The first time I read Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace two years ago in Western Political Philosophy course, I felt that he was the only thinker we have studied so far who still makes sense even in today's world and still feel the same about him after taking this course. He may have have been born in antediluvian times, during the 17th century, but his beliefs and theories certainly have not grown outdated. They are valid in international relations of today only if the representatives of the superpowers like the US can take at least some time out for reading his amazing work. In my view, one of the best arguments that he has made is about signing only those peace treaties that are free from all sort of reservations. This is a powerful argument that he makes in favour of ending wars and securing perpetual peace on the grounds of "liberal internationalism" (Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed's slides). If stipulations about waging or validating possible future wars are added to a treaty, then that would be a truce and not a treaty. Peace treaties implore parties to outlaw wars for good if they are serious about solving their disputes.
Another argument which I feel is valid today is to respect one state's sovereignty and constitution. Kant has strongly forbidden any state, irrespective of its size, from violating the sovereignty of others and interfering in their internal matters. Is there any possibility of Kant arising from the comfort of his grave and haunting the White House one day just to make the US responsible for destabilizing and leaving negative impression on the states by intervening n their internal matters, disrespecting their constitutions and sovereignty for no valid reason. Iraq for instance which was once a strong and stable state was left to rot by the US. Baghdad which was once a learning center and welcomed scholars from all over the world is now like a battleground.
Kant has also raised his voice against the states having standing armies. Standing armies are perfect means for threatening other states which they in turn enter into competition to arm themselves. Such a competition inflicts a huge burden on the resources of the states. I believe India and Pakistan is a very relevant example of this. Both countries allocate nearly half of their total resources in their military budgets just to defend themselves from each other. It is a huge burden for one country's resources for stationing soldiers at Siachen Glacier.
Kant's idea of a federation of free states has contributed to the formation of European Union! "Just as a civil contract establishes peace among individuals, guaranteeing their person and their rights, so must an international contract (charter) be agreed among nations to accept one another's existence and other related rights as a free people" (Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed's slides). States can be encouraged to join a federation of free states, like European countries for example.
Immanuel Kant may have died thousands of years ago but he is the only thinker in my view whose ideas are still very much valid today in international relations. Long live Kant!
Another argument which I feel is valid today is to respect one state's sovereignty and constitution. Kant has strongly forbidden any state, irrespective of its size, from violating the sovereignty of others and interfering in their internal matters. Is there any possibility of Kant arising from the comfort of his grave and haunting the White House one day just to make the US responsible for destabilizing and leaving negative impression on the states by intervening n their internal matters, disrespecting their constitutions and sovereignty for no valid reason. Iraq for instance which was once a strong and stable state was left to rot by the US. Baghdad which was once a learning center and welcomed scholars from all over the world is now like a battleground.
Kant has also raised his voice against the states having standing armies. Standing armies are perfect means for threatening other states which they in turn enter into competition to arm themselves. Such a competition inflicts a huge burden on the resources of the states. I believe India and Pakistan is a very relevant example of this. Both countries allocate nearly half of their total resources in their military budgets just to defend themselves from each other. It is a huge burden for one country's resources for stationing soldiers at Siachen Glacier.
Kant's idea of a federation of free states has contributed to the formation of European Union! "Just as a civil contract establishes peace among individuals, guaranteeing their person and their rights, so must an international contract (charter) be agreed among nations to accept one another's existence and other related rights as a free people" (Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed's slides). States can be encouraged to join a federation of free states, like European countries for example.
Immanuel Kant may have died thousands of years ago but he is the only thinker in my view whose ideas are still very much valid today in international relations. Long live Kant!
There have been rumors that the white house is haunted by the ghosts of previous presidents. Kant can join them but I doubt it will work. Unfortunately idealism is too easily dismissed now.
ReplyDeleteInteresting argument in favor of Kant. However, you make two anachronisms: 1) Kant was born in the 18th century; 2) he did not live "thousands of years ago".
ReplyDelete