Is Prioritizing “National Interest” Our Only Option?
Abstract
This essay questions whether prioritizing “national interest” is truly the only option in contemporary international politics.
The modern notion of interest, rooted in meanings such as benefit, concern, and profit, tends to justify a logic of maximizing advantage — often at the cost of others. This logic underlies both nationalism and capitalism, and ultimately legitimizes a structure of domination in which the strong prevail over the weak.
In contrast, the Arabic concept of maṣlaḥa, derived from the root ṣalaḥa (to be right, good, and virtuous), is fundamentally opposed to corruption (fasād). It represents not merely benefit, but a normative orientation toward rectifying corruption and realizing justice. Related concepts such as ṣulḥ (reconciliation) further point to an alternative vision of international relations grounded in peace rather than competition.
From this perspective, Islamic legal thought even articulates al-maṣlaḥa al-ʿāmma — the common good of humanity — which extends beyond the framework of national interest toward a global ethical horizon.
By contrasting interest and maṣlaḥa, this essay argues that the dominance of national-interest discourse reflects not necessity but a conceptual limitation. It calls for a reorientation toward a more inclusive vision of human welfare grounded in the elimination of corruption and the pursuit of reconciliation.
A Great and Strong Nation, A Strong and Prosperous Nation
Behind the strong stand the weak, and behind the rich stand the poor.
The strong can remain strong only because the weak exist, and the rich remain rich because they continue to search for new poor and consume them.
On this planet called Earth, for a single nation to become strong and prosperous necessarily means producing weak and poor people. And if several nations compete for that position, it is only natural that conflict and the sacrifice of innocent people will never cease on this planet.
The price of one nation’s ambition for greatness is the lives and livelihoods of countless people who are either drawn into it or targeted by it. What else can this be called if not absurdity?
And yet, unbelievably, there are political leaders who engage in this impossible struggle — or align themselves with it — and incite people as if this illusion were self-evident justice. And there are also the masses who support them.
Even though the Earth has long been crying out in pain.
National Interest in the Constitution of Japan
What is “national interest”?
For the Japanese government, it can be summarized as “protecting the lives, bodies, and property of the people, and maintaining and developing the sovereignty, independence, and peace of the state.”
However, what deserves close attention is that the concrete content of national interest can be determined by each administration at any given time [1].
In other words, national interest has an aspect that directly reflects the intentions of those in power. For example, if a prime minister believes that aligning closely with the United States is in the national interest, then that becomes the case. This exposure of national interest to the arbitrariness of rulers is not unique to this country.
There is another point that should be clearly noted. The term “national interest” does not appear in the text of the Constitution of Japan. While the Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to pursue happiness, it does not declare as a national principle the creation of a strong and prosperous state.
Rather than pursuing national interest, protecting the fundamental human rights of each individual is the principle that must never be shaken.
“Interest” and “Maṣlaḥa”
This introduction has become somewhat long, but I would like to consider the source of the unease that arises whenever the words “national interest” or “prioritizing national interest” are repeatedly invoked, by contrasting them with Arabic.
In English, national interest is expressed as national interest. Not only in English but also in other Western languages, translating these two words yields the equivalent of “national interest” in each language.
Etymologically, interest means “that which is between (inter) and exists (esse)” [2]. From this, meanings such as curiosity, concern, benefit, advantage, interest (as in finance), and profit emerge.
In contrast, in Arabic, national interest is expressed as maṣlaḥa waṭaniyya (مصلحة وطنية).
Maṣlaḥa (مصلحة) corresponds to “benefit,” and waṭaniyya modifies it as an adjective derived from waṭan (وطن), which denotes a territorial entity [3].
There is neither an etymological connection nor a translational continuity between interest and maṣlaḥa. The latter is a distinct Arabic term that also appears in the Qurʾān.
“Ṣalaḥa” as Justice
This may become somewhat technical, but let us also examine the Arabic from the perspective of its root.
The word maṣlaḥa can be understood as a derivative of ṣalaḥa (صلح). Its basic meaning is “to be right, to be good, to be virtuous” [4].
In the foundations of Islamic legal theory, it is often translated as “welfare,” but it can also be translated as “justice” [5]. However, the term “justice” itself is highly polysemous in Arabic, and it is necessary to discern what kind of justice is meant.
A major clue lies in the fact that ṣalaḥa is the opposite of “corruption” (fasād) [6].
To confront corruption, to correct it, and to remove it — this constitutes the core of the justice expressed by ṣalaḥa. The form maṣlaḥa represents the means or the field in which that justice is realized.
The Self-Justification of Corruption
The Qurʾān also refers to those who engage in corruption. These are people who, in front of others, say that they believe in God and the Last Day, yet in reality deny the true believers and affirm only themselves, as if afflicted with a sickness in their hearts. For them awaits the punishment of Hell [7].
In this world, however, when they are told not to spread corruption on the earth, they respond:
“We are only trying to bring about reform.”
But are they not, in fact, continuing to spread corruption? And yet they do not perceive it (Qurʾān, al-Baqara 2:11–12).
In reality, do not the leaders who actively continue wars today carry suspicions of corruption, bribery, and opaque financial dealings? They are eager to justify themselves by saying, “We are fighting to eliminate corruption,” yet they cannot recognize that this very justification is itself corruption.
They have placed themselves in the position of God; therefore, they cannot possibly become aware of it.
The Maximization of “Interest”
One of the derivatives of ṣalaḥa is ṣulḥ (صلح), which means “reconciliation.” It signifies making peace, reconciling with one another, and building a state of peace.
