When I was in Iran, sometimes in 1987 during early stage of New Year of that year (Iranic peoples around the world celebrate New Year on first day of spring), I went to the Behesht Zahra cemetery in Tehran with my father to pay our respect to his mother. We witnessed a funeral service that a middle aged woman who was crying out-loud and was restless, and could not control her emotions. My father and I overheard heard from others that her sons were killed during Iran and Iraq War. This mother wanted to hug her lifeless bodies, and took them to her home to celebrate their birthdays. She did not want to leave them behind. There was a man in that service who was standing motionless in that area. He was in a state of total disbelief that was unfolding before his eyes. He was looking at three motionless bodies on the ground. This man approached the restless woman, and asked her to clam down. Obviously, he was father of those sons. My father and I walked away from that scene. I did not want my father to experience as that parents did. Thus, I was not interested to go to war.
Reading Erwin Rommel’s “Infantry Attacks” book by Manfred Rommel, he gives a chilling account about his war experience at the time of World War Two. Soldiers are charging at each other with one intention in their minds. To murder one another without faith and mercy. They have forgotten that they are humans and have responsibility to one another and care for one another. The scene of a combat can be felt like this. Comrade watches comrade in pain of death, and they are powerless to provide care for another, if a soldier drops his gun to care for another one, he too will parish by in-coming bullets or bayonet. Once, one military force prevail against another military force, the soldiers are rushing at domestic environment to respond to their savage feelings by killing livestock. Now, the soldiers are looking anything to entertain them like unprotected individuals, in this case women and children are easy target. Women and children are running around to seek safe haven from harms way. This is the power and glory of victory in a war. The nature of war has changed and will never change. This is idea that the war among nations or civil wars are destroying nations, and must come to a total stop, it is not a new idea. It goes back to dawn of history that there were individuals that they oppose wars. It was at the time of Enlightenment Movement that there are idealistic scholars that they formulate doctrine to prevent wars among nations. The leading scholar is Dr. Immanuel Kant who published “Perpetual Peace” and asserted six articles in order to have perpetual peace among nations. In article one, he nullified the notion of war among nations,1 and asserts that a truce is not the same as peace.2 Peace came, when rulers began to use reason and logic to resolve their differences among each other.3 In article two, he defined a nation as a society of embodiment of humans that these nations around the world eventually will tie knots with one another.4 Thus, it is wasteful of a nation to allocate such valuable resources toward wars against each other.5 In article three, he discussed the political science term of political realism that nations are building strong army as a deterrent measure against one another.6 He asserts that the above measure would not reduce hostility among nations or prevent wars among nations. In fact, the above military measurement would lead to some form of war among nations.7 Plus, it would cost substantial amount of resources to maintain such image for security of a nation.8 In article four, he recommends for the nations not to have debt9 “must be a preliminary article for perpetual peace, for eventual yet unavoidable national bankruptcy must entangle many innocent nations, and that would clearly injure them. Consequently, other nations are justified in allying themselves against such a nation and its pretensions.”10 In article five, Mr. Kant recommended no nation not to interfere in domestic affairs of another nation,11 when a central government is dealing with a civil war.12 When a foreign nation interfere in the domestic affair of another nation, this action is undermines the security of that nation. The final article is a discussion of the notion of the mutual trust among nations. It is difficult to develop a system of trust among nations.13 They are always suspicious about one another that one nation is contemplating to invade that nation.14 . As a result, nations remain at the state of nature,15 and no war is unjust.16 Interestingly, only the winner of the war can declared that the war was unjust,17 and acted in a good faith to defend itself against unjust war.18 . The above school of thinking began to shape other scholars in the area of building peace like Wilson Woodrow, Lord Bryce, Jan Smuts as well as other thinkers began to develop an international relation of liberalism by establishing League of Nations in 1920 to prevent World War One. However, the vision of the above scholars succumbed to the vehement of the war mongers. The above vision did not vanish from the surface of the earth. There were other visionary individuals that they pursued the Liberal doctrine, and established the United Nations in 1945. The aim of this paper is to discuss the six articles of Dr. Kant’s to implement perpetual peace in the world, discussing how the US poses security threat to the world, and proving for fact that the US political apparatus as an oligarchy system.
