-Written by AJ Reibel, MIR program, New Zealand
A truly liberal foreign policy, based firmly on Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace, is pacific if it recognizes the egalitarian rights of states in the international system. Lamentably, such a foreign policy is not possible in an anarchic world in which states aim to maximize their power. Consequently, ‘liberal” foreign policies emanating from Washington are not pacific and, instead, are rightly described as being covertly imperialist in Beate Jahn’s article, “Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs.”[1]
Kant and John Stuart Mill, both depicted as liberal thought’s founding fathers, disagreed regarding the liberal ideals and the interaction of liberal states. Despite the fact that Kantian liberal thought, interpreted by John Rawls, seems to accentuate “laws of the people” and the “…right of the [liberal state] to defend [itself] against outlaw states… and the obligation to assist burdened societies,”[2] the theory does not support intervention. Imperialism is defined by Jahn as political thought that justifies interventions aimed at bringing about change and an ideological willingness to use force.[3] Kantian theory explicitly stresses the precepts of non-interference, internally created constitutional processes, and the right to self-defense. Western liberal thought – found in American and British foreign policy and demanding the spread (forcibly, if necessary) of human rights, “cosmopolitan values”[4], and free-market policies – is inherently imperialist.
In fact, Western liberal foreign policies more closely resemble Mill’s liberal theories than they do Kant’s. Beginning with a categorization of civilizations depending on the level of their development, Millian liberal theory has supported the notion of the rule of the ‘more enlightened’ over the “…barbarous or semi-barbarous.”[5] The liberal ideological schism between Kantian and Millian theory established a liberal track that has been labeled ‘Euro-centric’, ‘Western-centric’, and at present, imperialist.
Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The White-man’s Burden” typifies early Millian liberal eurocentrism and scientific ethnocentrism. Despite its likely satirical intention, the poem’s stanzas inspired early Twentieth Century policymakers to enthusiastically disseminate their altruistic (but intrinsically self-interested) liberal policies of economic modernization and social enlightenment.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.[6]
The ‘White Man’s Burden’ that so exemplified Twentieth Century liberal policies was borrowed directly from the same Millian theory that supported the existence of “…unequal rights of sovereignty and nonintervention”[7] of less developed civilizations.
As Millian liberalism gained popularity among American and British imperialist policymakers, its approaches became entrenched in the modern liberal philosophy. Though this Millian liberal discourse has strayed since its overtly imperialist heyday, it remains embedded in contemporary American political rhetoric and policy. Both Former President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush have affirmed their commitment to the spread of democracy. Clinton lauded the “…the simple commitments of all nations in Europe to democracy, to free markets, and to respect for existing borders…” while also praising Washington’s interventions abroad and its sponsoring of international free-market policies.[8] George W. Bush, in keeping with the Millian liberal political dialogue, expressed his desire that Washington, London, and Brussels work together to safeguard freedom, advance democracy, and spread prosperity.[9]
Such liberal foreign policy is dangerously delusional and frighteningly popular throughout the capitals of the West. The blend of fanatical altruism and brutal power maximization is alarming as military strategists and key foreign policy advisors propose liberal imperialist strategies to incumbent administrations. Thomas P.M. Barnett, a strategic planner and senior managing director of Entera Solutions, authored a book called The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century in which he separated the world into a Functioning Core, “…where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security,” and the Gap, “where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, …regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists.”[10]
Barnett calls for Gap countries to be dealt with according to a multi-stage American-led intervention plan that begins “…with security, because free markets and democracy cannot flourish amid chronic conflict.”[11] His grandiose solution involves establishing a more robust military force capable of toppling Gap regimes in succession and, later, rebuilding them into viable democracies – a process that Kant insisted could not be externally initiated and, as such, would be utterly useless.[12]
Although Barnett comes across like a hawkish Millian liberal, his idea of external democracy promotion (installation) has been central to American foreign policy. The National Endowment for Democracy, “…a private, nonprofit organization…”[13] largely funded by the American government, espouses Barnett’s aim of replacing non-democratic states with liberal democracies; albeit, by building up pro-liberal democratic civil society organizations within illiberal states.[14]
Another organization that works to promote Millian liberal thinking within the US is the Princeton Project on National Security – which promotes, amongst free-market liberal policies, international cosmopolitan thinking centered on a responsible international community willing to enforce the precepts of R2P and ready to shore up “liberty” and “law” with military force.[15]
While Millian liberal thought has emerged as the dominant ideology of the West, it is clear that Jahn’s “justified interventionism” has edged out Kant’s true altruism. In this sense, modern liberalism’s ends – with its fascia of liberal cosmopolitanism – resemble neo-realist power maximization. The underlying difference between Millian liberalism and the Mearsheimer School is the delusional altruism used to rationalize Washington’s interventionist foreign policy. Accordingly, American liberal foreign policy is a far cry from the pacific liberalism that Kant espoused in his Perpetual Peace.
