First Term EssayInternational IssuesMs. McCabe B BlockNovember 20, 2016John Joseph Miller

Assignment: Use the source material and reading(s) we have used thus far to argue for, or

against, a current US Policy. If arguing for then present viable alternatives (no “Straw Men PLEASE!) if

against argue for the alternative(s). Essay will account for 25% of first term grade- see “How You Will Be Measured”

sheet in the blue handout packet or see me after class.The essay grade will be based on the following:

1. Use of “framing arguments” for the current US International policy of your choice. See the salmon colored handout packet for suggestions.

2. Compare Liberal vs. Realism per class and reading assignments. , You must make use of at least one theory from each side (i.e. Structural Liberalism/Realism, Kantian Liberalism, Neo Realism, Real Politic, Classic Liberalism etc.).

3. Cite at least three of the following case studies we have covered in the first term:a. The Melian Dialogue- Thucydides plus your own researchb. The War of 1812-Source material plus your own researchc. World War I 1914-Use the Google book from class “1913” by Hamm plus

your own researchd. League of Nations 1930s- Use paper by “Schmidt” plus your own researche. The Armenian Genocide 1916- Source material referenced see salmon

colored packetf. Sudan Crisis Current- NYT Material- see salmon colored packet

4. Develop your arguments fully using source material from class or new sources from your own research.

5. Have a complete thesis statement and conclusion based on your research and data. Make a cogent argument use of logic will be awarded- leaps of faith based on feelings with be punished!!!

6. Properly Footnote all material including source material handed out in class. Web citations with proper footnoting are allowed. I will be the final judge and arbiter of whether these Web citations are “reliable and valid”- so be careful with their use.

7. Assignment due on Monday, November 23 2015 via G Drive. But please turn in printed hard copy with name etc. in upper right hand block at the start of class that day.

8. Presentation days will be December 2-5. You will have 15 minutes to present your arguments. PPT must be completed and submitted via G Drive by Monday, November 30, 2015. No more than 6 slides. Graphics and creativity will be rewarded! I will review your presentation slot on Monday, November 23.

9. Minimum 10 pages, Times New Roman 12, at least 2,500 words.

1

Real Politic vs. Kantian LiberalismCurrent U.S. Policy in the Middle East

Current events are filled with news of ISIS atrocities in Europe and the Middle

East and of the sad plight of Syrian refugees fleeing the civil war raging in Assad’s

Syria.1 The US is confronted with responding to these issues, all of which affect its

economy and its strategic interests to varying degrees.2 The U.S. Constitution clearly

delineates that the chief responsibility of the President of the U.S. it to “protect and

defend the United States.” This paper will explore two philosophical methods that are

being used by U.S. leaders to frame solutions to current issues in the Middle East and to

“protect the US”. In addition it will also demonstrate why the use of Real Politic

philosophy of “Framing” policy questions is not only mandated by the US Constitution

but is the most likely to minimize the chance of war and suffering in the World.

The term “Real Politic” was first used by Count Von Rachau, a German General

who lived in the nineteenth century.3 Von Rachau wrote

“The study of the powers that shape, maintain and alter the state is the basis of

all political insight and leads to the understanding that the law of power governs

the world of states just as the law of gravity governs the physical world.”

1 Time Magazine On Line Inside ISSIS http://time.com/inside-isis-a-time-special-report/. Accessed November 20152 Ibid3 Haslam, Jonathan (2002). No Virtue Like Necessity: Realist Thought in International Relations since Machiavelli. London: Yale University Press. p. 112

2

Real Politic came to be explained as “acting politically or militarily only when a states

direct, or indirect interests are at stake.4” Rachon noted that

“…governments of States are able to enforce order through moral principal or

force of restrain… but no such government governs the league of states.5”

Thucydides, in the “History of the “Peloponnesian War” in the Melian Dialogue6

first explored this concept writing in the second century B.C.E :

"the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must."7

Neither Rochon nor, Thucydides, argued that “right makes right”, but were simply

pointing out that an elemental forces rule the relations between powers.8 This elemental

force, for both writers, was that of self -interest. Thucydides uses the example of the

Melians, citizens of a Greek democratic island City State, as an example of this force of

self interest. The Athenians needed the island of Melia to protect their trade routes

against their Spartan enemies on the mainland. The Athenians offered Melia safety but

said that the Melians must first submit to Athenian rule and allow the Athenians to man

their city walls. Athens’s argument for this was a simple one. The Melians had done

nothing wrong, or injured the Athenians, but they must submit to Athenian rule of their

island, or be destroyed. The Melians vowed “Liberty or Death”9, fought the Athenians,

were destroyed with all their men being killed and their women and children enslaved.

Using this example Thucydides said that “if a state is weak it must make itself strong by

allying with other states or submit to the superior power10” to survive. He concluded that

4 Ibid p. 1155 Ibid p 1986 Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War, 5.84-1167 Ibid 5, 558 Johnson. The Fall of the Athenian Empire. 245 Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 20129 Ibid, 5 111 10 Johnson. The Fall of the Athenian Empire. 6-8 Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2012

3

no “argument on moral grounds will help those who are weak”11. Interestingly enough the

Founding Fathers of the U.S. studied Thucydides and quoted his work frequently, one

prime example being Patrick Henry’s cry “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” which

was lifted almost directly from the Melian Dialogues12. This will be instructive as current

and past U.S international policies are considered below.

