Should nations put the interests of the world community ahead of purely national interests? At first glance this proposition is likely to sound admirable but perhaps nanve. However, the question may also lead us to consider where nations' long-term interests lie. Small, weak nations certainly have an interest in a peaceful world community, in which more powerful nations will not threaten or oppress them. Even large, powerful nations, however, may well find it in their own long-term interest to put world interests first.
Let us consider two great thinkers on power politics and strategy who have rarely been accused of looking at the world through rose-colored glasses. One is the classical Chinese military theorist Sun Tzu, who lived around the 4th century BCE. The other is the Renaissance Italian political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli, whose name has become synonymous with political ruthlessness. Neither of these thinkers had any concept of a world community, but both perceived a practical value to cooperative relationships, in the form of alliances or a broad support base.
In an international conflict, Sun Tzu regards the best strategy as forestalling the enemy in a way that renders war unnecessary. The second best is to "attack alliances" (Sun Tzu 3). It is clear that Sun Tzu does not mean attacking the enemy's allies, which could only draw them more strongly into a war in which they might otherwise give the enemy only token support. Instead, he means that a good strategist seeks to peel off the enemy's allies, denying him their support.
Sun Tsu also writes that "if you do not compete for alliances anywhere, do not foster authority anywhere, but just extend your personal influence, threatening opponents, this makes town and country vulnerable" (13). That is, bullying and blustering tactics unsurprisingly create enemies rather than allies; those who use such tactics often end up finding themselves isolated...