Kant's theory of international relations.

        Taken as a whole, Kant’s theory can be explained in three phases. There was an incorporation of the selfish and power hungry individual human being into a moral, equality and freedom promoting, collective society establishing the new civil society, or state.  He writes, “just like individual men, they [the states] must renounce their savage and lawless freedom, adapt themselves to public coercive laws, and thus form an international state, which would grow until it embraced all people of the earth.”  Thus, Kant believed the new moral state would become disgusted by the violence and war in the international system.   Thirdly, the moral states within the system would develop a system of security and peace by way of a cooperative understanding that, for Kant, would be understood as a “cosmopolitan constitution.”  Underlying these phases is Kant’s belief in man’s capacity to reason from one phase to the next.

        Thus, Immanuel Kant’s confidence in this particular line, “although politics is in itself a difficult art, no art is required to combine it with morality,” stems from Kant’s belief that morality and politics ultimately will unite.  The passage, in relation to Kant’s whole approach to international relations and the states, is representative of complex understanding that man would reason politically and morally to the creation of the lawful state, and the states would reason politically and morally to peaceful and lawful international system of states.  Man creates a state that is arranged to put their “self-seeking energies” against each other, thereby neutralizing any damaging effects of the rest.  The a priori principles are the basis to the laws of this state.  As Kant writes, “the problem of setting up a state can be solved even by a nation of devils (so long as they possess understanding).”  The “understanding” for Kant is a moral understanding that the a priori principles must be upheld for all men.  Thus, the creation of the moral state is the unity of  politics and morality.  There is the politics of self-interest neutralization and the moral understanding that man’s freedom as well as the other a priori principles must be upheld.  As this civil society develops from the man’s fear of losing their freedom among the “self-seeking energies” of the anarchic state, the moral international system develops from the fear of violence and war in anarchic international system.  Nevertheless, the same unity of morality and politics that characterizes the development of a moral society is transparent in the creation of a moral international system that Kant visioned.

        Max Weber would be highly critical of Kant’s thoughts.  Weber expresses the state as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”  Furthermore, Michael Smith, quoting Weber’s “Politics as a Vocation,” writes: “the state is considered the sole source of the “right” to use force.  Hence “politics” for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power either among states or among groups within a state.”  Weber believed that there was not a system of cooperative states but rather a continuous discussion of “politics” in the international system, which simply translates as a discussion of who recieves what in the power struggle.  As Smith further quotes Weber: “When a question is said to be a ‘political’ question… what is always meant is that interests in the distribution, maintenance, or transfer of power are decisive for answering the question and determining the decision.”  As Weber alludes to in this quote, the politics of the international system is not a discussion for peace but rather an argument  over whose interests will be satisfied.  Hence, for Weber, Kant’s vision of the cooperative and cosmopolitan constitution established among the states would be incomprehensible in an anarchic system of states whose politics is fundamentally whose interests wins.

        Weber’s discussion of the ethic of ultimate ends indirectly criticizes and disproves Immanuel Kant’s belief in the moral underpinning of a cooperative international system of states.  The ethic of ultimate ends is an ethical standard for leaders that requires them to take on a deontological view of decision-making in international relations.  According to this understanding of ethics, a leader will not veer from his moral principles to achieve his interests.  Weber concludes that this ethic is irrational.  As Weber writes, “those, for example, who have just preached ‘love against violence’ now call for the use of force for the last violent deed, which would then lead to a state of affairs in which an violence is annihilated.”  Thus, for Weber, the ethic of ultimate ends fails under the pressures of the international system and ultimately, under the pressures of the ethic of responsibility.  The ethic of responsibility is fundamentally characterized as the ability to take the responsibility for the consequences of your actions whether they are bad or good.  Consequently, if a leader is to take responsibility, he will undertake a stance of consequential reasoning toward making decisions because he will ultimately have to report back to the constituents that uphold his power.

        The ethnic of ultimate ends is representative of the moral state in Kant’s theory.  Thus, for Kant, the state’s leadership makes decisions based on their moral principles.  In line with the ethnic of ultimate ends, the state’s leadership will follow this same assessment of decisions.  However, as Weber concludes, this standard of ethics is irrational and fails.  As a result, Weber would have criticized Kant’s confidence in the creation of a moral state.

        E. H. Carr would offer very similar argument against Immanuel Kant.  Carr argues that “the illusion that priority can be given to power and that morality will follow is just as dangerous as the illusion that priority can be given to moral authority and that power will follow.”   Carr believed morality, if apparent in international relations was simply a façade.  “Supporters of the League [League of Nations] did so out of national interest but proclaimed their support in universal terms.”  Carr regarded the morality claims in international relations as insincere and an attempt to portray an image satisfying to other states.  Furthermore, the state’s façade of morality could position the state as the more moral state and possibly more powerful.  States are more likely to adhere to a more moral state with the belief that the state’s morality will not allow it to cross their sovereignty..

        Carr claims economic power cannot and should not be separated from  political power.  According to Carr, economic power is a piece of the political power a state maintains.  The interests of the state are achieved through various methods which very often will incorporate a state’s economic power.  For example, the military will need weapons to achieve their interests in another state; therefore, the military’s need for weapons will undertake usage of a state’s economic power.  Hence, power remains omnipresent in every aspect of the state, or civil society.  For all intents and purposes, Carr believed power was “omnipresent and inescapable.”  In view of that, we can assume Carr would criticize Kant for incorporating morality into international politics because the idea ignores the power struggle that is always absent of moral consideration.