The reason the Athenians (a direct democracy) took the step of confronting a

benevolent neighbor is due to what is now called the “Thucydides’ Trap.” This situation

occurs because small events, or reasons, can lead to catastrophic events down the road.

Thucydides records that Sparta promised the City State Corinth help if they got into

trouble. When Corinth got into a fight with an Athenian ally this triggered the

Peloponnesian War and the doom of the innocent Melians13 who, on the surface had no

cause to be involved. Athens thought if it did not confront Sparta’s ally Corinth it would

be seen as weak and it went to war. This war ultimately also destroyed Athens. It is again

worth nothing that Thucydides was quoted, and studied extensively, by the Founding

Fathers who referenced both the Melian Dialogues and the “Trap” in speeches and

writing.14

George Washington had the “Thucydides Trap” in mind when he warned, in his

farewell address, of “avoiding entangling alliances and going to war for insignificant

reasons.”15 But is was also clear that Washington supported force to protect the national

interests of the U.S when he took the oath of President to “…protect and defend the

Constitution of the United States.” Thus we can conclude that Washington, the “Father

11 Ibid12 Nelson, Craig. Thomas Paine, Enlightenment, Revolution, and the Birth of Modern Nations 231-232. New York: Viking, 200613 Johnson. The Fall of the Athenian Empire. Ithaca 172, NY: Cornell University Press, 201214 Ibid15 Miller S. The Roots of the Great War. 55 MIT Press 2014

4

of the US” was committed to defending the U.S. against attack but was also committed to

avoiding wars that arose out of small events, or reasons, not directly affecting the

interests of the U.S. Thus it can be said then that George Washington framed questions

of international relations using the “Real Politic” philosophy as described by Rachau.

This commitment to “Real Politic” was shown again in the actions of the U.S.

during the War of 1812. The War of 1812 was the outgrowth of a continental European

War between two world powers France and Great Britain. France had won a series wars

and they were the dominant power on the European Continent by 1810. Their power

threatened the interests of Great Britain whose trade routes with Europe, Asia, and the

New World could now be cut by the powerful French. Unable to beat the French on land

the British declared a naval blockade of Europe, and seized any ship bound for any port

controlled by the French. Called upon to take sides against France, the U.S. declared

neutrality and refused to recognize the embargo of French ports.16

When the British continued to seize U.S registered merchant vessels President

Madison and the U.S. Congress declared War. Previous to this Madison had been

unwilling to take sides in a conflict between France and Britain, that “for this country has

no meaning”17. Yet he, and Congress, voted to go to war when the vital and direct U.S.

interests of free trade were threatened by Britain. This shows that the U.S. continued to

abide by Washington’s instructions his in farewell address, and go to war, only if it’s

vital interests were directly threatened. This is “Real Politic” thinking by Madison and

Congress. Thus we can see that Washington, and the U.S Constitution, and subsequent

Presidents, advocated “Real Politic” philosophy as the best and most effective method to

16 Jasper M. Trautsch, "The Causes of the War of 1812: 200 Years of Debate, University of Michigan 2014 p.11217 Ibid p 96

5

“establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote

the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Because of Washington’s admonition the US, from 1783 to 1898, avoided going

to war outside of the Western Hemisphere. But the older philosophy of “Real Politic” of

Rachau had a rival in the new philosophy, described by Immanuel Kant in 1795, in his

book “A Perpetual Peace, a Philosophical Sketch”.18

In his book Kant laid out a different view of how the relations of nations could be

maintained, and war avoided. Kant argued that the power of a republic and

democratically elected government would limit the powers of government to pursue their

self- interests to the point of war and aggression.19 He introduced the concept of

“Reichstaat” which said that a state’s power should be limited to

“…doing good for its citizens and limiting the power of the state to exercise

arbitrary authority over it citizens.”20

All of this would happen, according to Kant, because if governments were popularly

elected by the citizens, these citizens, who elected the government, would have to fight in

the wars they started and would also have to vote for the state to abuse them. Since

citizens voted governments in and out of office any government that abused its power

would be voted out of office and any government that fought an unjust war, that was not

in the interests of the citizens would also be voted out.21 Kant stated:

“The constitution of a state is eventually based on the morals of its citizens,

which, in its turns, is based on the goodness of this constitution.”22

18 Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy 2015 p 2319 Ibid p 4820 Ibid p 3221 Ibid p 4922 Ibid p 57

6

But the author of “Real Politic”, Von Rachau, pointed out that even if a

government is “good” there is no over-arching government to ensure that all governments

are good. This is known as the “Realist Theory” of anarchism amongst states. Thus

Kantian Liberals have a problem because, even if a state, or all states, are “good”, there is

no over-arching government of states to that the strong will not take from the weak. This

concept of “Structural Realism, was developed by Hang Morganthau in the late 19th

Century. Morganthau disagreed with Kant, and stated that “international politics is

struggle for power” and that “the struggle for power is universal in time and space

regardless of the nature of the states.”23 Morganthau served as Secretary of State under

Woodrow Wilson until their differences caused his resignation.

