China's New Diplomacy Since the Mid 90

8/13/2019 China's New Diplomacy Since the Mid 90

1/100


2/100

EXECUTIVE EDITOR__________ MANAGING EDITOR______________________

Dr. Thomas J. Ward Dave Benjamin

EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD___ LAYOUT & COPY EDITOR_________________

Dr. Stephen Healey Arielle CaronDr. Meg ZayanDr. Mark SettonDr. Tarek Sobh PUBLICATIONS COORDINATOR_Dr. Chunjuan Nancy Wei

Guljana Torikai

SUBMISSIONS ___________________________________________________________

COMMENTARY, ARTICLES, MISCELLANY, BOOK REVIEWSThe Journal welcomes manuscripts for consideration. Guidelines for submissions are as follows:

1. Footnotes: end of MS, as notes.2. Avoid abbreviations.3. Be consistent in ALL respects.4. Polish entire MS very carefully.5. Abstract for article: stress training, positions, publications. Third person.6. Include color jpeg file photo of self.

Send Articles, Commentary, and Book Reviews via:Email (preferred): [email protected]

By post to: International College126 Park Avenue, Bridgeport, CT 06604

2009 by the International College of the University of Bridgeport; 225 Myrtle Avenue; Bridgeport, CT06604. All rights reserved. No part of this online publication may be reproduced without written permis-

sion from the publisher. The views expressed are solely those of individual authors.

Journal of Global Development and Peace


3/100

Table of Contents

Foreword i

ImmanuelKantsPerpetual Peace: The New World Order of Critical Philosophy. 4Claude Perrottet, Ph.D.

Education for Sustainable Development and Human Security.. 34Jessada Salathong

From Collective to Human Security: Development and Peace in the 21stCentury 44Dr. Dave O. Benjamin

Chinas New Diplomacy Since the Mid-1990sRationale, reactions, and significance. 57Dr. Zhiqun Zhu

On Shame, Rage and the Middle Eastern Conflict.. 73Dr. Richard L. Rubenstein

Book Reviews

On: Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West(Harper Collins, 2008) by Benazir Bhutto. 89

Dr. Thomas J. Ward


4/100


It is both with trepidation and a modest sense of accomplishment that we present thisfirst edition of The Journal of Global Development & Peacefor your consideration. This jour-

nal is meant to serve as a catalyst to expand research on the multifaceted themes relatedto peace and development. Recognition of the importance of this topic as well as therelationship between development and peace took on new relevance at the conclusion ofthe Cold War. Under the leadership of United Nations Secretary Boutros Boutros-Ghali,the first Post Cold War UN Secretary General, the worlds most respected internationalorganization outlined itsAgenda for Peace(1992) and itsAgenda for Development(1994). IntheAgenda for Peace, the Secretary General Ghali noted that peace and development areinterdependent.1

An appreciation for the resonance between peace and development clearly precedes theconclusion of the Cold War. In the Post World War II era, the United States and its al-lies felt compelled to devise and provide support for development strategies in Europeand in Asia that would allow key allies to become models of political and economic suc-cess and achievement. Countries such as Japan and Germany were to serve as exemplarsand concrete alternatives to the Marxist-Leninist option that established hegemony incentral and Eastern Europe and in much of Northeast Asia, shortly after the conclusionof the Second World War. Walt Rostow, who had served as an American intelligenceofficer during the Second World War, lectured on his formula to move from underdevel-opment to development while at Cambridge in the late 1950s. This led to Rostows Stagesof Economic DevelopmentA Non-Communist Manifesto(1960) that was one of the key textsto inform U.S-supported development programs during much of the Cold War period.

Vladimir Lenin, chief architect of the Soviet Union, elaborated on the tie between devel-opment and peace in the Parasitism and the Decay of Capitalism chapter of his Imperial-ismThe Highest Stage of Capitalism(1916). Lenin cited Hobson who argued that an un-derclass (including the working class) could be lulled into indifference toward the ex-ploitative nature of capitalism because imperialism made it possible to enrich its ruling

i

Foreword

Dr. Thomas J Ward

Foreword

Thomas J. Ward


5/100

class and to bribe its lower classes into acquiescence.2 Neither Lenin nor Rostow appre-ciated the limitations of measuring progress through the prism of economic develop-ment. The tragic incidents of war, famine and genocide of this century and the century

past remind us that finding a proper voice where the concerns of the worlds cultures,religions and ethnicities can be registered must factor more heavily in the developmentequation.

According to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), human developmentcan be resumed in a series of fundamentals:

The most basic capabilities for human development are to lead long andhealthy lives, to be knowledgeable, to have access to the resources neededfor a decent standard of living and to be able to participate in the life ofthe community. 3

In a description of his guiding parameters for development, Mahbub ul Haq, the UNDPHuman Development Reports Founder outlined his concerns as follows:

The basic purpose of development is to enlarge people's choices. In prin-ciple, these choices can be infinite and can change over time. People often

value achievements that do not show up at all, or not immediately, in in-come or growth figures: greater access to knowledge, better nutrition andhealth services, more secure livelihoods, security against crime and physi-cal violence, satisfying leisure hours, political and cultural freedoms and asense of participation in community activities. The objective of develop-ment is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long,healthy and creative lives.4

One of the key reasons for the controversies in the Post Cold War period stems fromthe jarring confrontations and conflicts that have resulted in recent years, sparked by cer-tain constituencies feeling that they have not been heard.

Global Development and Peace are key themes that thus need to be studied in tandemwith each other. On the side of development, we must address the challenges to devel-opment in countries such as Mali, Chad, Niger and Burkina Faso that seem to lack any

immediate route to resolve their current state of deprivation, not just because of politicaloppression or because of warring factions but because of issues tied to geography andlimited natural resources.

We must also address issues related to sustainable development, climate change and the

Journal of Global Development and Peaceii

Foreword

Thomas J Ward


6/100


7/100


8/100

4

Immanuel KantsPerpetual Peace:

The New World Order of Critical Philosophy

Claude Perrottet

One can legitimately wonder what a phi-losopher with an inclination for abstracttheoretical thought could possibly con-tribute to the cause of world peace. Kant,in fact, uses that very point to ironicallysuggest that the ideas he proposes in Per-

petual Peace1areno threat tothe powersthat be hence that

they should beable to fly be-low the radar,so to speak,

with no dan-ger to the au-thor2. The restof the docu-ment makes it however abundantly clearthat Kant hoped for something else. Not

unlike Confucius, he expected that therulers of this world would have the wis-

dom to listen and much like his Chinesepredecessor, he would certainly have hadample grounds for disappointment if hehad lived in the decades that followed.

But it remains a fact that, more than 200years after its first publication, Kants es-say is routinely referred to as a work ofprophetic insight, as a direct antecedentand inspiration to the founding of theLeague of Nationsand later the United Na-

tions. When one remembers that Kanthardly ever left his provincial hometownof Knigsberg during his long life,prophetic takes on a new meaning:

whatever valuable content is to be foundin the essay is not based on worldlyknowledge of international affairs orpractical experience in that field3. It is en-tirely based on Kants own reflections anddirectly related to the conclusions of his

theoretical philosophy. In the SecondSupplement of Perpetual Peace(Secret Ar-


Immanuel Kants Perpetual Peace: The New World Order of Critical Philosophy

BiographyDr. Claude Perrottet teaches philosophy and religion at the University of Bridgeport and works with the Universitys Office of Distance Learning. Dr. Perrottetsresearch focus has been Immanuel Kant and Paul Tillich. Laval University Press will publish his book on Kant in the Fall 2009. His book is entitled Au-deldu criticisme kantien: la mthode critique-intuitive dans la premire philosophie de la religion de Paul Tillich (Beyond Kantian Criticism: the Critical-Intuitive

Method in Paul Tillichs First Philosophy of Religion). Presses de l'Universit Laval, forthcoming (accepted for publication). He also recently published an article:"Tillich et le criticisme kantien: le lien insouponn" (Tillich and Kantian criticism: the unexpected link), in Laval Thologique et Philosophique, 2009, in press.

Abstract

Kants 200-year-old essay is considered in light of its enduring impact on peace studies, the creation ofthe United Nations, and the implementation of a new world order based on lasting peace. Through adetailed analysis of its content and the cross-examination of various sources, it is suggested that the repu-tation of Perpetual Peace is not undeserved: while stressing the importance of fundamental principles ap-

plied to world affairs, it also provides realistic steps towards conflict resolution. Most importantly, thepresent study attempts to show how Kants view of religions role in human life, based on his critical phi-losophy, serves as the underlying catalyst of his apparently secular considerations.


9/100

5Journal of Global Development and Peace

litical philosophy.