____________________
[1] Beate Jahn, “Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs,” International Organization, Vol. 59, No. 1 (2005): 177-207.
[2] Ibid., 183. Taken from: John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), 90.
[3] Jahn, “Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs,” 178.
[4] Robert Cooper, “The New Liberal Imperialism,” The Observer UK online, 7 April 2002, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,680095,00.html.
[5] Jahn, “Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs,” 196. Taken from: __, “Considerations on Representative Government, in On Liberty and Other Essays, ed. John Gray, 203-467 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998a).
[6] Rudyard Kipling, “The White Man’s Burden,” McClure’s Magazine, 12 February 1899, Taken from: http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/mpi/shah/burden.pdf [viewed 13/09/08].
[7] Jan, “Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs,” 200.
[8] __, “1994 State of the Union Address,” Washington Post website, 25 January 1994, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou94.htm [viewed 13/09/08].
[9] __, “President and Prime Minister Blair Discussed Iraq, Middle East,” The White House website, Office of the Press Secretary, 12 November 2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041112-5.html [viewed 13/09/08].
[10] Thomas PM Barnett, “The Pentagon’s New Map – It explains why we’re going to war, and why we’ll keep going to war,” Thomas P.M. Barnett, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm [viewed 14/09/08].
[11] Ibid.
[12] Jan, “Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs,” 189.
[13] __, “About Us,” National Endowment for Democracy website, http://www.ned.org/about/about.html [viewed 14/09/08].
[14] Jonah Gindin, “Interview with William I. Robinson – The Battle for Global Civil Society,” The International Endowment for Democracy website, 13 June 2005, http://www.iefd.org/articles/global_civil_society.php [viewed 14/09/08].
[15] G. John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter, “Final Report of the Princeton Project on National Security,” Forging a World of Liberty Under Law (2006): 8, www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns/report/FinalReport.pdf [viewed 13/09/08].
Kant and John Stuart Mill, both depicted as liberal thought’s founding fathers, disagreed regarding the liberal ideals and the interaction of liberal states. Despite the fact that Kantian liberal thought, interpreted by John Rawls, seems to accentuate “laws of the people” and the “…right of the [liberal state] to defend [itself] against outlaw states… and the obligation to assist burdened societies,”[2] the theory does not support intervention. Imperialism is defined by Jahn as political thought that justifies interventions aimed at bringing about change and an ideological willingness to use force.[3] Kantian theory explicitly stresses the precepts of non-interference, internally created constitutional processes, and the right to self-defense. Western liberal thought – found in American and British foreign policy and demanding the spread (forcibly, if necessary) of human rights, “cosmopolitan values”[4], and free-market policies – is inherently imperialist.
In fact, Western liberal foreign policies more closely resemble Mill’s liberal theories than they do Kant’s. Beginning with a categorization of civilizations depending on the level of their development, Millian liberal theory has supported the notion of the rule of the ‘more enlightened’ over the “…barbarous or semi-barbarous.”[5] The liberal ideological schism between Kantian and Millian theory established a liberal track that has been labeled ‘Euro-centric’, ‘Western-centric’, and at present, imperialist.
Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The White-man’s Burden” typifies early Millian liberal eurocentrism and scientific ethnocentrism. Despite its likely satirical intention, the poem’s stanzas inspired early Twentieth Century policymakers to enthusiastically disseminate their altruistic (but intrinsically self-interested) liberal policies of economic modernization and social enlightenment.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.[6]
The ‘White Man’s Burden’ that so exemplified Twentieth Century liberal policies was borrowed directly from the same Millian theory that supported the existence of “…unequal rights of sovereignty and nonintervention”[7] of less developed civilizations.
