Militarism and Perpetual Peace - Research Paper Example

Militarism and Perpetual Peace Topic1: In light of Mesaros' article "Militarism and the Coming Wars," discuss whether perpetual peace demands a fundamental change in the nature of the economic system, a change that Kant himself did not envision. Militarism is the method whereby the government or people are interested in becoming a nation with strong military capability. It can be defined as aggressiveness that uses the military force (Liebeknecht, 2007). Several nations in history like Sparta, the Kingdom of Prussia, the British Empire, the Empire of Japan and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic haveinfluence on the militarism. Militarism implies the allergic missions or many revolutions. It has the important and early manifestations of the life of most social orders. Class considerations would be necessary. Armament plays an important role in social struggles. Poor socio-economic status does not prevent a nation from securing arms. Economic evolution runs parallel with the devlopment of arms (Liebeknecht, 2007). The expenditure on the makingof the arms is growing higher due to the sophistication of weapons used. When the production of arms is universal, the manufacture of the guns have been accordingly changed. History has shown the significance in the power of the Greeks, Romans where the hierarchy was completely military. The influence of the external political situation on militarism was especially evident in the German Wars of Liberation (Liebeknecht, 2007). Militarism has been recognized as a significant factor in policy making since the nineteenth century (Meszaros, 2007). The evolution of modern imperialism was becoming evident on a global scale. The British and the French were having vast empires at that period of time and the United States were beginning invasions in Latin America. Philippines was also involved in a liberations process assisted by the Americans. The First and the Second World Wars were caused by the ambitious Bismarck and Hitler who were running after more than what they could handle. The calamities were caused by the selfish intentions of two individuals and the techniques of using militarism for political solutions. What could have been solved by the deep-seated thinking without resorting to militarism was mishandled by the militaristic Viewpoints (Meszaros, 2007). The scale of issues became wide and the discussion was based on the militaristic power rather than the actual issues. There were horrific wars in the 12th century and the pattern continued into the form of the World Wars. The relationship between politics and war was especially studied by Clausewitz and the findings and viewpoints appeared in his book Vom Kriege which was released posthumously. The definition of “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” is found in the book (Vom Kriege, 1933). However with time, this definition has lost its significance. Politics was till then considered to be a continuation of one war into the other. Defeat did not mean that the war was irrational. It just saw one leading to the other and then after some quiet, another war would start. It happened to be a continuous process (Meszaros, 2007). In recent times, it has been viewed differently. The state at war is described as to whether it is in the state of world domination and has its own political design of globalization for deciding winnability solutions. The destruction of human beings seems to occur frequently. The powerful nation has a tendency to impose itself on the weaker nations. The war would be a limited one. The present situation in war is that powerful nations acquire modern facilities and equipment in order to annihilate the enemy (Meszaros, 2007). However it turns out that the effect is on the whole of humanity. The strategies of using lethal weapons as a means of controlling the less powerful nation are legitimate by the standards of today’s world. War in these days is not winnable anymore. The plans devised look somewhat like Hitler’s plan which has so many critics. In fact there are comments which say that Hitler’s plans were more rational than today’s plans (Meszaros, 2007). The world wide terrorism found a victim in the US on September 11th, 2001. Preventive wars have been the policy of the US. Many such wars are planned and the military venture in Afghanistan is just one of a series. Oil reserves have made the US ally with Iraq but the relationship turned sour. US is considered as a dominant force. It has been described as pursuing a global hegemonic imperialism. Meszaros’ book was written much before the September 11th attack (Meszaros, 2007). Using gunboat diplomacy or the nuclear threat to scare off enemies through the nuclear threat blackmail is an open policy of the US policy makers. One should remember that it was the Americans who first used the atomic bomb in Japan. They are the leaders of global hegemonic imperialism. Other nations which are becoming powerful are just clinging onto America’s strings. Aiming for monopoly and sidelining other competitors leads to imperialism. Global integration is one aspect of imperialism which causes the growth of economic capital. The second aspect is that in spite of the efforts, the capital that is expected to accumulate does not. The US-dominated global integration which is now dominating the world, may collapse in the face of tough competition. The US policies are believed to be made for the American citizens while denying the same rights to other citizens (Meszaros, 2007).. The military –industrial complex was earlier prophesied by Rosa Luxembourg as growing significantly as an independent factor. She believed that capital accumulation was dependent on this complex. By her book, “The Accumulation of capital”, this capital would decide on the growing significance of the militarist production (Meszaros, 2007). She said that capital controlled the movement of the militarist through the legislature and the press activities which deliver public opinion. Widespread expansion is possible through the capitalist accumulation (Meszaros, 2007).Changes in the economic systems in a nation allow the growth of