The next question is about the meaning-fulness of the present article. What, if

anything, can a scholar of philosophy likemyself who specializes in Kants mosttheoretical works possibly achieve by

writing a journal article on a theme thatrequires knowledge in the political sci-ences a knowledge I lack almost en-tirely? If I have nevertheless accepted theoffer to do so, it is with the clear aware-ness that I will have to largely avoid themore political discussion of Kants contri-bution and concentrate on the directly

philosophical content of his essay to theextent that such an artificial partition ispossible.9After all, as I have noted above,it is that philosophical thinking that formsthe entire basis for Kants contribution.Showing how and why it can have a valu-able impact on the real world of contem-porary world affairs is a meaningful un-dertaking.

2. The nature of Kants essay: after-thought, new beginning, or paralleldevelopment?

Perpetual Peaceis known as one of Kantssemi-popular writings, short pieces thatare somewhat removed from the abstract,intricate rational deductions of his theo-retical works, his critical philosophy. In

writing these short essays, Kant uses atone that is often reminiscent of Voltair-ian wit (minus the venom), but the intentis very serious.10

For all its significance as a precursor ofcontemporary political theory, PerpetualPeaceis frequently considered an after-thought to Kants real contribution in

ticle for Perpetual Peace) Kant actuallysuggests that rulers and princes shouldseek the advice of philosophers, who canthus be understood to be prophets of rea-

son.4

1. Investigating Kants PerpetualPeace

If Perpetual Peacehas been submitted toexegesis by students of Kants philoso-phy, as well as by political philosophersintent on assessing its real impact on theemergence of peace organization in the20thcentury5,the reverse is also true: there

are those, like Jerry Pubantz6, who haveevaluated the United Nations by its abilityor failure to live up to Kants vision. Simi-larly, Yales Bruce Russett repeatedly andin all seriousness speaks of Kantian vs.non-Kantian states in the context of UNpeace building7. It is, in fact, both mind-boggling and moving to see how contem-porary political scientists submit present-day international organizations to precise

scrutiny using Kants short essay almostas if it were an absolute paragon.

Not surprisingly, that has not always beenthe case. It is well known that, upon itspublication, Kants essay was greeted withpolite praise and considerable skepticism.Geismann sums it up somewhat emphati-cally, saying that standing on the highshoulder of Hobbes and Rousseau, Kant,the professor of law, was able to look into

a limitless land of liberty and peace. Butas soon as that lands features clearly ap-peared, they vanished again in the fog of19thcentury worldviews.8Todays re-newed interest in Perpetual Peacethusrepresents a particular form of the fa-mous return to Kant in the field of po-



10/100

6 Journal of Global Development and Peace

and 1789).13None of these works, how-ever, are much remembered today, eventhough the last two were penned by illus-trious authors. Kants essay has two deci-

sive advantages that give it lasting value.It is very specific rather than vaguely uto-pian and, as noted by A.C.F. Beales, itlift[s] the discussion of war and peace farabove the level of politics and makes it atimeless question of ethics and con-science.14

3. Significance of the title

The English title, Perpetual Peace, which is

reminiscent of Jeremy Benthams workon the same topic, is a secularised transla-tion of Kants Zum ewigen Frieden, or To-wards Eternal Peace. Perpetual and eternalpractically mean the same thing, but thereligious undertone of eternal is lost intranslation15. So is, of course, the ambigu-ity of the expression eternal peace. ButKant used that very ambiguity to initiatethe discussion: the first sentence of the

essay is an ironical reference to the factthat the only lasting peace available to hu-mans might very well be that of death. Asfor the religious undertone, it need not beread into the text. Though discrete andthoroughly rational (as opposed to insti-tutional), religion is present throughoutthe essay.

When Kant wrote his Perpetual Peacein1795, the events of the French Revolu-tion had been unfolding for several years.

Two years earlier, in 1793, Kant had alsowritten his most directly theological work,the often-maligned Religion within the limitsof reason alone.16This latter work has beenattacked by Christians as godlessness dis-

philosophy. In essence, that assessmentmay be correct, but it misses an importantdetail: though it was written in 1795 (lessthan ten years before Kants death in

1804), it is part of a series of similar writ-ings, the first of which, Idea for a UniversalHistory with a Cosmopolitan Intentwas writ-ten in 1784, a mere three years after thefirst publication of the Critique of Pure Rea-sonand years before that of most ofKants other major works.11Key ideas ofPerpetual Peace, including that of a Leagueof Nations, already appear in the 1784essay12. The latter is thus part of an ongo-

ing effort by Kant to relate his philoso-

phical investigations to the practical con-cerns of society.

Perpetual Peacehas antecedents not only inKants own writings. It is well known that,in the 18thcentury and before, others hadfelt compelled to deal with this topic ofboth immediate and ultimate significance.

There was the Abb de Saint Pierres Pro-ject for Settling Perpetual Peace in Europe(Projet pour rendre la paix perptuelle en

Europe), (1713), Jean-Jacques RousseausJudgment on a Plan for Perpetual Peace(1761),a significant document given Kants con-siderable admiration for Rousseau, and

Jeremy BenthamsA Plan for a Universaland Perpetual Peace (written between 1786


Though discrete andthoroughly rational(as opposed to institu-tional), religion is

present throughout theessay.


11/100


need for a purpose to exert itself. How-ever, he adds, the notion of purpose can-not be dispensed with either, becausereason cannot possibly remain indiffer-

ent to the question of the outcome of ourright action (Rechthandeln).20In spite ofthe otherworldly emphasis one wouldagain expect to find in a work expresslydedicated to the theme of religion, Kantdiscusses that outcome of our right ac-tion in decidedly this-worldly terms. Thethird part of the Religionis entitled The

victory of the good principle over the evilprinciple and the establishment of GodsKingdom on Earth. In that section,Kant comes to the following conclusion:Unnoticed by human eyes, the goodprinciple is constantly at work to es-tablish a government and a kingdom rep-resenting a victory over the evil principle.Under its sovereignty, the world shouldbeguaranteed eternal [perpetual]peace.21

It is perhaps time to quit (or at least inter-rupt) this digression on religion in an arti-

cle about perpetual peace. And we cannow afford to. The link between the Relig-ions Kingdom of God and the secularequivalent of perpetual peace that servedas the title of Kants essay barely one yearlater is now explicit. Though it may be oflimited interest to the political scientist,the religious roots of Kants idea of aleague of nations leading to perpetualpeace is a fact and it could not be ig-nored, especially since Kant himselfelaborates extensively on that linkage inthe first Supplement (see below).

4. Structure ofPerpetual Peace

The essay has three separate sections:

guised in the form of rational religion, amonstrosity in their eyes. It has also beenattacked by the enlightened like Goethe

who saw in it proof that Kant had at last

succumbed to the temptation of speakingin the traditional terms of sin andredemption to appease the Christianestablishment.17The fact is that in his Re-ligion Kant uses religious (biblical) lan-guage in ways he does in none of hisother major works, but he does so, ex-pectably, without discarding the rational-ists philosophical approach.

Recent scholarship18has convincinglyshown that this work was neither a depar-ture from critical philosophy nor the finalproof of its profane and agnostic nature.Common wisdom has it that, in his FirstCritique, Kant had demolished the verynotion of a theoretical knowledge aboutultimate things (including God). In hisSecond Critique, he insisted on the primacyof duty (the categorical imperative) re-gardless of consequences and rewards.

Kant does consider the future outcomeof our actions in his controversial moralproof for the existence of God and eter-nal life, but that interest is otherworldly19.However, the Third Critiquealready hintsat something different with its suggestionof a teleological explanation to this

worlds existence and nature. In spite ofhis reputation as a pure deontologist Kant

was, in fact, keenly interested in the out-come of our earthly actions.

The Religionrepresents a continuation ofthe Critique of Judgmentand is intended toshow the inevitable need for religion inaddition to ethics. Kant repeats thatmoral action is self-sufficient and has no



12/100


best that Kant did not ignore the empiri-cal aspect of things and that he could bequite practical, even pragmatic whenneeded.

Kant stresses the importance of an imme-diate implementation of the first, fifth,and sixth preliminary articles over theother three22. The first of these articles,

Article 1, states that No Treaty of PeaceShall Be Held Valid inWhichThere Is TacitlyReserved Matter for a Fu-tureWar.This immedi-ately indicates the obvi-

ous, fundamental differ-ence between peacetreaties as they hadbeen known and as they

would be known in thefuture, treaties that arelittle more than armi-stices with a fancy name,and real lasting peace.Kant introduces the

Jesuit notion of mentalreservation. Peace is then made as a mat-ter of expediency when the continuationof war seems less desirable to both sides,each side secretly preparing for a new at-tack as soon as the occasion arises. Theremay be a difference compared to morerecent times here, as nations and their de-mocratic governments today often dohave a genuine desire for peace after aprotracted war, but are simply unable tomaintain it, which would be the ultimategoal of peace-making. The autocratic rul-ers of Kants time can be assumed noteven to have had that sincere desire inmost cases but, after all, neither havemany of the governments throughout the

First, six preliminary articles indicatingpractices that should be avoided as soonas possible as a precondition for perpet-ual peace to be even thinkable; second,

three definitive articles containing whatKant considered the key requirements forperpetual peace to be realized; and third,twosupplements and an annex (or appen-dix) in two parts that contain some ofKants deepest thinking. If Kants struc-ture here is predictablyclear, it is also predictablycomplex as soon as onelooks at it carefully, witharguments overlapping

and the most importantinsight not always appear-ing where one would ex-pect them to be.