        Another realist author that must be considered in criticizing Kant’s theory is Reinhold Niebuhr.  Niebuhr’s study of pride and its effect on interaction in international politics would be the basis to his criticism of Kant.  Niebuhr was a theologian who wrote on the connection of morality and international politics.  Niebuhr defined man as having a dual nature: a “capacity for self-transcendence” that enables man to confront “the restraints of both reason and nature; this capacity is the source of man’s creativity as well as his sin.”  Niebuhr focuses on the sin of pride which is expressed by human beings in three apparent ways: pride of knowledge, pride of virtue or self-righteousness, and pride of power.

        Pride of power, is the criticism that Reinhold Niebuhr would have offered to Kant.  “The quest for security can never be satisfied: the more power we accrue in the attempt to guarantee our security, the more we fear losing all power and security.” The quest for power is a continual escalation of worries and a continual desire to obtain power for the individual.  Additionally, for Niebuhr, as Michael Smith writes:

        “the sin of collective pride is the same as the sin of individual pride--it denies the         contingent and determinate character of its own existence.  It differs in the         degree of plausibility attached to its pretensions; because of this ‘collective         egotism and group pride are a more pregnant source of injustice than purely         individual pride.’”

Basically, Niebuhr claims that this individual pride of power is accentuated by joining the state.  Moreover, the insecurity in the individual is ever more transparent and stronger in the state.  Thus, very similar to Carr, the state as a collective body is very much continually searching to expand their power.  Fundamentally, Niebuhr argument criticizes the moral collectivity that Kant saw the state developing.  Niebuhr would not support the state as developing into a moral collectivity of human beings but rather would argue that the sin of human nature would be further brought out by the collectivity of human beings.

        Hans Morgenthau would likely criticize  Immanuel Kant’s view of international politics upholding realist thoughts to their basic nature.  Lust for power and selfishness characterizes human nature.  Moreover, the nature of human beings cannot be changed no matter which way the state or international system of states is organized.  The state is transparent of the individual in the state.  The state basically works for the achievement of its national interests as the human being does within the state. Morgenthau argues that the state is simply the main actor in international relations.  For that reason, international politics is a struggle for power and satisfaction of one’s national interest.  

        Morgenthau  argues, mainly in reference to the American foreign policy, there is three flaws in international politics: utopianism, legalism, and neoisolationism.  Smith writes, throughout the World War II, “Americans believed that the Grand Alliance could continue after its conclusion and that it would be possible to transcend power politics and enjoy permanent peace.”  However, as Morgenthau shows, the alliance remained intact until the end of the war. Morgenthau’s argument was basically “peace  is only respite from trouble.”  Morgenthau’s examination of the United States failure of legalism is best characterized by America’s ignorant belief that legal obedience would occur in this international system of states.  For example, the belief the United Nations would recieve full obedience from states is a exaggeration that legalism will completely exist in international politics.  However, as history progressed, the League of Nations did not last.  The last failure is neoisolationism.  Morgenthau argues neoisolationism leads state leadership to believe it can handle all the issues in international politics on its terms.  Morgenthau examination of the United States foreign policy during the Cold War/ Nuclear Age presents the arguments that continual attempt at peace will be a continual failure, strikingly contrasting Kant’s view of international politics.  During this period, there was continual nuclear escalation and civil wars, not peace.

        An examination of realist thinkers and their possible criticisms to Kant compels me to completely disregard Immanuel Kant’s theory as a strong examination of international politics.  Kant exaggerates the ability of the human beings to develop a moral state, otherwise transforming human nature.   Furthermore, Kant basically is too idealist.  He views the system of international politics not as what it is but rather as what it should be.  His optimism should be appreciated but ultimately ignored when discussing the current state of international politics.

        Hans Morgenthau presents the most persuasive argument because he incorporates the strong points of Max Weber, E. H. Carr, and Reinhold Niebuhr.  Morgenthau’s examination of the failures in the United States foreign policy concludes, similar to Weber examination of ultimate ends, that following morality as the main basis for decision making becomes irrational.  This assessment is fair and persuasive if you examine the current system of states.  For example, if peace was the key principle for countries, war would disappear but it remains present.  Morgenthau recognizes the continual struggle for power, that E. H. Carr and Niebuhr emphasize is ever omnipresent in international politics.  Morgenthau’s conclusion that the state cannot transform the nature of the human being is a fair assessment because the current system of states includes states characterized by irrational and immoral leaders like the recently dethroned Taliban.  

        Lastly, Morgenthau’s argument is most persuasive when studying his theory in the context of recent history, particularly the Cold War.  Morgenthau’s examination of the Soviet’s alliance of states and United States’ alliance of states presented a bipolarity and balance of power very absent in international politics.  These alliances were created as security to the states in this system.  Appropriately, these alliances only reaffirm the belief that the security and struggle for power is key to international politics.  Morgenthau’s argument is persuasive because it can be applied to the international politics of today.

---