capital which influences the military and industrial complex and leads to perpetual peace. Kant had not envisioned this aspect of the peace. Capitalism helps to develop a special kind of militarism. Topic 2: Consider to what extent the United Nations as currently organized represents a fulfillment of Kant's conception in Perpetual Peace of an international federation of states under the rule of law. In relation to this, also consider why the UN has failed to put an end to war. The United Nations This is an international organization which aims to solicit cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social change, human rights and achieving world peace and friendliness between the nations in the world. It was formed in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries. The organization can take actions on any nation in it. Peacekeeping, peacebuilding, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance are some of the best functions. Sustainable development, environment protection, refugee protection, disaster relief and counter-terrorism are just some of the fundamental issues it works upon. After World War I, Kant proposed a Federation or League of Nationswhich would allow nations to unite and whereby nations would be punished by a common law. Any nation which indulged in aggression would be punished (Kant, 2003). This union is called collective security. Kant also believed that the smaller nations which were pawns in the hands of the larger nations in their power struggles could be protected under this league. Kant’s ideas were behind the formation of the League of nations. All nations joined the League. Howeever the US prominently stayed away. Another disadvantage was that a consensus was necessary for action against a member nation. If one nation stayed away, action could not be taken. In 1942, US, UK, Soviet Union and China established the United Nations (Kant, 2003). Peace treaties are made between nations in the hope that war is stopped. However once too often this agreement does not halt the hostilities between the two. The treaty serves just to postpone the actual fighting. The peaceful situation may not even last for a short duration. Perpetual peace may be a misnomer as far as treaties are concerned. The inclusion of definite clauses may help to allay the fears of a repeated war. Perhaps this is why Kant suggested the inclusion of the following clause: "No Treaty of Peace Shall Be Held Valid in Which There Is Tacitly Reserved Matter for a Future War” (Immanuel Kant, 1795). Ensuring that all aspects of the disparities are considered is another significant problem in a treaty (Kant, 2003). The objectives of both nations must be discussed well and meeting points seen. The points of friction should not be left to fester and worsen the situation. Whatever is agreed upon should not leave a bad taste in the mouth. The procedure needs to be fairly transparent for all to see and should have included any specific reasons for the discord. The terms of the treaty should never create a problem for disharmony for the citizens. A state cannot be passed onto another for ‘safekeeping”. It is not merely some land. The citizens who have feelings, moral behavior, culture and ethnicity of their own cannot tolerate being dominated by another nation or people or a new set of rules. Nobody has the right to command people of another land. The differences in the society should be held sacred. "No Independent States, Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of Another State by Inheritance, Exchange, Purchase, or Donation"(Kant, 1975). These words amply convey the point. Europe is known to have the system whereby one nation lends its forces to neighboring nations for fighting an enemy not common to both. Domains have been extended through this method. The aim of perpetual peace however may not be possible through this manner of impinging on the rights of the weaker of the two nations. Kant has a clear view of peace which he believes would be necessary for a prolonged duration of it. Sadly the people also get mishandled in the process. Armies should never be given the duty standing guard over ordinary civilians in the weaker nation in times of peace (Kant, 2003). These armed men may start the pangs of war at the slightest notion. Their training keeps them alert for all altercations as if they are part of war. These standing armies must be taken off as soon as possible as they may change the atmosphere of conflicts. Being prepared to jump into war-like situations as soon as incited may not be appreciable for a journey to peace. Some people may be encouraged to utilize the presence of the army to settle their scores. These standing armies must be terminated as a time-bound programme. Citizens may be disturbed by the presence of the standing army. Kant’s suggestion which advises the abolishing of the standing armies is a useful one (Kant, 2003). "Standing Armies (miles perpetuus) Shall in Time Be Totally Abolished" Many untoward incidents may be prevented and local people may regain the confidence of a peaceful nation. Money may be the main power behind a successful nation. Neighboring nations may perceive the growth fearfully. However never knowing the real extent of the money power is a manner of preventing attacks. Seeking aid for the purpose of local economic improvement needs to be done in a transparent manner. Suspicion should not be invoked leading to more friction. It is easy to understand Kant who considers the credit system to be a highly dangerous method of solving present financial requirements but which can rise to disproportions. The one advantage is that the credit need not be paid up together (Kant, 2003). The need for perpetual peace can be satisfied only if this kind of credit system is not heavily leant upon. Abolishing the credit system could prevent the nations from unnecessarily finding fault with each other. This clause is included as such: "National Debts Shall Not Be Contracted with a View to the External Friction of States When two nations have some agreement between them, conflicts are bound to occur due to interference in internal affairs; the stronger of the two should not find occasion for