As announced, I will leaveit to others to dissectKants document in everydetail and from every pos-sible perspective, some-

thing which in fact has al-ready been abundantlydone. This will hopefully give me the timeand space to deal with some of what Rab-elais would call the substance-full mar-row of Kants underlying thought. Perpet-ual Peaceis nevertheless short enough toallow for a brief point by point descrip-tion of its main sections. The mere listingof some of the issues Kant brings up inthe definitive and even the preliminary

articles is evidence of the immense influ-ence his vision has had on the quest for

world peace up to date.

a) The preliminary articles

The preliminary articles perhaps show


fundamental differ-ence between peacetreaties as they had

been known and asthey would be knownin the future, treatiesthat are little morethan armistices with afancy name, and reallasting peace.


13/100


ing War, Permit Such Acts of HostilityWhich Would Make Mutual Confidencein theSubsequent Peace Impossible.26

This article can be seen as a direct call for

what would become the Geneva Conventionspreceded by the creation of the Interna-tional Committee of the Red Crossin 1863. Itdirectly exposes the contradiction inher-ent in war: war is an undertaking that re-quires those who participate in it to re-frain from using the means most suitablefor immediate success. Soldiers must betrained to kill the enemy, but they mustbe trained to do so in a humane way something every decent government has

been struggling with ever since. Thereason is obvious. War is by definitionnot acceptable on ethical grounds and,as long as its possible end is not in sight,nations should at least include elementsfavorable to peace in the very conductof belligerence. By and large, the gen-erations following Kant, especially sincethe end of the 19thcentury, have agreed

with that form of reasoning, even when

they have not always applied it.

The remaining two articles (3 and 4)have a prophetic sound not so muchbecause they announce the solution of aparticular problem, but because they

point out issues that have remained vex-ing and controversial to this day: thequestion of disarmament (Standing Ar-mies [miles perpetuus] Shall in Time Be To-tally Abolished note the in time!)and that of national debt incurred for thefunding of war (National Debts ShallNot Be Contracted with a View to theExternal Friction of States)

b) The definitive articles

20thcentury.

Articles 2 and especially 5 intend to pro-hibit any kind of intervention by one na-

tion into the affairs of another under anypretext, including when such interventionmay seem desirable23. This requirement ofnon-interference, which many contempo-rary governments undoubtedly would

welcome and others despise for a varietyof reasons, stands in stark contrast to thejust war doctrine.24Practically, accordingto Kant, interference always leads to in-creased chaos. More fundamentally, it isagainst right. It means to infringe on the

rights of an independent people strug-gling with its internal disease; hence it

would itself be an offense and would ren-der the autonomy of all states insecure.25

These two articles also vaguely allude tothe problem of colonialism which, how-ever, is further discussed in the third de-finitive article.

Most fundamental perhaps, and most in-fluential is Article 6, No State Shall, dur-



14/100


opposed to a monarch or an aristocracy,possess power; republicanism is a form of

governmentthat is the opposite of despot-ism, one in which the executive is sepa-

rate from the legislative.29

Each form ofgovernment can be either republican ordespotic except, surprise, the democ-ratic one, which is, properly speaking,necessarily a despotism, because it estab-lishes an executive power in which alldecide for or even against one who doesnot agree; that is, all, who are not quiteall, decide, and this is a contradiction ofthe general will with itself and with free-dom.30

The reasons for such a sharp distinctionbetween the two notions are complex,not entirely clear to anyone, and some-

what removed from our interest. It hasbeen said that Kant was referring to thedemocracy of Ancient Greece31. But he

was writing in 1795, just after the end ofthe reign of terror that followed theFrench Revolution and at the time when

Napoleon was on his way to absolutepower. It is easy to see how Kant couldhave come to the conclusions he reachedabout the despotic nature of democracybased on what he witnessed in France: apopular mob lynching former rulers,priests, everybody else, and each other.

The description quite fits what Kant oth-erwise says about the inevitably chaoticnature of democracy. But Kant was anardent supporter, not a critic, of theFrench Revolution (he had also sup-ported the American Revolution, which isconsistent with his emphasis on the valueof human freedom). More surprisingly,even after the French Revolution hadturned into a generalized massacre, he

The second section of Kants brief trea-tise, Containing The Definitive Articles ForPerpetual Peace Among States, is where Kantexposes many of his key ideas on peace,

though some of the most precious in-sights are actually to be found in the Sup-plements and Appendixes. Section II be-gins with the following statement:

The state of peace among men livingside by side is not the natural state(status naturalis); the natural state is oneof war. This does not always meanopen hostilities, but at least an unceas-ing threat of war. A state of peace,

therefore, must be established, for inorder to be secured against hostility itis not sufficient that hostilities simplybe not committed 27

The Hobbesian notion of a natural stateof war will be further analyzed in the dis-cussion of the First Supplement. Follow-ing that brief but revealing introduction,Kant details the three main pillars of his

suggested solution.

1) Republican vs. Democratic

By pitting the notions of republican anddemocratic against each other, the firstdefinitive article appears to be an unex-pected excursion into the realm of consti-tutional policy. For the American readerin particular, it also has a feeling of dj vu,but in a definitely unfamiliar context.Kant states that, for the sake of achievingperpetual peace, the civil constitution ofevery nation should be republican.28 Hethen makes it clear that republican doesnot mean democratic: democracy is aform ofsovereigntyin which the people, as



15/100


Often it is however assumed that whatKant had in mind when referring to therepublican form of government practi-cally overlaps with what we call liberal

democracy today. Quoting FernandoTesn,33Patrick Capps makes the follow-ing comment:

Tesn considers that this [Kants view]corresponds to the modern concep-tion of a constitutional democracy. Hesays: By republican Kant means what

we would call today a liberal democ-racy, that is, a form of political organi-zation that provides for full respect

for human rights (p. 3). But mini-mally, what Kant means by republi-canism is a government whose politi-cal power is restricted by a constitu-tional document which prevents des-potism by either a monarch or themasses.34

As for Pubantz35, he all but ignores thedistinction and routinely refers to democ-

racy as the form of government Kant hadin mind. He also quotes former UN Sec-retary-General Kofi Annan who essen-tially has the same position as Tesn: Kant argued that republics whichmeant essentially what today we call lib-eral or pluralistic democracies were lesslikely than other forms of state to go to

war with one another. Broadly speaking,the last 200 years have proven himright.36Yet, ironically, this is the sole

point on which Pubantz suggest anamendment should be made not to theUN systems implementation of Kantiandoctrine, but to Kants thesis itself. Thesuggested adaptation to reality is that in-ternational organizations might initiallyhave to include members that are not

never withdrew his support and admira-tion, which earned him the epithet ofJaco-bin.32We thus have to leave it as what itis: an open question.

More interesting here is the distinction

made between the form of governmentand the form of sovereignty, a differencethat suggests that democracy is not inevi-tably,per se democratic (the way we un-derstand the term). Even if one discardsKants absolute pessimism about democ-racy, the observation remains valid: thedemocratic form of sovereignty, as op-posed to monarchy, is not necessarilymore democratic in the modern sense(or more republican, to speak with Kant).

The blooming of democratic republics inthe second half of the 20thcentury wouldprobably have comforted Kant in his

view that democratic and republican,placed together, are a contradiction interms.


Even if one discardsKants absolute pessi-mism about democracy,the observation remains

valid: the democraticform of sovereignty, asopposed to monarchy, is

not necessarily moredemocratic in themodern sense (or morerepublican, to speak

with Kant).


16/100


will also overcome it. For otherwisethe word rightwould never be utteredby those nations that want to make

war40

Kant then draws the logical conclusion:

Reason, from its throne of su-preme moral legislating authority, ab-solutely condemns war as a legal re-course and makes a state of peace adirect duty, even though peace cannotbe established or secured except by acompact among nations. For thesereasons there must be a league of aparticular kind, which can be called aleague of peace (foedus pacificum), and

which would be distinguished from atreaty of peace (pactumpacis) by thefact that the latter terminates only one

war, while the former seeks to makean end of all wars forever.41

League of peace (Friedensbund) immedi-ately brings to mind the League of Na-

tions. Such a league would not seek su-pranational power but only to maintainpeace among its members through theidea of federalism. Ideally, once a powerfuland enlightened people decides to forma republic, it should, by its power of at-traction, gradually come to include everynation and thus lead to perpetual worldpeace42. But Kant is a realist. Such a loosefederation of nations will not be able toenforce the ideal of peace. That wouldonly be possible through a nation of peo-

plesthat (continually growing) will fi-nally include all the people of the earth.Since this is not to be expected and ifeverything is not to be lost, the positiveidea of a world republic will, for now, have

free states but have the potential of be-coming so through a dialectical processinvolving Kants other two definitive arti-cles.37

2) A federation of free states: dealing with theMnchhausen syndrome

Here, with the notion of a federation offree states,38Kant appears most unambi-guously as the forerunner of a new worldorder. His logic is rather simple. Sincesovereign nations, by definition, have nojudge above them to prevent them fromacting aggressively towards one another,as is the case among individuals in civilsociety within each nation, such a superiorauthority has to be brought into existence.Given what Kant calls the obvious de-pravity of human nature, this seems morethan unlikely to happen, as it would pre-suppose the very entity in need to be cre-ated in order to become feasible.

