Session 15 - Kant is the Winner!

According to Schumpeter’s notion of liberal pacifism, imperialist wars are aimless and take place for three reasons: the combined impact of the war machine, warlike tendencies and export monopolism. He believes that only a combination of capitalism and democracy will result in the elimination of imperialism and onset of peace in the world. Schumpeter claims that capitalist democracy brings with itself rationalised individuals who demand democratic governance and oppose war. His theory can be criticised on two grounds. 

Firstly, imperialist wars are not necessarily aimless. The simple desire to attain the status of a world super power is in itself an objective of fighting large scale wars. Secondly, this theory is inapplicable to the one country in the world which takes pride in holding itself as one of the most democratic states in the world – USA. A classic example of how capitalist democracies do not necessarily foster the growth of peace is that of USA’s extreme interventionist policies in the world ever since the end of its isolationist policies in the 20^th century. As Doyle also argues, USA claims to be a capitalist democracy and while there is no doubt that its people demand democratic governance, it has also taken the lead in instigating wars in nearly every part of the world. The proxy wars fought during the Cold War and the ongoing War on Terror are examples of how the USA has bared the high costs of war under the pretense that it is fighting for peace. Furthermore, his belief that states have warlike tendencies is a very realist line of thought. It is not necessary that democracy and capitalism will lead to the creation of highly rationalist individuals along with the total elimination of war like dispositions.

Machiavelli’s liberal imperialism seems like the missing puzzle peace to the offensive realist school of thought.  On the outset, both theories overlap because they believe that ‘we are lovers of glory... Because other states with similar states thereby threaten us, we prepare ourselves for expansion’. While realism largely does not account for internal, domestic workings of a state, liberal imperialism appears to complete the jigsaw puzzle by discussing how equality, liberty and the populations’ desire for strength within a state can influence its foreign policies – ultimately leading to war.

The clear winner, in my opinion, was Kant’s liberal internationalism. While Kant’s theory does not consider the possible obstacles of non-compliance, cheating, role of non – state actors such as terrorist groups, miscalculation and misjudgement of others’ intentions even within liberal institutions, his theory comes across as both, descriptive and prescriptive. Firstly, it effectively describes how liberal states group together and maintain peaceful relations whereas there is hostility with non liberal states. This holds true in the post World War Two context. The USA and USSR were only allies towards the end of the Second World War due to the presence of a common, extremely hostile enemy – Hitler. However, with the end of war, began heightened suspicions between USSR and the West. The non – liberal, communist nature of the USSR was a major reason behind the increasing tensions. Secondly, Kant prescribes three articles through which perpetual peace can be attained. In his opinion, the formation of republics and federations can result in peace.

Finally, Kant’s liberalist ideologies deserve credit for bringing optimism to the international relations arena. I enjoyed the way he portrayed peace as the possible outcome from the countless lessons learnt from wars. His belief, that we are ‘rational devils’, gives hope to a world which often seems to be governed by selfish, cruel people and where peace often seems like a completely unattainable and impossible end.