Taken as a whole, Kant’s theory can be explained in three phases. First, there is an incorporation of the selfish and power hungry 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.” Second, Kant believed the new moral state would become disgusted by the violence and war in the international system. Third, 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.
Immanuel Kant contends:
A true system of politics cannot…take a single step without first paying tribute to morality. And although politics is in itself a difficult art, no art is required to combine it with morality. For as soon as the two come into conflict, morality can cut through the knot which politics cannot unite.
The quote exemplifies Kant’s and the United Nation’s belief in the unification of morality and politics. They believe the empirical evidence of the maturation of reasoning beings from barbaric beings gives promise to his belief: man can progress, by way of reason, from the sinning individual to a moral state and to a further extent, a moral community of states. Men create 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 characterize the development of a moral society is transparent in the creation of a moral international system that Kant visioned.
The United Nations attempts to uphold these same beliefs. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 1, the United Nations writes: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” The United Nations establishes its argument on the same premises as Immanuel Kant. Reason for the United Nations, like Kant, drives man to the “spirit of brotherhood.” Furthermore, there is constant reiteration of Kantian concepts dealing with the freedoms and liberties of man. Throughout the document, the United Nations make several references to the “freedom of opinion,” freedom of conscience,” and “freedom of association” while also advocating no discrimination. When examined literally, the freedoms seem misplaced in a Kantian theory. However, when Kant calls for an original contract in society and focuses on the principles of freedom and equality, he is speaking broadly; the United Nations specifies details that will create the broad principles Kant discusses.
The United Nations, like Kant, intertwines the reason of the human being with the reason of the state. The United Nations writes in the Human development report of 2000: “the world community needs to return to the audacious vision of those who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Fundamentally, the United Nations wrote a document, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, to be equally applied to citizens and states respectively. The United Nations, like Kant, assumes the principles and the duties expected of citizens in the “original contract” of the state should be expected of the states in the international system. In 1945, there was an “original contract” between states to create a cooperative body of states; thus, the United Nations was created. Kofi Annan, making a plea for a multilateral response to Iraq, stated:
“When states decide to use force, not in self-defense but to deal with border threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations Security Council. States and peoples around the world attach fundamental importance to such legitimacy, and to the international rule of law.”
Kofi Annan reiterates the United Nations confidence in state cooperation in the international system. Despite the Iraqi regime’s attack on the Kurds in the 1980s and their constant torture of dissidents and their relatives, countries in the United Nations, like Russia and France, were confident peaceful disarmament among other agreements could be accomplished with Iraq. Hans Blix explains France, Germany, and Russia “declared in a memorandum to the president of the Security Council that the priority should be to achieve the full and effective disarmament of Iraq peacefully.” The Bush administration, wrapping themselves in the realist concept of national interest, did not share the same confidence in the international system or as it seems, the United Nations. Therefore, the United Nations and its idealist thought is extensively criticized by realist thought and accordingly, the Bush administration.
Max Weber, a realist thinker, would be highly critical of these idealist 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 in “Politics as a Vocation,” Max Weber 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 receives what in the power struggle. As Weber further writes: “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.” Weber basically asserts 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 and the United Nation’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 will be satisfied.
The Bush administration continually asserts peace in the Middle East is in the interest of the United States and the Middle East. Iraqi and Al Qaeda fundamentalists among other world leaders constantly characterize the United States efforts for peace as a disguise for world hegemony. Furthermore, many fundamentalists want and are willing to fight for an Islamic republic in every state in the Middle East. The Bush administration refuses to concede to this idea. The Bush administration constantly reiterates that there is a problem of competing interests. In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress in reference to Al Qaeda, President Bush stated: “They stand against us, because we stand in their way.” Thus, adopting a Weberian thought, the Bush administration asserts one interest must win; therefore, the Bush administration constantly reasserts their peace efforts will overcome the violent resistance.
The realist argument is furthered by Weber’s discussion of the ethic of ultimate ends which indirectly criticizes and disproves idealists’ 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. 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 violence is annihilated.” 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 Bush administration attempts to adapt this Weberian thought in their defense for the Iraq war. The Bush administration has been under criticism for wrapping itself in national security because many critics have alluded to the Iraq war as nothing more than a war over ideology or war over oil control. The administration maintains, referencing Weber’s idea of responsibility, it will not sit idly to an evil dictatorship; the administration claims it will not watch humans be killed. President Bush told the world March 17, 2003 in his ultimatum to Iraq:
“We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.”
President Bush recognizes the possibility of a larger threat developing in the future. Assuming the consequential reasoning, the administration disregarded the morality of upholding state sovereignty and authorized a preemptive attack on Iraq.
Another realist thinker, Hans Morgenthau, would likely criticize the idealist view of international politics upholding realist thoughts to their basic nature. For Morgenthau and other realists, the 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 state interest. Hans Morgenthau presents another dimension to the Weber rebuttal. Weber claims state interests plague the state’s ability to cooperate with other states. Morgenthau compliments this thought by adding the expectation of the state as a deontological and moral device ignores the state’s accumulation of interest-driven human beings.
The Bush administration claims fundamentalist organizations are seeking power and share little concern for peace. As a result, the administration continues to attack states harboring terrorists. Despite terrorism and its reliance on civilian population, the Bush administration continually emphasizes the terrorist state, like Iraq and Syria, which they claim harbor these terrorists. President Bush, speaking to the American public on the Afghanistan threat stated:
“The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime. It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.”