Kant has to deal (as we all do) with what I

would like to call theMnchhausen syn-drome.39He has to show how man, so tospeak, can get himself out of the water bypulling on his own hair, as the famousBaron is said to have done. The first stepis to acknowledge that a superior entity

with the function of a referee already ex-ists, though invisibly and deprived of themeans to enforce its rule:

The homage that every nation pays (atleast in words) to the concept of rightproves, nonetheless, that there is inman a still greater, though presentlydormant, moral aptitude to master theevil principle in himself (a principle hecannot deny) and to hope that others



17/100


their common ownership of the earthssurface.44While Kant also acknowledgesthat the status of a permanent visitor(todays permanent resident status) is not

to be granted automatically, the emphasisin this section is clearly on the Western(European) worlds duty to behave prop-erly towards the rest of the world thegreat civilizations of the Far East, notablyChina (which Kant much admired) andthe natives of less developed areas of the

world.

This passage represents an unusuallysharp indictment of European colonial-

ism and particularly its justification by theneed to expand markets. Kant namesslavery by name and the words comingout of his mouth when discussing the

Western military domination that inevita-bly accompanies commercial expansioninclude most cruel as well as famine,rebellion, perfidy, and the whole litany ofevils which afflicts humankind.45

The third article refers quite exactly to therole of what Pubantz has called theother UN that is embodied in organiza-tions such as the UNHCR (High Com-missioner for Refugees): A new UnitedNations, in some ways more reflective ofEleanor Roosevelts aspirations embodiedin the Universal Declaration of HumanRights, or Kants democratic alliance,than the role as world policeman toutedby Franklin Roosevelt in 1944 and 1945,has emerged in the new era.46

What is missing in Kants perspective isan acknowledgment of the constructiverole of anything like our contemporaryNon-Governmental Organizations

to be replaced by the negative surrogateof an enduring, ever expanding federa-tion that will, however, always be at themercy of a change of mind. There is, thus,

a back and forth between the idea of awell-intentioned, but limited League ofNations and the ultimate idea of a UnitedNations, or more precisely, of one Uni-fied Nation. On Kants own premises sofar, that second option has to remain adream. But, unlike some of his predeces-sors, Kant was not a dreamer.

3) Cosmopolitan right and universal hospitality:Kant and the other UN

The third and final definitive article dealswith the necessary or desirable implica-tions of the views expressed in the second.

As Kant himself puts it, these implica-tions are not a matter of philanthropy,but one of right.43 In accordance with theidea of a world federation of states com-prising all of humankind, based on thecommon human dignity of every individ-ual, Kant stresses the need for hospitality.

At first, hospitality, if understood as themere propensity to be kind and generousto strangers (a tendency some have morethan others), this may appear to be a sec-ondary point. But Kant sees the questionin terms of peoples right to visit, to asso-ciate [that] belongs to all men by virtue of


These implicationsare not a matter of

philanthropy, but oneof right.


18/100


ment of peace but he tackles issues relat-ing to the underlying rationale and justifi-cation of the whole enterprise. Quitenaturally, it is for launching the idea of a

league of nations and for introducing nec-essary factors in a compelling way thatPerpetual Peaceis mostly remembered as

well as dismembered by the analyticalsharpness of commentators. Ultimately,however, it is perhaps the supplementsand annexes (particularly the First Supple-ment) that offer the best material for anin-depth reflection on the subject. I be-lieve that it is only by carefully examiningthe ideas found there that we can come to

a full understanding of Kants vision.

I thus propose to have a closer look atthe following questions: the notion, per-

vasive throughout Perpetual PeaceandKants other writings, that human natureis evil (the state of nature = a state of

war); the notion that Nature, standing infor a divine Providence, uses the very in-clinations that push people to make war

to lead them to eventual peace; the natureof Kantian peace and its challenge byHegel; and the possibility and desirabilityof going beyond a loose league of nationsand achieve and integrated world repub-lic.

a) The State of Nature

Throughout his essay and his other writ-ings, Kant builds on the assumption thathuman nature is evil or depraved, animportant departure from Rousseau.Commentators have largely assumed thatKant simply took over this pessimistic

view from Hobbes and it is undeniablethat Kants position immediately brings to

(NGOs), the role of women in peace-making and the role of religious leaders ininterreligious dialogue to resolve religion-based conflicts. The latter is easily ex-

plained by the poor opinion Kant had ofthe religious leaders and institutions of histime, the former by the fact that civil so-ciety, notably international civil society,did not have at its disposal the kind ofintermediaries between sovereigns andthe people that we now have in the formof NGOs and similar groups.

5. Quantum leap: the First Supple-ment

The structure of Kants vision for worldpeace has now been presented, but thetemporary conclusion is about what shouldbe, rather than about what willbe andhow it will come about. This additionalstep is tentatively, though not conclu-sively, made in the First Supplement.Kant had ended the main part of hisdocument on a low note after removing

the perspective of a world republic ableto guarantee peace in all its constitutiveparts, i.e., the whole world.

The Second Supplements is the only partof the essay that was added to the secondedition published in 1796. Still, whenreading the First Supplement, one alreadyhas the impression of a quantum leap, asif Kant had spent time reflecting on theunsatisfactory implications of his provi-sional conclusions, as well as on the inter-nal logic of his entire system (the system-atic quality of which would be threatenedby inconsistencies in any of its elements).Here, Kant no longer speaks of condi-tions and preconditions for the achieve-



19/100


share Voltaires rather pessimistic assess-ment of civilization as something remark-able that, nevertheless, gave little reason

to believe in a radical improvement of thehuman condition.

In short, Kant believed that humans natu-rally tend to do evil (original sin), but thattheir conscience clearly tells them that theonly rationally acceptable course of actionis to do what is right something theycannot do on their own because of the

first premise. Hence, he writes in his Relig-ion, it is rational to believe that there mustbe a Supreme Being that gives us the nec-essary support once we set out to dogood and mean it seriously. Surprising asit may seem to those who know Kantfrom his critical philosophy (usually sec-ond-hand), his is thus a fundamentallyChristian perspective expressed in the ra-tionalisticlanguage of the Enlightenment.

The beliefs of Christianity are perceivedin a purely formal and rational way thathas become quite unfamiliar to the 21stcentury reader. The duty to do good isrational. It is the only behavior thatmakes sense. Doing evil is not just wrong,it is unreasonable, because I cannot rea-

mind his British predecessors state ofnature as a "war of all against all" (bellumomnium contra omnes, Leviathan, 1651). It isalso true that Kant mentions Hobbes oc-

casionally, but not necessarily in an ap-proving way. In his 1793 Theory and Prac-tice, Kant already takes up the touchytopic of the coercive right of rulersover their troublesome subjects (as he

would in Perpetual Peace), but he describesHobbes position as terrifying.47IfKant rejects Hobbes suggested solutionas unduly brutal, it is first of all becausehis understanding of the state of things isfundamentally different. What Kant says

of fallen human nature in his Religionisessential to know if one is to understandhow he believes that a decisive step canbe taken toward a state of peace.

Kant clearly expresses his belief in humanbeings inherent propensity to do evil,

while at the same time being aware of thecategorical imperative to do what is right.In Religionand, to a lesser extent, even in

the short writings like Perpetual Peace,Kants statements to that effect are veryclose to biblical verses (notably by SaintPaul); in fact, Kant often and surprisinglyintersperses his text with biblical quota-tions again, a rather unique occurrencein his body of work. Thus, Kant was veryfar from sharing the often superficialforms of 18thcentury optimism. In spiteof his admiration for Jean-Jacques Rous-seau, Kant did not share with him the be-lief that humans are born naturally goodbut perverted by so-called civilized soci-ety. Neither did he believe, with the ma-jority of thephilosophes, that progress waspossible, even certain, at the hands ofenlightened cultural pioneers. And he did


Kant clearly expresseshis belief in humanbeings inherent pro-

pensity to do evil,while at the same timebeing aware of thecategorical imperativeto do what is right.