In Islamic international law, the world is often initially divided into dār al-islām (دار الإسلام) and dār al-ḥarb (دار الحرب) [8]. Between them, however, there exists a realm where peace is maintained, called dār al-ṣulḥ (دار الصلح).
This “in-between” is not a space for uncovering and, if necessary, seizing interests. Rather, it is an “in-between” where conflict is halted through reconciliation.
And yet, does not reality unfold in a way that makes the very existence of the word “reconciliation” seem empty?
The highest leaders of states, along with their key figures, are openly and unhesitatingly assassinated. This is nothing other than the pursuit of self-serving interests.
What follows is a chain of retaliation and hatred — an endless escalation, like an immune system’s allergic reaction running out of control. Those who lack awareness that they are spreading corruption incite this process, making it all the more unmanageable.
In any case, there is nothing here that resembles the rightness, goodness, or virtue associated with ṣalaḥa.
Muslims themselves have been overtaken by this corruption of “maximizing interest,” forgetting both being ṣāliḥ [9] and reconciliation as ṣulḥ, as the situation approaches what appears to be a third world war.
Maṣlaḥa as the Benefit of Humanity
In Iran, as well as in the Gulf monarchies such as Saudi Arabia across the Persian Gulf, all are supposed to be Muslims. Yet they are incited or manipulated by external forces, and the exchange of attacks on oil and gas production facilities across the Gulf does not cease.
This region, which should embody and practice maṣlaḥa, is in this condition.
Under such circumstances, it is extremely difficult to realize the justice that the Qurʾān originally commands: “to eliminate corruption and to advance reconciliation in order to establish peace.”
Nevertheless, it remains significant that there exists an alternative to the notion of national interest defined as overlooking corruption, strengthening military power, and building a strong and prosperous state. That alternative is presented as maṣlaḥa.
In the teleology of Islamic law, there is even the concept of al-maṣlaḥa al-ʿāmma (المصلحة العامة) [10], which expands this idea of national interest into the benefit of all humanity, including well-being in the Hereafter.
To repeat, it is the idea of extending the elimination of corruption and mutual reconciliation — at least in this world — on a planetary scale. Its scope goes beyond that of the current international legal order, and it may serve as a model for realizing the welfare of humanity as a whole.
A Light in an Age of Ignorance
The existence of a word suggests the possibility that it may one day be realized. In this sense, one of the frameworks closest to this spirit may be found in the values embodied in the Constitution of Japan:
“respect for the individual” (Article 13), “popular sovereignty,” and “pacifism.”
It places the dignity of individuals above national interest, renounces war, and does not maintain armed forces. It rejects the use of military force in resolving international disputes. Rather than an often arbitrary notion of national interest, it emphasizes the dignity and fundamental human rights of each individual.
From the perspective of realizing al-maṣlaḥa al-ʿāmma, we must refrain from the folly of denying the historical significance of this constitution.
To believe that only we can become a great, strong, and prosperous nation — what kind of harm does such a belief spread across the Earth?
In a doctrine of national interest based solely on “interest,” there is no language of reconciliation, no effort toward peace, and no respect for human dignity. It is a theory of gain driven by the arrogance of those who display overwhelming violence, deprive others of their voice, and force them to submit to money and power.
Allāhu aʿlam (God knows best).
Footnotes
[1] For example, in the Takaichi–Trump meeting on November 28, 2025, the following statements were made:
“I will restore a strong Japanese diplomacy in order to firmly protect our national interest. I would also like to advance cooperation between Japan and the United States toward the development of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific,” and “I would like to create a new golden age of the Japan–U.S. alliance with President Trump.”
While such statements in summit meetings do not require approval by the Diet, the involvement of the Diet is, in principle, required when they are concretized as foreign or security policy. In practice, however, there exists a structure in which the direction is first presented through such statements, and institutions subsequently follow. This indicates that deviations from the will of the people may occur in the name of national interest. This is one reason why discourse on national interest cannot escape arbitrariness.
(Nikkei, “Prime Minister Takaichi Meets Trump: ‘We Want to Create a New Golden Age of Japan–U.S. Relations,’” October 28, 2025)
[2] See Michio Inoura, “The Etymology of ‘Interest’ — An English Word in Finance and Economics.”
[3] The Arabic term waṭan denotes territoriality. In contrast, qawm expresses a sense of peoplehood or ethnicity. From an Arabic perspective, a nation-state may be understood as being constituted through the overlap of waṭan and qawm.
[4] Lisān al-ʿArab, entry on ṣalaḥa.
[5] For example: ʿadl (justice/fairness), maʿrūf (recognized good), birr (piety), khayr (good), ḥaqq (truth/right).
[6] Lisān al-ʿArab, entry on ṣalaḥa.
[7] Qurʾān, al-Baqara 2:8–10.
[8] On the basic structure of Islamic international law (siyar), including dār al-islām and dār al-ḥarb, see the author’s “International Law within Dār al-Islām” (1991).
[9] The active participle of the verb ṣalaḥa is ṣāliḥ. In the Qurʾān, it appears as the name of a prophet sent to the people of ʿĀd. Those who disobeyed God and hamstrung the she-camel were struck by an earthquake and lay prostrate in their homes (Qurʾān, al-Aʿrāf 7:75–78).
[10] On al-maṣlaḥa al-ʿāmma, see the author’s works:
“Islamic Civil Society and the Concept of the ‘Public’” (2009), and “Legal Discovery and the Teleology of Law in Islam” (2003).
Special Thanks to: ChatGPT
Title Image:
Atomic cloud over Hiroshima - NARA 542192 - Edit.jpg, via WikiMediaCommons
Acknowledgements
This English version was prepared with the support of ChatGPT.
The author gratefully acknowledges its assistance in translation and linguistic clarification.