This portion of the paper is discussing the six articles of Dr. Kant’s as a measure to implement perpetual peace in the world. Dr. Kant asserted that the world need to come to a point that war is not an option to resolve differences among nations. Thus, it was the most wasteful of manner to allocate scare resources to solve problems. One way to avoid wars among nations, it would be beneficial not to interfere in domestic affairs of other nations. The above articles are valuable notions to follow in order to prevent wars among nations. It needs to be mentioned that nations wage war against one another due to wealth. For example, in 1980, former president of Iraq, Mr. Saddam Hussein launched military strike in the oil rich of Iran. His military did not invade the part of Iran that did not have oil. Once, Mr. Hussein was defeated from Iran. He annexed Kuwait for a brief period due to its limited natural resource of oil. The above historical account opened the Pandora box for the US foreign policy of expansion in the Middle East. The Saudi Arabia asked the US to deploy its army to its country to push back Iraqi forces from Kuwait so Saudi’s national sovereignty would not be threaten by the Iraqi forces. The US did as the Saudi asked for. The above US military invention did not go so well with other Muslims in the region like Osama Bin Laden, who was fighting the US proxy war in Afghanistan against the Red army of former Soviet Union. Mr. Bin Laden was a pious Muslim man. He believed Islamic doctrine prohibited a non – Muslim person to walk on holy land of the Saudi Arabia. Thus, the US army had to evacuate the region forthwith. He also believed that the Iraq invasion of Kuwait was a matter between Muslims to be resolved. The situation between the East and West began to follow the path of destruction. Mr. Bin Laden was meeting western reporters in Afghanistan or Pakistan and he was giving them interviews that how God was on his side, and one day the Islam will prevail in the west. He uttered statements that they caused serious concern among ordinary individuals. He was talking about death and destruction. He was not talking about resolve differences among nations until September 11th, 2001 came and the US found itself in the middle of mayhem as what appeared terrorists were blowing up buildings in the US. The US used this occasion and declared war against Afghanistan for harboring terrorism. The US forces drilled Afghanistan within a short time frame. Eventually, Mr. Bin Laden was killed by the US Special Forces.
Mr. Hussein was identified by the US intelligent service for developing weapon of mass destruction, and this matter must top. What the world needs to know that the US supplied Iraq during 1983 by Donald Rumsfeld with weapon of mass destruction to drop on Iranian armies.19 The US contributed to the Iran and Iraq War, and made benefit from it.
Coming to the focal point of this portion of the paper that Mr. Hussein claimed he did not own weapon of mass destruction. The US interpreted the article 51 of the United Nations in this light that the US was facing terrorist attack from Iraq. Thus, it was justifiable for the US to attack at Iraq, and liberate Iraqi peoples from tyrannical regime of Mr. Hussein. The US also claim that Iraq peoples would have democracy and freedom.
On March 23rd, 2003 the US invaded Iraq, and the Bath Party of Mr. Hussein collapsed. When Mr. Hussein’s regime collapsed, it contributed to the power vacuum. The other factions that they were deprived for a long time from political life, they used violence against each other to control political realm of Iraq. The turmoil in Iraq escalated, and led to sectarian violence among Iraqi peoples. To this day, Iraqi people have not seen a day of peace.
This portion of the paper is discussing how the US poses security threat to the world. In the 1996, Dr. Samuel Huntington developed the Clash of Civilization theory.20 In his theory he asserts that in the post Cold War era, nations would engage in military strikes against each other based on past fault lines or past grievances.21 One of his prominent ideas encompasses current affairs of the White House that the West and the East clash with one another because of the history of colonization, and how the Western powers colonized the Eastern nations. Hence, the Eastern nations will respond to the past injustices that they endured at the hands of the Western powers. There is some truth in what he says that the past political affairs are preventing the Western nations from building a peace bridge with the Eastern nations.