20/100


man reason in questions of therelation of effects to their causesmust remain within the limits ofpossible experience.49

Kants reference to divine providence as aguarantor for eternal peace is barely no-ticed by commentators, which is not alto-gether surprising, since the literature onthis essay essentially stems from the cir-cles of political philosophers and politicalscientists who have little interest in theo-logical speculation. Kants understandablechoice to forego the use of religious lan-guage in the given context and speak of

nature instead has not gone unnoticed,but it has been greeted by rather dismis-sive comments on the outdated nature ofthe metaphor. Parallels have been drawnto Adam Smiths invisible hand (Wealthof Nations, 1776), with the occasional re-mark that such a view of things distortsreality in an almost grotesque way.50Pojman offers a more matter of fact as-sessment: This Aristotelian teleological

thesis is problematic in a post-Darwinianworld, unless one holds that a Providen-tial hand guides the affairs of men andnations. Kant seems to have held this the-ist thesis, which may be the underlyingbasis for his optimism.51

In fact, Kant was literally fascinated bythe notion of a purpose in nature corre-sponding to the purpose of human ac-tions, a question that occupies himthroughout his Critique of Judgment. Thebeauty and purposefulness of natures ar-rangements leads Kant to reiterate theidea of a divine creator already present inthe first two Critiques. It is thus not sur-prising at all that he would, in Perpetual

sonably expect everyone to act in such away and at the same time expect theworld to become what I would like it tobe. All this will be found at the basis of

Kants Perpetual Peace.

b) Nature and the Providence in theFirst Supplement

It is now easier to understand why Kantabruptly starts his First Supplement withan explanation about the cunning of Na-ture that paradoxically sets out to com-pensate for the inferiority of our own na-ture. The First Supplement of Perpetual

Peacebegins with the following statement:

The guarantee of perpetual peace isnothing less than that great artist, na-ture (natura daedalarerum). In her me-chanical course we see that her aim isto produce a harmony among men,against their will and indeed throughtheir discord. As a necessity workingaccording to laws we do not know, we

call it destiny. But, considering its de-sign in world history, we call itprovidence, inasmuch as we discernin it the profound wisdom of a highercause which predetermines the courseof nature and directs it to the objec-tive final end of the human race48.

Kant then goes on to say:

The use of the word nature is morefitting to the limits of human reasonand more modest than an expressionindicating a providence unknown tous. This is especially true when we aredealing with questions of theory andnotof religion, as at present, for hu-



21/100


after the good.55

Kants general moral vision, both in termsof personal ethics and in terms of interna-

tional relations, is that what we are givenas a moral duty must, by definition, beattainable. As always, his rationale is notbased on the assumption that an alwaysquestionable goodwill will do the trick,but it does not exclude the presence of

that goodwill,on the con-trary. We thushave a three-tiered guaran-

tee that last-ing peace willbe achieved.First, it does

not depend on philanthropy but on rea-son. Second, since reason dictates moralbehavior (I should not exempt myselffrom putting the whole community first,just because it is me), such behavior mustbe attainable. Third, since an obvious

though mysterious deficiency preventseven the best among us from fully achiev-ing that goal, we can and should expecthelp from Gods providence, to whichKant here more prosaically refers as the

workings of nature. But it is not difficultto see that this three-tiered guarantee isnonetheless just a limited warranty.

Kants main practical argument is that thespirit of trade, sooner or later gains theupper hand in every state, is incom-patible with war, and thus guarantees thegoal of peace adequately from a practicalpoint of view even thought a theoreticalcertainty remains elusive. Here, as we see,Kant replicates his classic distinction

Peace, extend this notion to a seeminglymysterious arrangement by which nature(understood here as the reality of things)

would lead human affairs towards a pre-

established purpose, using a complex webof opposing individual choices.52Awk-ward as it may seem in this context,Kants argument (at least its first element)has been considerably elaborated upon inthe contemporary Anthropic Principle.But it is yet another matter for him to seenature in a more general sense lead hu-mans actions into the right directionagainst their own will53. Even there, theidea that destructive behavior would, by

its consequences, force a course correc-tion and thus lead to an unwanted posi-tive result in the end does make somesense, though it is hard to see how a raceof devils, even armed with reason, couldlead to an ideally peaceful world whereone would want to live.54In fact, whatKant seems to suggest here is a quite ex-act equivalent of the modern-day MADdoctrine (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Kants real view of things is in fact some-what different, but one must look care-fully for it. It is most clearly expressed ina footnote:

In a morally practical point of view,however, which is directed exclusivelyto the supersensuous, the concept ofthe divine concursusis quite suitable andeven necessary. We find this, for in-stance, in the belief that God will com-pensate for our own lack of justice,provided our intention was genuine;that He will do so by means that areinconceivable to us, and that therefore

we should not relent in our endeavor


For Kant,lasting peacedoes not dependon philanthropybut on reason.


22/100


state. And Kant also recognizes that thisautomatically leads to wars and conflicts.But to him, this is an inevitable, thoughregrettable side effect one that morality

condemns and that nature helps over-come for the sake of the common good.National sovereignty is not ultimate. It isa building block.

As for the selflessness and heroismbrought about by war alone, Kant men-tions it too in Perpetual Peace(again in theFirst Supplement), but his evaluation istotally negative: War, he says, is oftenconsidered noble, it is something to

which the love of glory impels men quiteapart from any selfish urges.59Kant evenadds that some philosophers havepraised it as an ennoblement of human-ity but he concludes that this is forget-ting that war produces more evil peoplethan it eliminates.60

Amazingly, however, in the Critique ofJudgment, one find a passage that sounds a

lot more like Hegel than like Kant, some-thing Hegel fails to notice:

Even war, when it is conducted withorderliness and holy respect for therights of citizens, has something sub-lime about it. The way of thinking ofthe nation that conducts it in this waybecomes more sublime as it gets ex-posed to greater dangers and facesthem with courage. On the other hand,a long peace usually leads to the domi-nance of the spirit of trade that comes

with petty selfishness, cowardice andself-indulgence and tends to lower the

way of thinking of a people.61

between theoretical certainty and practicalassurance.56The assumption that war isdetrimental to trade is obviously not with-out merit, but the argument as stated by

Kant is just as obviously open to criti-cism. I will defer to others, much morequalified than me, who have abundantlydiscussed this point.

c) Hegels challenge and the nature ofpeace

Among the many challenges to Kantsposition on war and peace, Hegels com-ments in his Philosophy of Rightare perhaps

best known. Hegel was not a warmongerand he too recognized the necessity ofmaintaining some degree of decency inthe conduct of war though, as Mertenspoints out, one needs to refer to Kantsmoral theory to find a proper justificationfor that position.57But Hegel objected toKants absolute rejection of war, and hedid so on several grounds. Among his ob-jections, the most interesting one is some-

what unexpected, at least to the readerwho is used to Kants vision of things.War, for Hegel, has an ethical value, eventhough not without restrictions. It showsthat nations have an identity and integritythat goes beyond the selfish interests ofindividuals.58Thus, lasting (perpetual)peace would not be desirable, as it wouldleave people stuck in their small habitsand self-centered ways, as opposed to thepatriotism required by a war situation.

In the First Supplement, Kant also recog-nizes that an organic national unity isneeded and that such national entity is

willed by the people who will always re-ject the soulless abstraction of a world



23/100


his comments on warlike qualities opens asmall window into the question of whatand ideal, permanently peaceful human-kind would and should be like. It also

confirms that the trick of nature in forc-ing peace upon men through the needs oftrade can only be a temporary help untilthe sense of moral righteousness he sooften stresses takes over in society. It alsosuggests that creating the conditions ofperpetual peace might require a consider-able amount of courage and selfless dedi-cation.

d) World republic or loose federation?

By now, one is used to see Perpetual Peaceas an early announcement of things tocome things that came to be in theform of the League of Nations and theUnited Nations. But was thatreally whatKant had in mind? If so, was he not dis-appointingly timid and, at the same time,unduly optimistic in the end? This ques-tion deserves close consideration, because

it is really essential for an evaluation ofKants legacy. On the one hand, theUnited Nations as it exists today (not tomention the earlier League of Nations)has provided ample proof of its insuffi-ciency, at times amounting to a near pa-ralysis due to the absence of any coercivepower. On the other hand, particularly inthis nation, many have objected to anyhint that even minimal powers be givento international institutions that couldthus bypass US sovereignty and amountto a dictatorship by an antagonistic ma-jority.

1) Principle and reality

Mertens generously leaves open the ques-tion whether this passage is compatible

with Kants writings on perpetual peaceor not, but the contrast is in any case as-

tounding. But Kant clarifies that for thewarrior to receive the respect that fits theabove description of war, he also needsto display all the virtues of peace: gentle-ness, compassion, appropriate care for hisown person. Only then will courage infront of danger prove that his soul is trulyimpossible to conquer.62All this is saidfrom the perspective of aesthetic judg-ment, i.e., the subjective perception of theobserver. In that context, Kant argues,

the head of state, no matter how superiorhis position, will always have to giveprecedence to the commander of an armyin terms of prestige.

