Kant and Middle East Peace

Michael Doyle’s “Liberalism and World Politics” discusses the IR theory of liberalism as described by Schumpter, Machiavelli, and Kant. All three are intriguing but I want to focus in on Kant. Kant’s insights into IR reveal a “separate peace” that exists among republics that adhere to three “definitive articles,” and if all states adhere to them then there will be a “perpetual peace.” These definitive articles are: 1) That a state be republican 2) That liberal republics will establish peace among themselves 3) That there exist a cosmopolitan law to operate in conjunction with the pacific union. The first thing that occurs to me when I read this is the Democratic Peace Theory, the idea that democracies will not go to war with each other so if all states are democracies then there will be no more war. Kant’s is a very similar concept and I believe that some form of it is being pursued in our world right now, but that those pursuing it are sabotaging their efforts.

It is nearly impossible to listen to a speech given by an American president without hearing them utter something about promoting and spreading democracy. This strategy of achieving peace through spreading democracy relates right back to Kant and the Democratic Peace Theory. Take Iraq for example, establishing a successful democracy there (as hard as it will be) would help the United States spread democracy throughout the region as Iraq is right in the middle of the violent and undemocratic Middle East. However, aside from the obvious challenges in actually establishing democracy in the Middle East, we are undermining our own efforts in undertaking this task. Throughout our history of our interaction with the Middle East right up to today the United States has always had its closest ties with the most oppressive autocratic states in the Middle East. Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are examples of just such undemocratic states. The fact of the matter is that to push policies in any region one needs allies and partners that one can count on. When it comes to states the most reliable states are autocratic and oppressive because you know what you are getting. Democracies have the ability to change government at the will of the citizens through voting. The US can count on Saudi Arabia, for example, to stay aligned with US policies because the US knows that the Saudi government is not going to change short of revolution (which some might say is a real possibility). Not election is going to oust a king or despot so you can count on your relationship with them to last a lot longer.

So it appears that efforts to make Kant’s ideas work in the Middle East are fail because of the nature of the effort. States need help within a region to promote a policy like democratic change in that region. But those states need to be able to count on that help and the most reliable allies who can control what their policies will be in the long-term are autocratic and oppressive. If the effort to democratize Iraq succeeds then the US will have a democratic state to work with in the Middle East to spread more democracy. But short of that the US is facing an extremely tough effort because you cannot spread democracy with the help of autocracy. Kant says that all states must accept all three of his definitive articles, not just some.