In the year 2000, the New American Century think–tank organization drafted a manifesto called “Rebuilding America’s Defense.” This document took an assertive position for upcoming years of the US in the global stage to play the role of the global constable by toppling regimes in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. This policy of the US took in effect. This US Foreign policy, after September 11th, 2001 when the twin towers in New York City were brought down by two airplanes, and the Pentagon was struck by an airplane. The above act catalyzed the US foreign policy of expansion around the world.
As a result of the War on Terror, it has caused the Western nations to be afraid of Muslims that they are here in the west to harm them. Dr. Fuller asserts that Muslims around the world are not one nation or a kingdom.22 The faith of Islam is not a homogeneous one.23 There is deep diversity in the faith of Islam.24 It divided into two sects. Sunni (means traditionalist that those individuals adherent to this faith, they are following the path of Muhammad who elected Abu Bakr as his successor, and not Ali his cousin) Sect and Shia (means minority. There is a claim that Muhammad elected Ali as his successor because Ali was his cousin) Sect. Each sect divides into different school of thoughts. Furthermore, Dr. Fuller proves his claim by referring to the time, when Tsar Aleksandr Nevsky reigned as monarch of Russia, and Tatars as well as Mongols were trying to invade Russia. In this historical moment of trial and tribulation. Muslims took side of Russia, and fought back with other Muslims to preserve national integrity of Russia.25 Dr. Fuller asserts that current Islam, and the West dilemma is stemming from the US’s foreign policy “as it may be to American ears, the Byzantine scholars Vasilios Markrides at the University of Erfurt argues that “anti – Westernism reached its peak in the violent anti – American attacks of the 11th September 2001 in the United States. These forms of anti – Westernism are mostly the direct corollary of the Western political, economic and cultural expansion across the world in modern times in the wake of imperialism and colonialism.”26 Thus, it is important to follow Immanuel Kant’s doctrine to have a global peace to avoid wars among nations.
This portion of the paper is proving for fact that the US political apparatus as an oligarchy system. The US is continuously violating article five of Perpetual Peace Theory that no nation to interfere in domestic affair of other nations. Since, World War Two, the US is assuming that it has prerogative right to have the global leadership position with prime intention of envision the world that suits its agenda best. The Vietnam War is the prime example that how the US engaged in a war with Vietnam under banner of freedom. In fact, the war in the Vietnam was not about freedom. This was a proxy war between Russia and US. The former Soviet Union was providing military aid to North Vietnamese to fight off the US force in the south of Vietnam. Eventually, the US lost the war to the North Vietnamese. Dr. Ron Dart from the University of the Fraser Valley asserts that the US involvement in the Vietnam as a form of terrorism.27 In addition, “fragmented opposition defeat Meciar in 1998; in Serbia, U.S. and European assistance helped level the playing field by financing independent media, opposition activities’ salaries, and a massive get – out – the – vote campaign … US officials help unify anti – Sandinista forces, select a presidential candidate, and run a national election campaign.”28 Simply, it can be said that the world is moving in the direction of the US agenda under slogan of freedom.
Dr. John McCormick in his book “Machiavellian Democracy” uses Machiavelli’s insightful information about human psychology, as well as, two different types of political systems, one is democracy, and last one is a republic system. According to Machiavelli the above system will start off as will of people. However, eventually, these systems will lead to an oligarchy system. The bedrock of Machiavelli’s claim that the above system will be transformed from will of people to an oligarchy system, it stems from public that plebs opinion shift from one moment to another moment29 “for favoring an individual one day, and then condemning him for another; for pledging allegiance to a prince one minute and then cheering for liberty next.”30 Machiavelli explains that a democracy is about popular will of people that they put their trust in hands of aristocrats as well as the elites.31 As a result, the aristocrats and the elites will act in their self – interest and not what public wants and needs.
Machiavelli places institutions in his political theory to prevent a system from moving from a popular government to an oligarchy.32 However, there are political actors that they shift public opinion from one point to another point by using the notion of liberty. This is the area that Machiavelli has concern with.