As Millian liberalism gained popularity among American and British imperialist policymakers, its approaches became entrenched in the modern liberal philosophy. Though this Millian liberal discourse has strayed since its overtly imperialist heyday, it remains embedded in contemporary American political rhetoric and policy. Both Former President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush have affirmed their commitment to the spread of democracy. Clinton lauded the “…the simple commitments of all nations in Europe to democracy, to free markets, and to respect for existing borders…” while also praising Washington’s interventions abroad and its sponsoring of international free-market policies.[8] George W. Bush, in keeping with the Millian liberal political dialogue, expressed his desire that Washington, London, and Brussels work together to safeguard freedom, advance democracy, and spread prosperity.[9]
Such liberal foreign policy is dangerously delusional and frighteningly popular throughout the capitals of the West. The blend of fanatical altruism and brutal power maximization is alarming as military strategists and key foreign policy advisors propose liberal imperialist strategies to incumbent administrations. Thomas P.M. Barnett, a strategic planner and senior managing director of Entera Solutions, authored a book called The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century in which he separated the world into a Functioning Core, “…where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security,” and the Gap, “where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, …regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists.”[10]
Barnett calls for Gap countries to be dealt with according to a multi-stage American-led intervention plan that begins “…with security, because free markets and democracy cannot flourish amid chronic conflict.”[11] His grandiose solution involves establishing a more robust military force capable of toppling Gap regimes in succession and, later, rebuilding them into viable democracies – a process that Kant insisted could not be externally initiated and, as such, would be utterly useless.[12]
Although Barnett comes across like a hawkish Millian liberal, his idea of external democracy promotion (installation) has been central to American foreign policy. The National Endowment for Democracy, “…a private, nonprofit organization…”[13] largely funded by the American government, espouses Barnett’s aim of replacing non-democratic states with liberal democracies; albeit, by building up pro-liberal democratic civil society organizations within illiberal states.[14]
Another organization that works to promote Millian liberal thinking within the US is the Princeton Project on National Security – which promotes, amongst free-market liberal policies, international cosmopolitan thinking centered on a responsible international community willing to enforce the precepts of R2P and ready to shore up “liberty” and “law” with military force.[15]
While Millian liberal thought has emerged as the dominant ideology of the West, it is clear that Jahn’s “justified interventionism” has edged out Kant’s true altruism. In this sense, modern liberalism’s ends – with its fascia of liberal cosmopolitanism – resemble neo-realist power maximization. The underlying difference between Millian liberalism and the Mearsheimer School is the delusional altruism used to rationalize Washington’s interventionist foreign policy. Accordingly, American liberal foreign policy is a far cry from the pacific liberalism that Kant espoused in his Perpetual Peace.
____________________
[1] Beate Jahn, “Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs,” International Organization, Vol. 59, No. 1 (2005): 177-207.
[2] Ibid., 183. Taken from: John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), 90.
[3] Jahn, “Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs,” 178.
[4] Robert Cooper, “The New Liberal Imperialism,” The Observer UK online, 7 April 2002, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,680095,00.html.
[5] Jahn, “Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs,” 196. Taken from: __, “Considerations on Representative Government, in On Liberty and Other Essays, ed. John Gray, 203-467 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998a).
[6] Rudyard Kipling, “The White Man’s Burden,” McClure’s Magazine, 12 February 1899, Taken from: http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/mpi/shah/burden.pdf [viewed 13/09/08].
[7] Jan, “Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs,” 200.
[8] __, “1994 State of the Union Address,” Washington Post website, 25 January 1994, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou94.htm [viewed 13/09/08].
[9] __, “President and Prime Minister Blair Discussed Iraq, Middle East,” The White House website, Office of the Press Secretary, 12 November 2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041112-5.html [viewed 13/09/08].
[10] Thomas PM Barnett, “The Pentagon’s New Map – It explains why we’re going to war, and why we’ll keep going to war,” Thomas P.M. Barnett, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm [viewed 14/09/08].
[11] Ibid.
[12] Jan, “Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs,” 189.
[13] __, “About Us,” National Endowment for Democracy website, http://www.ned.org/about/about.html [viewed 14/09/08].
[14] Jonah Gindin, “Interview with William I. Robinson – The Battle for Global Civil Society,” The International Endowment for Democracy website, 13 June 2005, http://www.iefd.org/articles/global_civil_society.php [viewed 14/09/08].
[15] G. John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter, “Final Report of the Princeton Project on National Security,” Forging a World of Liberty Under Law (2006): 8, www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns/report/FinalReport.pdf [viewed 13/09/08].
Posts
