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.
19The National Security Archive <http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/> 17 March 2016
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.