Dr. Jeffrey A. Winters in his book “Oligarchy” explains that there are four types of oligarchy systems. One, warring oligarchy, two, ruling oligarchy three, sultanistic oligarchy, and last, civil oligarchy.33 One reason that an oligarch system emerges, it is as an result of power vacuum in a political system. Dr. Winters uses African nations to illustrates his point that how warlords are in conflict with each other to gain power in order to establish their own regime. Once, one warlords is able to hold on power, he begins to use violence to remain in power. Dr. Winters also discusses Suharto’s regime and Marcus regime in Philippine that they are having similar resemblance for their formation. Suharto toppled an establishment by means of a military coup, and formed a junta government. He took control over means of economy as well as its security. It contributed to economic stagnation of the nation. Eventually, his regime collapsed under economic pressure. In case of Marcus, he assassinated head of state, and formed a junta government. He too controlled Philippine’s means of economy and security system. His regime was toppled due to economic factors. Only handful of individuals were enjoying from luxury lifestyle while others were deprived from basic necessity of life. The US domestic policy is not any different than the above nations. Dr. Winters explains that the “Oligarchy is focused specifically on the political struggles related to wealth defense. In the U.S. Context, as elsewhere … the central question is whether and how the wealthiest citizens deploy unique and concentrated power resources to defend their unique minority interests.”34 The author further claims that the US system in the US is complex to understand, and easily manipulated by lawyers so that their clients to avoid paying taxes to the government.35 Dr. Winters research indicates that the 90% at the bottom of social stratification make four times less than top 10% of the population.36 Therefore, the US domestic policy has its own problems, and cannot claim that other nations are despising it because of its democracy. The US should not act as a champion of human rights since 90% of population is living in some sort of poverty.
Dr. Steven Levitsky is a pro – US foreign policy around the world. He explains that the NATO military intervention in Kosovo cost $30 to $40 billion dollars damage to the economy.37 It needs to be mentioned that this nation is still at stage of developing nation. The US version of democracy has done no good to this nation to prosper. There are other nations that the US military intervention have left them destitute.
In conclusion, the US domestic system is a civil oligarchy. It should not hold a mega phone, and tells others that it wants to impose its system to them. Obviously, these military interventions are costly for two reason. The US taxpayers are paying their government to drop bombs on other nations in the name of democracy. This military intervention does not do any good, in fact, it is destroying infrastructure of nations. Last, there is human cost and brain-drain a nation faces as a result of war.
It needs to be mentioned that this democracy system is nothing but an illusion for people. Dr. Robert Dahl in his book “Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition” says that a democracy system responds to people’s needs to be elected to office. Once, politicians are in office, they develop public policies to control public or they have enforcement bodies to control public in order to submit to will of state.
1Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 107.
2Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 107.
3Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 107.
4Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 108.
5Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 108.
6Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 108.
7Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 108.
8Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 108.
9Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 109.
10Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 109.
11Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 109.
12Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 109.
13Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 109.
14Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 109.
15Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 110.
16Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 110.
17Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 110.
18Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing company, 1983. 110.
20Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order. Printed in the US: Simon & Schuster, 2011.
21Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order. Printed in the US: Simon & Schuster, 2011.
22Fuller, Graham. A World without Islam. New York, New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2010. 174.
23Fuller, Graham. A World without Islam. New York, New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2010.
24Fuller, Graham. A World without Islam. New York, New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2010.
25Fuller, Graham. A World without Islam. New York, New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2010. 156.
26Fuller, Graham. A World without Islam. New York, New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2010. 156.
27Dart, Ron. Keepers of the Flame: Canadian Red Toryism. Print in Canada: Fermentation Press Inc., 2012. 26.
28Levitsky, Steven, Lucan Way. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. New York, NY: Cambridge University, 2010. 49.
29McCormick, John. Machiavellian Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011.76.
30McCormick, John. Machiavellian Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011.76.
31McCormick, John. Machiavellian Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011.78.
32McCormick, John. Machiavellian Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011.107.
33Winters, Jeffrey .Oligarchy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
34Winters, Jeffrey .Oligarchy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 211.
35Winters, Jeffrey .Oligarchy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 214.
36Winters, Jeffrey .Oligarchy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 214.
37Levitsky, Steven, Lucan Way. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 109.