This passage is important, because itshows an aspect of Kants view on peacethat barely appears in Perpetual Peace,though it is present between the lines. Itis present in Appendix I, where Kant ex-

presses his considerable contempt forpoliticians. Kant contrasts the rare butrespectable moral politician with thecommon political moralist, i.e., the one

who acts according to political conven-ience and gives apost mortemmoral justifi-cation to his despicable behavior.63 Inother words, Kant does not deny that it ispossible to show greatness in the conductof war. What is utterly reprehensible isthe conduct of war for political advantage.

And Kant hints at the fact that the quali-ties most worthy of praise in human be-ings are more easily shown in the dangerof war than in the convenience of peace-ful trade. This contrast between Kantsall-out advocacy of universal peace and



24/100


that would eventually turn into anarchy.65Klemme interprets this to mean that, af-ter close consideration, Kant concludedthat the idea of a world republic is thus

notreasonable after all, which would ex-plain why he abandons it.

It seems to me that this explanation is notentirely satisfactory. Kant never explicitlyrejects his initial reasoning in favor of a

world republic in Article 2, nor does heexplain why he was mistaken in comingto such conclusion. He simply moves onafter stating that the peoples of the world

would never follow such a path and later

gives a rationale for the preservation ofindependent national entities, as well asreasons to hope for eternal peace onother grounds.66

2) Kants apparent inconsistency: a suggestedanswer

An excellentcontribution by

PaulineKleingeld67of-fers what I be-lieve to be a de-cisive answer tothe interroga-tions caused byKants apparentinconsistency.Kleinfeld firstnotes that authors like John Rawls68and

Jrgen Habermas,69for all the differencesin their evaluation, simply assume thatKant came to reject the idea of a worldgovernment. She then proceeds to showthat this is an erroneous premise. Kantdoes advocate a non-coercive league, but

In the second definitive article, as wehave seen, Kant indicates that a worldrepublic is literally required by reason asthe sole possible solution. But Kant tac-

itly drops the idea because he recognizesthat people will reject it and he seems tonever take it up again. For this, he hasbeen both praised and criticized by someof his most notable supporters. Whetherright or wrong, however, Kant seems tohave overruled the law of reason.Heinrich Klemme cleverly notes that, iftrue, this would constitute an absoluteanomaly.

To Klemmes knowledge (and to mine),once Kant decides that something is

willed by reason, he never gives up on it.The ironclad law of reason must be fol-lowed sooner or later perhaps in someunknown, distant future but it cannotbe dismissed64. Indeed, for Kant, the ideaof an unfulfilled duty willed by reason willremain forever, even if the world ceasedto exist. Reason will not rest until that

goal is fulfilled. The particular instance ofthe world republic forms the one excep-tion in the Kant corpus where the phi-losopher actually seems to accept as a factthat the ideal of reason will be frustrated,because people simply wont accept it.

This is in particular the exact oppositefrom what he says in That May be Truein Theory, But Is of No Practical Use(1793). In the first Supplement, it is true,Kant explains that, after all, the existenceof separate states is presupposed by theidea of international law, hence inevitablein spite of the limitation of a mere federa-tion linking them, because the alternative

would be the soulless despotism of onecentral world government a despotism


Kant indicates

that a worldrepublic is lit-erally requiredby reason asthe sole possi-ble solution.


25/100


as dangerous and simply contrary to na-ture not the idea of a unified human-kind. A league of nations, freely joined byrepublican states, even if it lacks coercive

powers, leads into the right direction. Atthe very least, it serves as a platform forpeaceful debate. Ultimately, throughendless approximation, the goal of apeaceful world should be attained.

3) A hint from the Religion within the limits ofreason alone

At this point, I believe it is essential toreturn to Kants Religion, a work in which

I had initially shown Kants vision of per-petual peace is rooted to a large extent. Inthe preface to the second edition, onefinds a statement that seems to be at odds

with the title, Religion within the limits of rea-son alone.Kant compares revealed religionand pure rational religion to two concen-tric circles, revealed (and institutional) re-ligion being the outer circle encompassingand protecting the inner circle of pure,

rational and ethical religion. Religious tra-ditions, with their revealed truths andtheir practices, no matter imperfect inKants eyes, are the necessary ground in

which pure, rational faith can grow. Hu-man beings are not capable of making theshortcut to pure religion that proceedsfrom mere a prioriprinciples, as if experi-ence did not exist.73They need to gradu-ally discover the real significance of reli-gious revelation and teachings and then toeliminate the crust that has become un-necessary. Religious life stems from exist-ing traditions, not from an abstract ra-tional faith. Throughout the Religion, Kantmakes this point and he also states thatthe tradition serving as a starting point

this makes sense in the overall frameworkof his thought and, most importantly, it iscompatible with his advocacy of astronger state of states.70As I had indi-

cated above, Kant never repudiates hisinitial idea of a world republic or state ofstates, but he concludes that it will not bepossible to make the jump from the stateof nature to that universal entity. By ad-

vocating the intermediate step of a looseleague, Kant presents us with a view asto how to start leaving the internationalstate of nature; he does not say that weshould reject the idea of a world republicas such.71

Indeed, what Kant rejects in the FirstSupplement is a despotic, non-federal

world government dominated by a supe-rior power, not the idea of a suprana-tional entity in itself. The really decisiveobservation here is about the workings ofnature to separate nations through thedivisions of language and religion. Kantclearly seems to suggest that, in this, na-

ture works against a possible unity of thehuman race. But we need to look at thekind of unity that is thus to be averted:immediately after speaking of the dangersof a soulless despotism, Kant states thatnevertheless, every state, or its ruler, de-sires to establish lasting peace in this way[emphasis added], aspiring if possible torule the whole world.72It is then that headds but nature wills otherwise andgoes on to speak of the differences in lan-guage and religion, a difference that doescarry the potential for hatred and war, butalso that for the development of culturethrough lively competition, source ofgreater harmony. It is thus the shortcut toa totalitarian world state that Kant rejects



26/100


Kant doesnt hide his distaste for thechurch leadership he knew and its collu-sions with the powers of the state75 he

was at odds with both at the time and

some of the typical 18th

century anticleri-calism can be found in Perpetual Peaceandother similar essays. But that criticismcomes second to the fundamental ac-knowledgment that pure rational religionneeds a home base in a particular tradi-tion to realize itself.

The same is true for languages76, hencecultures and national traditions, which isour main concern. Just as there can be

only one religion in Kants eyes, there isonly one humankind, all differences innational sovereignty being mereaccidental vehicles changing withtimes and places. But these accidental

vehicles are the only possible buildingblocks of genuine human unity. Nationalsovereignty is in no way a holy cow forKant as it is for some other thinkers. Butit is a starting point to be acknowledged,

and only a gradual, willing movement to-wards greater unity will make world peacepossible. Therefore, Kants entire accountof the workings of nature can be read asan indication of how a worldwide federa-tion (details unspecified) can be aimed at

without forceful centralization and at thesame time without remaining on the levelof a well intentioned by powerless asso-ciation.

4) Contemporary views: towards a federation

As both Kelingeld and Klemme indicate,Jrgen Habermas (whose sympathy forKant is well known) has recently movedtowards advocating such a midway solu-

can be any religion, even though he natu-rally considers the case of his own Chris-tian tradition. Kant spends much timeshowing how the core essence of Christi-

anity is compatible with the pure rationaland ethical faith of his philosophy.

The reciprocal (some would say dialecti-cal) relationship between pure religionand traditional religion appears clearly inthe First Supplement. In the text, Kantstates that nature employs differences inreligion and language to prevent peoplefrom mixing, that this involves a ten-dency to mutual hatred and pretexts for

war, but that finally the progress of civi-lization leads to greater harmony and

finally peaceful agreement. On theother hand, in a footnote, Kant makes thecorollary perfectly clear:

Difference of religion a singular ex-pression! It is precisely as if one spokeof different moralities. There may

very well be different kinds of histori-cal faiths attached to different meansemployed in the promotion of relig-ion but such differences do notexist in religion, there being only onereligion valid for all men and in allages. These can, therefore, be nothingelse than accidental vehicles of relig-ion, thus changing with times andplaces.74


Religious life stemsfrom existing tradi-tions, not from anabstract rational faith.


27/100


together of a commonwealth of equalstates deciding how much of their sover-eignty they were willing to give up for thesake of the common enterprise.

6. Kants timeless ideal and the roadto its implementation

In a recent public lecture on the Middle-East crisis, Richard Rubenstein repeatedhis conviction that the perspectives forpeace in that region of the world are slimto none at this time, whatever thechanges in the political leadership.79Thegist of his argument was a reference to

Hegels reading ofAntigoneas represent-ing the tragic collision between incom-patible ethical paradigms. The problem,then, would not be that one side is rightand the other wrong, but that both sideshave exclusive claims to being right thatannihilate each other. In this case, conflictor war seems inevitable because of the

very ethical values of the protagonists.