the two to disagree. The nations dislike the interference. Kant’s suggestion rightly provides the direction. "No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State". The state into which the other has encroached in order to help must be left free to handle its’ own internal issues (Kant, 2003). This must not be taken as a situation whereby the smaller nations’ rights are impinged upon. Even if the smaller nation is in a state of anarchy, interference may be resented. This would be offensive and make many similar nations inadequate and insecure. "No State Shall, during War, Permit Such Acts of Hostility Which Would Make Mutual Confidence in the Subsequent Peace Impossible: Such Are the Employment of Assassins (percussores), Poisoners (venefici), Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to Treason (perduellio) in the Opposing State” States must be allowed to adopt honorable strategies. The nations must be trust-worthy even in war. If the attitude maintained is not right, it may cause a war for extermination of the other nation. Definite rules must be selected for the implementation of a safe and nonviolent atmosphere. Though an international court can decide the conflicts between the two, there is no master-servant relationship here. There is only a decision but no punishment as the possible punishment could be war. A war would only end with extermination of a whole community of people. If perpetual peace is the objective, it is only going to be possible following a good part of the human race being dead and buried (Kant, 2003). Spying has been considered a vile practice which could extend into the days of peace. The wrong-doings of others are investigated. These activities have been included in laws as strict rules and prohibitive rules; the strict rules are to be executed promptly while the prohibitive rules imply restrictions. Freedom of the states is to be cherished. Three definitive articles have been mentioned for the perpetual peace. The impression that war is the natural state gives room for thought (Kant, 2003). It refers to the unceasing threat of war. The first definitive article states that "The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican" The belief is that the republican pattern is the best form of judicial legislation. This is established “by the principles of the freedom of the members of a society, by principles of dependence of all upon a single common legislation and by the law of their equality”. The republican form of government is considered as the basis of civil constitution. The question arises as to whether there is any other form of government which could establish perpetual peace. “The republican constitution is considered to be a pure source of the concept of law” (Kant, 1975). The consent of the citizens in consenting to a war is sought in the process. The costs of the war, the confusion and the calamities involved are enough reason for avoiding a war. In kingdoms, there was a priority for the king to decide on a war for the flimsiest of reasons. Sovereignty is evident as autocracy, aristocracy or democracy. The republican constitution is the background for perpetual peace. A declaration of war is the usual decision in a non-republican constitution. In a democracy, everyone wants to be master. If the number of representatives of the government is small, the more the resemblance to the republican form of government (Kant, 2003). Without the republican mode, the government would be democratic. The second definitive article for a perpetual peace "The Law of Nations Shall be founded on a Federation of Free States" says that conflicts and fighting cannot be likened to the lawless freedom of savages. Rules have to be condoned with a lawful restraint. Americans have been eaten by their enemies while the Europeans are never eaten. Many philosophers have opined that war is justified: Hugo Grotius, Pufendorf and Vattel. Many have the idea that the weaker nation is to abide by the wishes of the stronger one. The nations settle their differences through war (Kant, 2003). If peace is attempted between them, war is stopped for some time till one of the two breaks some agreement. Then war would be resumed. The supreme legislating authority decides the moves to be taken by the member nations. The treaty of peace ends only the specific war while the league of peace ends all wars. In these decisions the rights of both nations are taken into consideration. If men feel they can achieve perpetual peace through war, they opt for war. Lawless men who have no rules or laws should give up their lawless ways and strive to adjust to the constraints of public law. This would result in a growing state. The third definitive article for perpetual peace is "The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality". This means that persons who have arrived from other nations are treated hospitably (Kant, 2003). They may peacefully occupy their new positions and may not be treated with hostility. A person who travels to another nation may not demand a right to stay. However he may be allowed to stay according to the laws of the new nation. All visitors have the right of temporary sojourn. In a nutshell, no person had more right to a place on the earth originally. When nations were identified, rights were determined. Many areas of the earth are areas with no specific laws and this causes incidents of pirates attacking ships in the Barbary Coast. The inhospitability of the inhabitants of the Barbary Coast and the inhabitants of the deserts form just a few of the issues of international concern. Most of the inhospitability is towards foreign travelers who are just passing through. Having a universal law which maintains the law of hospitability to all travelers is necessary (Kant, 2003). References: Kant, I. and Humphrey, T. (2003), To perpetual peace: a philosophical sketch, Translated by Ted Humphrey Published by Hackett Publishing, 2003 Kant, I. (1795) Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch Libeknecht, K. (2007) Militarism By Published by READ BOOKS, 2007 Meszaros, I. (2007). Socialism or Barbarism: From the "American Century" to the Crossroads, Published by Aakar Books, 2007 Read More