driven foreign policy based on love and hatred always undermines the fundamental interests of states.

 

Conversely, a foreign policy based on national interests consistently achieves success under all circumstances. This is due to the enduring nature of these interests. A state can only truly stand on its own when it successfully pursues its national interest objectives. Throughout history, it is evident that no state has ever achieved success solely through the benevolence of another state, but rather through its own endeavors. By centering its foreign policy on national interests, a state avoids developing lasting affection or animosity towards others, thus preventing itself from falling into subjugation. A state that excludes emotions from its foreign policy cannot be manipulated by another state to gain unfair advantages through unjust interference. When a state remains free from undue external interference, it can be regarded as a true independent state. Conversely, a state that permits emotional considerations to dictate its foreign policy is to some extent enslaved. Therefore, a state can only be deemed independent if it maintains an autonomous foreign policy driven by its national interests.

 

In conclusion, when it comes to international affairs, a nation must exercise caution and deliberate extensively before making decisions. This is because foreign policy holds the responsibility for both the success and decline of a nation. If a nation's foreign policy is driven by its interests, it will propel the state toward its zenith. Conversely, a policy driven by emotions will lead the nation toward its demise. Historical evidence demonstrates that nations with interest-based foreign policies have achieved global prominence, whereas those driven by emotions have suffered defeat. An interest-based foreign policy paves the way for a nation to become a global power, while an emotion-driven policy inevitably leads to subjugation. The choice between becoming a global power or succumbing to enslavement ultimately lies in the hands of each individual state.

Kamran Khan Advocate

kamranlucky210@gmail.com