How would Kant respond? Undoubtedly,he would point to his own distinction be-tween religion and specific historicalfaiths. As he acknowledges in PerpetualPeace, the existence of different historicalfaiths is both necessary (as no pure ra-tional religion will ever appear out of theblue) and more than likely to lead to se-

vere clashes. The way out of the conun-drum is for both sides to eventually rec-ognize that the real value of their faithdoes not lie in the specifics of their tradi-tion, but in their own ability to practice agenuine ethical religion based on thesetraditions. Kant even agrees with believ-ers of the faiths involved that supernatu-ral help is (or may be) needed to reach

tion. To describe his vision, Habermasuses a terminological monstrosity of thetype German scholars take delight in but this one makes sense. He speaks of a

world domestic policy without a worldgovernment (Weltinnenpolitik ohne Wel-tregierung).77As Kleingeld puts it:

Habermas suggests that a dynamicarray of deliberative democratic proc-esses and organizations, at the na-tional, international, and transnationallevels, can greatly increase the leveland legitimacy of binding regulationconcerning matters of global concern.

Thus, it is possible to continue thetransformation of international lawinto a cosmopolitan order (a processthat Habermas recognizes is alreadyunderway) without leading to a cen-tralized world government.

Pollock78notes that, in its present state,the United Nations, with its minimal sov-ereignty and capacity to enforce its edicts,

already represents a step beyond the merenegative surrogate of which Kantspeaks. Pollock admits that it is question-able whether the UN lives up to Kantsexpectations and its own criteria, but it atleast begins to fulfill the double require-ment stressed by Kant. Member statesmaintain their identity and full sover-eignty in internal matters, but they do sac-rifice some amount of autonomy in set-tling international disputes. This takesinto account the principle of subsidiaritythat is the basis for the political system ofthe Swiss Confederacy and the UnitedStates of America, whose founding Kantenthusiastically welcomed, precisely be-cause it was a freely willed coming



28/100


The practical question is then whetherthere is a faster and more efficient way toreach a solution than the somewhat time-less perspective that Kant espouses. Para-

doxically, if we stand today on the foun-dation of the United Nations system nomater how insufficient and imperfect itis, I believe, because we reap the benefitsof 200 years of dialectical conflicts, just(or supposedly) just wars, and a wholearray of elements for which Kant had

very little sense. The very un-Kantian 19thand 20thcenturies perhaps give us thebest chance ever to approach Kantstimeless ideal.

Kants vision of a new world order is thusboth idealistic and realistic, neither uto-pian nor unduly down to earth. That isthe genius of his vision and the obviousreason why it not only survived to be re-membered, but served as an inspirationfor real life realizations in the world of20thcentury politics. Beyond what hasalready been said, I will not even attemptto show where it falls short, as my pur-pose here was to present its rich content

that result, but he would deny that thishelp can be obtained by any other meansthan the sincere and total commitment toachieve the highest good. In particular, he

would consider any claim to a divinelyordained right over a holy place or holyland absurd. Kants position on this

would in turn have very little chance to belistened to by more than a small minorityon either side. But Kant has time: he doesnot claim that the developments leadingto perpetual peace will be completed soonor even in the foreseeable future, but thatit has to be sooner or later, because it isthe absolute requirement of reason.

Again using religious language, Kant con-cludes that if we assume that humanitynever will or can be improved, the onlything which a theodicy seems unable tojustify is creation itself, the fact that a raceof such corrupt beings ever was onearth.80And he gives further clarificationto what was said above about humangreatness in war and peace:

If seeing a virtuous man strugglingwith tribulations and temptations to-wards evil and yet holding his ownagainst them is a sight fit for a divinity,so is it a most unfit sight for even thecommonest but well intentioned man,not to mention a divinity, to see thehuman race advancing from period toperiod towards virtue and then soonafterwards to see it again falling asdeeply back into vice and misery as it

was before. Observing this tragedy fora while may perhaps be moving andinstructive, but the curtain must finallyfall.81


Kant does not claim thatthe developments leadingto perpetual peace will becompleted soon or evenin the foreseeable future,but that it has to be

sooner or later, because itis the absolute require-ment of reason.


29/100


with as much clarity as possible, not totake sides in a debate that is going on inacademia and on the world stage at this

very moment. I believe that, among other

contributions, Kants Perpetual Peaceandrelated writings raise the question of theproper balance between central authorityand autonomy, indifference and interfer-ence, integration and pluralism, all fromthe perspective that harmony and peace-ful cooperation are always the final aim.



30/100


who has no direct access to sourcesother than the Internet.

4. It is to be noted that Kant absolutely

rejects Platos idea of the philosopher-king. See Perpetual Peace, p. 34.

5. A recent example is a collection of es-says by German and English-speakingsocial scientists published on the occa-sion of the 200thanniversary of thefirst publication of Perpetual Peace, coin-ciding with the 50thanniversary of theend of World War II: James Bohmanand Matthias Lutz-Bachmann (eds.),

Perpetual Peace. Essays on Kant's Cosmo-politan Ideal(The MIT Press, 1997).

6. Jerry Pubantz, Immanuel Kants Per-petual Peaceand the United Nations inthe Twenty-First Century. AnnualMeeting of the Western Political Sci-ence Association, Portland, Oregon,March 2004. International Journal of theHumanities, Volume 1. Available at:

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/7/9/0/p87909_index.html(October 25,2008).

7. Bruce Russett, The United Nationsand Three Great Forces for Peace.From: Renewing the United Nations andBuilding a Culture of Peace. NY: IIFWP,2000. In: Nicholas N. Kittrie, RodrigoCarazo, James R. Mancham (eds.), TheFuture of Peace in the Twenty-First Century(Durham, NC: Carolina AcademicPress, 2003), pp. 837-840.

8. Georg Geismann, Warum KantsFriedenslehre fr die Praxis taugt und

References:

1. Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace. A Phi-losophical Sketch. Indianapolis: Bobbs-

Merrill, 1984 [Zum ewigen Frieden. Einphilosophischer Entwurf, 1795] Availableat: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm(November 27,2008). Like all of Kants writings, theGerman original is available in the defi-niteAkademie-Ausgabeat: http://

virt052.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/aa08.

2. Kant was writing under the reign of

Prussias Friedrich Wilhelm III. Unlikehis predecessor, Friedrich (Frederick)the Great, this monarch was not prac-ticing enlighteneddespotism. Kant wasforced to commit himself to refrainfrom publishing works of a religiousnature. Writing on political matters wasthus risky, which should never be for-gotten when reading the contents. Fora very detailed analysis of the subtle

way in which Kant uses language tosidestep censorship and at the sametime sending clear, even provocativemessages in Perpetual Peace, see: JohnNamjun Kim, Kants Secret Article:Irony, Performativity, and History inZum Ewigen Frieden. Germanic Review,Summer2007, Vol. 82 Issue 3, pp. 203-226.

3. It should nevertheless be added thatKant was in direct contact with thegreat minds of his time, that he was inconstant dialogue with them, and re-ceived news of international events. Ina way, he can thus be compared to acontemporary student of world affairs

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/7/9/0/p87909_index.htmlhttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/7/9/0/p87909_index.htmlhttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/7/9/0/p87909_index.htmlhttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/7/9/0/p87909_index.htmlhttp://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htmhttp://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htmhttp://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htmhttp://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htmhttp://virt052.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/aa08http://virt052.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/aa08http://virt052.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/aa08http://virt052.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/aa08http://virt052.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/aa08http://virt052.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/aa08http://virt052.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/aa08http://virt052.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/aa08http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/7/9/0/p87909_index.htmlhttp://virt052.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/aa08http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm


31/100


the ideas of Perpetual Peacecannot beexplained away as a mere reaction tothe political turmoil of the times.

13. Published posthumously as part ofThe Principles of International Law.Though Benthams life and work as awhole chronologically follow ratherthan precede Kants, this particular

work was thus written a few yearsprior to Kants Perpetual Peace.

14. A.C.F. Beales, The Evolution ofTheories on War and Peace. In: TheHistory of Peace (London: G. Bell &

Sons Ltd., 1931). Reprinted in: Nicho-las N. Kittrie, Rodrigo Carazo, JamesR. Mancham (eds.), The Future of Peacein the Twenty-First Century(Durham,NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2003),p. 67. Beales article as a whole gives abrief overview of writings on war andpeace going as far back as ancientChina. See also Sanderson Beck, PeacePlans of Rousseau, Bentham, and Kant

(2003). Available at: http://rousseaustudies.free.fr/ArticleBeck.htmThis article also dis-cusses Saint-Pierres Peace Plan.

15. See Jrg Fisch, When Will KantsPerpetual Peace be Definitive?Jour-nal of the History of International Law,

Volume 2, Number 2, 2000 , pp. 125-147(23). Frisch notes that eternityreaches beyond this world, and be-

yond every imaginable time (p. 126).