President Bush, staying within realist theory, removes the civilian aspect of terrorism and emphasizes the responsibility of the state in relation to terrorism. Like Morgenthau and Weber, the administration indirectly recognizes the state as the main actor in international relations.
Mainly in reference to earlier decades of American foreign policy, Morgenthau further argues legalism and utopianism were flaws in international policy. Morgenthau’s examination of the United States failure of legalism is best characterized by America’s ignorant belief that legal obedience would occur in the international system of states. For example, the belief that the League of Nations would receive full obedience from states is an exaggeration that legalism will completely exist in international politics. As history progressed, the League of Nations did not last. Smith writes in reference to the American utopianism, 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 up until the end of the war. Morgenthau’s argument was basically “peace is only respite from trouble.”
The United States blatantly ignored the United Nation‘s call for more inspections claiming the United Nations was being too passive. In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, President Bush stated:
“My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.”
President Bush indicated the United States would take a stance of noncompliance to the United Nations to ensure its national security. Therefore, the United States represents the supposed failure of legalism Morgenthau discusses. The United State was not willing to give Saddam Hussein another chance for inspections. Hans Blix writes: “President Bush was cited in the same report [New York Times February 18 report] as having scornfully referred to giving Saddam Hussein ’another, ’nother, ’nother last chance.’” The United States becomes the state disregarding obedience to the United Nations and the state working for its own interest--removal of Saddam Hussein. Conversely, the United States continues to believe the idealist idea that peace is achievable. The Bush administration believes the coalition is capable of achieving peace in Iraq and beyond. Despite the Bush administration’s idealist optimism of peace or utopianism, they continued to adhere to a realist world by ignoring the United Nations and operating according to their own state interest.
The writings of Immanuel Kant, Max Weber, and Hans Morgenthau cover several different periods in history. These writers never had the chance to debate each other in an open forum, like the American public. Nevertheless, the United Nations and the United States have created a contemporary debate of idealism and realism over Iraq and other issues. Furthermore, this contemporary debate does not seem to have an end in the near future. With Syria and Iran at the top of the list, the Bush administration appears poised to evoke the state interest of national security to remove any tyrant leader or regime posing any form of a threat. Despite assertions that the post-September 11 era requires a reexamination of international politics, a debate dating back centuries, idealism versus realism, remains the accurate frame in which international politics is discussed.
Recognizing which thought one supports presents many problems. Supporting idealism, one must be prepared to explain why many groups, like the Rwandan Hutus, Al Qaeda, and the Bush administration have difficulties finding peaceful settlements for disputes. In addition, one must also be prepared to explain why many human rights are disregarded within many states. On the other hand supporting realism, one must be prepared to explain why the United Nations has lasted this long. Also, one must be prepared to explain why intergovernmental organizations like the World Trade Union (W.T.O.), European Union, and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (N.A.T.O.) have experienced great success. Consequently, an examination of the international system may still leave a person wondering about the pros and cons of each.
Narrowing the issue to national security, which is ultimately the foundation to the Bush administration’s realist argument, may make for a less problematic discussion. When someone or something poses a threat to a state’s security, what is the state entitled to do and not to do? Should the United States do as Victor Hanson has claimed failed: “Turn the other cheek and say, ‘What’s a few American volunteers killed in Lebanon or the Sudan when the stock market is booming and Starbucks is sprouting up everywhere?” Or should the United States do what the Bush administration ultimately did and attack the threat? These types of questions should guide the international debate on terrorism.
WORKS CITED
Blix, Hans. Disarming Iraq. New York: Pantheon Books, 2004.
Bush, George W. “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People.” Speech (September 20, 2001). White House Press Release.
Bush, George W. “Bush: ‘Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours.’” Speech (March 17, 2003). Quoted on CNN.com
Bush, George W. “President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat.” Speech (October 7, 2002). White House Press Release
Bush, George W. “President‘s Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly.” Speech (September 12, 2002). White House Press Release.
Hanson, Victor Davis. Between War and Peace. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2004.
Human Development Report 2000. United Nations.
Kant, Immanuel. Kant‘s Political Writings. Translated by H. B. Nisbet and edited by Hans Reiss. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961.
Smith, Michael J. Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger. Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press, 1986.
Weber, Max. Essays in Sociology. Translated. by Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. NY: Oxford University Press, 1946.
Immanuel Kant, Kant‘s Political Writings, trans by H. B. Nisbet and edited by Hans Reiss (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 87-90.
Human Development Report 2000, United Nations, 14.
Hans Blix, Disarming Iraq (New York: Pantheon Books, 2004), 171.
Max Weber, Essays in Sociology, trans. by Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (NY: Oxford University Press, 1946), 1.
Michael J. Smith, Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger (Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press, 1986), 24.
George W. Bush, “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People,” Speech (September 20, 2001): White House Press Release.
George W. Bush, “Bush: ‘Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours,’” Speech (March 17, 2003): quoted on CNN.com.
Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), 5-6.
George W. Bush, “President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat,” Speech (October 7, 2002): White House Press Release.
George W. Bush, “President‘s Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly,” Speech (September 12, 2002): White House Press Release.
Victor Hanson, Between War And Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks), 64.