The themes and arguments present in "Perpetual Peace" are those that exude transcendental idealism. The most interesting aspect of Perpetual Peace is that peace is attainable only if every rational actor does not participate in state sponsored violence. In effect, in his article Kant states that standing armies shall in time be totally abolished. How does this play out in the context of history and the current events today?
Although the world is immersed in armed conflict, with the idea of peace being very distant, is it still possible to achieve peace? With MAD and other nuclear treaties, it becomes difficult to conceive peace as being attainable. Prior to Kant's discourse it was suggested that the post-colonial world would produce some kind of peaceful equilibrium but with World War I followed by World War II an entire new dimension of warfare was established. The type of warfare which the world has witnessed somehow makes the Democratic Peace theory seem very idealistic.
What makes Democracies in general more conducive to peace making and why is it that we cannot apply this theory to any of the modern day events? Some would say that countries like the US and UK will never go to war but the US and Iraq will. Current events suggest that those countries exercising hegemony will go to war with those states that they can exploit. This ties in well with Samuel Huntington's argument regarding the Core and Periphery, which brings in the dependency theory, to suggest that a Core and Core will not war but a Core and Periphery will.
More over, the practical application of Kant's theory suggests that the more democracies there are in a region, the more peace there will be. The collusion of democracies will enable peace and this was evident when the capitalist bloc and the communist bloc very aggressively participated in the Cold War.
Although the world is immersed in armed conflict, with the idea of peace being very distant, is it still possible to achieve peace? With MAD and other nuclear treaties, it becomes difficult to conceive peace as being attainable. Prior to Kant's discourse it was suggested that the post-colonial world would produce some kind of peaceful equilibrium but with World War I followed by World War II an entire new dimension of warfare was established. The type of warfare which the world has witnessed somehow makes the Democratic Peace theory seem very idealistic.
What makes Democracies in general more conducive to peace making and why is it that we cannot apply this theory to any of the modern day events? Some would say that countries like the US and UK will never go to war but the US and Iraq will. Current events suggest that those countries exercising hegemony will go to war with those states that they can exploit. This ties in well with Samuel Huntington's argument regarding the Core and Periphery, which brings in the dependency theory, to suggest that a Core and Core will not war but a Core and Periphery will.
More over, the practical application of Kant's theory suggests that the more democracies there are in a region, the more peace there will be. The collusion of democracies will enable peace and this was evident when the capitalist bloc and the communist bloc very aggressively participated in the Cold War.
Okay post. One point of clarification though. You say Huntington when you actually mean Wallerstein.
ReplyDeleteAnd you never answer your question from your title.