16. Immanuel Kant, Die Religion innerhalbder Grenzen der bloen Vernunft(1793)[Religion within the limits of reasonalone]. Akademie-Ausgabe VI, DeGruyter, 1968, pp 1-203. Henceforth

warum die Friedenslehren von Fichte,Hegel und Marx schon in der Theorienicht richtig sind [Why Kantsteachings on peace are of practical use

and why those of Fichte, Hegel, andMarx are already worng in theory]Kritisches Jahrbuch der Philosophie, 1(1996) pp. 37-51. Available at: http://

www.kiesewetter.begeismann/20warumkant.pdf(November 27, 2008), p. 4of online version [My translation].

9. I will also refrain from repeating toomany details on the historical circum-stances surrounding the publication of

Perpetual Peace, the relationship be-tween that work and other works bythe same author, as well as the debatebetween Kant and his contemporar-ies. This research is in itself fascinat-ing, but the information can easily befound by the interested reader and itis not really germane to the purposeof my article.

10. See Kim, Ibid.,

11. This series of short writings even in-cludes one entitled Announcementof the Near Conclusion of a Treatyfor Eternal Peace in Philosophy (Verkndigung des nahen Abschlusseseines Tractats zum ewigen Frieden in derPhilosophie, 1796)Akademie-Ausgabe

VI, De Gruyter, 1968, pp. 411-422.

12. See Seventh Thesis of UniversalHistory in: Immanuel Kant, PerpetualPeace and Other Essays on Politics, History,and Moral. Translated with Introduc-tion by Ted Humphrey. Indianapo-lis / Cambridge: Hackett PublishingCo, 1983, p. 34. This also means that

http://rousseaustudies.free.fr/ArticleBeck.htmhttp://rousseaustudies.free.fr/ArticleBeck.htmhttp://rousseaustudies.free.fr/ArticleBeck.htmhttp://rousseaustudies.free.fr/ArticleBeck.htmhttp://rousseaustudies.free.fr/ArticleBeck.htmhttp://www.kiesewetter.begeismann/20warumkant.pdfhttp://www.kiesewetter.begeismann/20warumkant.pdfhttp://www.kiesewetter.begeismann/20warumkant.pdfhttp://www.kiesewetter.begeismann/20warumkant.pdfhttp://www.kiesewetter.begeismann/20warumkant.pdfhttp://rousseaustudies.free.fr/ArticleBeck.htmhttp://www.kiesewetter.begeismann/20warumkant.pdf


32/100


24. The United Nations has included thisas a requirement in its 1945 Charter,

Article 2, 7, and it applies to the UNitself. See Konstantin Pollok, Wann

beginnt die Ewigkeit? Die VereintenNationen im Lichte Immanuel KantsSchrift Zum ewigen Frieden. Sic et Non1996. Available at: http://archiv.sicetnon.org/artikel/sozial/friede.htm.

25. Perpetual Peace., p. 7.

26. Ibid., pp. 7-9.

27. Ibid., p. 10.

28. Ibid., p. 11. See also An answer to theQuestion: What is Enlighten-ment? (1784), in Perpetual Peace andOther Essays, p. 44.

29. Ibid., p. 14.

30. Ibid.

31. See Andrew J. Yu, Immanuel Kant'sPerpetual Peace and contemporarypeacekeeping Peacekeeping & Interna-tional Relations,11873485, Mar/Apr98,

Vol. 27, Issue 2. This view is sup-ported by the fact that in preliminarynotes for Perpetual Peace, Kant indi-cates that the Ancient Greek did notknow a representative system.

Akademie-AusgabeXXIII,Vorarbeiten Zum Ewigen Frieden,p. 167.

32. Perpetual Peace., p. vii, Lewis WhiteBecks Introduction. Kant himselfstrongly rejects that accusation of

referred to as Religion.

17. Goethe-Briefe, ed. Stein, Berlin 1924 Bd.IV, p. 37. Initially, Schiller shared

Goethes critical assessment but, afterreading the work carefully, he changedhis opinion entirely. See ErnstCassirer, Kants life and thought(NewHaven and London: Yale UniversityPress, 1981 [1918]), p. 391.

18. Notably Chris L. Firestone andStephen R. Palmquist, (eds.), Kant andthe New Philosophy of Religion(Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indi-

ana University Press, 2006).

19. See Kants famous formulation in theCritique of Pure Reason: 1. What can Iknow; 2. What ought I to do? 3. Whatmay I hope for. A804-805 / B832-833.

20. Immanuel Kant, Religion, p. 5[Mytranslation].

21. Ibid., p. 124.

22. Ibid., p. 8.

23. It is to be remembered that, at thetime when Kant drafted his PerpetualPeace, his own country, Prussia, and

Austria had unsuccessfully attemptedjust such an intervention against revo-lutionary France (Kant was an ardent

supporter of the French and Ameri-can revolutions). As Kim explains,Prussia was also involved in the sec-ond partition (i.e., dismemberment) ofPoland at that time. Ibid., pp. 211-213.

http://archiv.sicetnon.org/artikel/sozial/friede.htmhttp://archiv.sicetnon.org/artikel/sozial/friede.htmhttp://archiv.sicetnon.org/artikel/sozial/friede.htmhttp://archiv.sicetnon.org/artikel/sozial/friede.htmhttp://archiv.sicetnon.org/artikel/sozial/friede.htmhttp://archiv.sicetnon.org/artikel/sozial/friede.htmhttp://archiv.sicetnon.org/artikel/sozial/friede.htmhttp://archiv.sicetnon.org/artikel/sozial/friede.htm


33/100


36. Kofi A. Annan, Democracy as anInternational Issue, in: Global Govern-ance, Vol. 8 (2), April-June 2002, p.135. Available at: http://

homepage.usask.ca/~wjb289/bigfiles/POLST112/anan_demoracy_as_an_international_issue.pdf(Accessed on October 30,2008).

37. Pubantz, p. 17.

38. Kant literally speaks of a federalism(Fderalism)of free states. PerpetualPeace, p. 16.

39. No relationship to the psychiatriccondition known under the samename, in reference to the same semi-historical figure, but with the typical

Anglo-Saxon economy of one h.

40. Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace andOther Essays on Politics, History, and

Moral. Translated with Introduction

by Ted Humphrey (Indianapolis /Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Co,1983), p. 116. I have found Hum-phreys translation of this passage(slightly revised by myself) preferableto that of Beck.

41. Perpetual Peace[Beck version], p. 18.

42. Perhaps an indirect reference to thenewborn French Republic, this state-

ment can also be applied to the con-temporary notion ofAmerican excep-tionalismand the role the United States

would play in the creation of theLeague of Nationsand the United Na-tions. Kants words here at the very

support for mob action in acountry more than hundred miles re-moved. Kant also acknowledges thatthe French Revolution may succeed

or fail and that it may be filled withmisery and atrocities to the pointwhere a sensible man would neverresolve to make the experiment atsuch cost [a second time]. Neverthe-less, he also sees the potential forspectators (which would include him-self) to feel a wishful participationthat borders closely on enthusiasm.

This sympathy, which he deems po-tentially dangerous, has no other

cause than a moral predisposition inthe human race to seek for rights anda morally good constitution. Theoverall vision, for Kant, remainedthus more important than the flaws inits execution. See Immanuel Kant,An Old Question raised Again: Is theHuman Race Constantly Progress-ing? (1798) In: On History(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963),

pp. 144-145.

33. Fernando R. Tesn, A Philosophy ofInternational Law(Boulder, CO: West-

view Press, 1998).

34. Patrick Capps, The Kantian Projectin Modern International Legal The-ory, in:European Journal of InternationalLaw, 2001, XII (5), 1003-1025. [1005-1006] Available online at:http://207.57.19.226/journal/Vol12/No5/121003.pdf(accessed on Octo-ber 30, 2008).

35. See Note 3 above.

http://homepage.usask.ca/~wjb289/bigfiles/POLST112/anan_demoracy_as_an_international_issue.pdfhttp://homepage.usask.ca/~wjb289/bigfiles/POLST112/anan_demoracy_as_an_international_issue.pdfhttp://homepage.usask.ca/~wjb289/bigfiles/POLST112/anan_demoracy_as_an_international_issue.pdfhttp://homepage.usask.ca/~wjb289/bigfiles/POLST112/anan_demoracy_as_an_international_issue.pdfhttp://homepage.usask.ca/~wjb289/bigfiles/POLST112/anan_demoracy_as_an_international_issue.pdfhttp://homepage.usask.ca/~wjb289/bigfiles/POLST112/anan_demoracy_as_an_international_issue.pdfhttp://homepage.usask.ca/~wjb289/bigfiles/POLST112/anan_demoracy_as_an_international_issue.pdfhttp://207.57.19.226/journal/Vol12/No5/121003.pdfhttp://207.57.19.226/journal/Vol12/No5/121003.pdfhttp://207.57.19.226/journal/Vol12/No5/121003.pdfhttp://207.57.19.226/journal/Vol12/No5/121003.pdfhttp://homepage.usask.ca/~wjb289/bigfiles

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vani-vega
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

China's New Diplomacy Since the Mid 90

Documents