Woodrow Wilson, the first US President to publicly endorse Kant’s ideas,

understood the problem that Morganthau raised. Wilson thought that this lack of a

government of governments was the primary cause of World War I. In World War I none

of the states wanted war yet they fell into “Thucydides Trap” with the murder of Arch

Duke Ferdinand.24 Excepting the Czarist Regime, none of the states that went to war were

autocracies. All of the warring states, even Germany, Austria, and Serbia had a form of

Parliamentary Democracy.25 Yet Kant said that democracies would not go to war against

each other. Thus Wilson saw the lack of a structure, or mechanism to govern independent

states, as the main reason for the First World Thus his idea for the League of Nations was

born. 26 Thus he was able to maintain that Kant was right using “Structural Liberalism.

23 Ibid p 9824 Hamm. 1913 The Eve of War Endeavour Press 2013 p 2225 Ibid p 8926 Ibid p 291

7

Structural Liberalism said that but all that was lacking in Kant’s theory was a structure to

resolve differences among states.

Yet there was more to making Kantian Liberalism, or it cousin, Structural

Liberalism, work than just a structure that governed nations. There had to be enforcement

of the structure through the use of power. This meant that member states of such a league

of states must be willing to go to war even if their direct, or indirect, interests were NOT

threatened.27 This flaw in the League of Nations was uncovered in the 1930s when

Ethiopia (Abyssina) was invaded by Italy. No action was taken against Italy, even though

the League of Nations condemned it, because the interests of those powers that could

intervene (France or Great Britain) were not threatened. 28 Kantian Liberalism, and its

cousin, Liberal Structuralism, had failed a “real world” test. Yet it was not discarded but

embraced by more politicians and “more humane” than “Real Politic”.

Again in the early 1930s the majority of the European States were liberal

democracies. Even Germany, prior to 1933, was a liberal democracy. According to Kant

and Wilson, in 1932, the chances of war in Europe were impossible.29A structure was in

place to govern state relations and most of the European states (with the exception of

Russia and Italy) were governed by either liberal governments or constitutional

monarchies with a Parliament. Yet by 1939 the world was plunged into another World

War, this one ten times worse than the last one. This happened because of a flaw in Kant

and Wilson’s theory. The flaw was this: what if a state was governed by a demagogue

who convinced its citizens to given him absolute power? And what if that state was not

27 PBS.org Wilson, A Portait the League of Nations. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/portrait/wp_league.html web site accessed November 17, 201528 Nobel Prize. Org Liberal Internationalism Peace, War and Democracy accessed November 201529 Ibid

8

interested in the “peaceful welfare of its citizens” but was bent on expanding its power,

and the living standards of its citizens, through the conquest of other neighboring states?

The Kantian ideal of international relations requires that all states be governed by “liberal

governments.” 30But what if one state is not a liberal government? Are the other states to

invade and force democracy on it? But if they do so then they are using their power to

threaten a weaker power (because if the threatened state is not weaker then the liberal

states cannot invade it). This is plain and simple “Real Politic”. And this is what started

World War II, the absolute belief that Kantian Liberalism would “correct” German’s

grievances and when it did not “Real Politic stepped in, but it was too late for France and

Poland by September 1939. Had France decided that the invasion of the Rhineland was a

blow to its direct national interests, and had it responded with a “Real Politic” invasion in

1936 it is almost certain Hitler’s regime would have fallen then and millions of lives

saved.31 Once again Kantian Liberalism failed and its failure was catastrophic.

Despite these failures many politicians continue to point to Kantian Liberal Ideals

as the solution to war and strife. Even though the U.S. entered World War II only after

being directly attacked by the Japanese (and having War declared on it by Hitler’s

Germany) that war is seen as proof that “Kantian Liberalism” works and that Liberal

Democracies never start a war so they are peaceful by nature.32 Yet we can see in

Vietnam and the French Indo China War that Liberal Democracies are not inherently

peaceful. Both France and The US were democracies but they went to war without direct

provocation or with their direct national interests at stake. Democracies tend NOT to go

30 ibid p 9031 Ibid p 25032 Nobel Prize. Org Liberal Internationalism Peace, War and Democracy http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/themes/peace/doyle/ Accessed November 10, 2015

9

to war amongst themselves –“but that it does not follow that liberal democracies are

peaceful.”33 The war-like tendencies of Democracies have been labeled by expert

Michael Doyle as the “Separate Peace Syndrome.”34 This means that democracies will

not declare war on other democracies but they will fight unjust wars against other forms

of government. The rulers of democracies have their own political survival to think about

and can use demagoguery or the threat of the “other” to stir the electorate (Kant’s

citizens) into imprudent wars of aggression.35

The Mexican American War, the Spanish American War, the First World War,

the Vietnam War and the Second Gulf War by the US are examples of this “Separate

Peace Syndrome” . Note that none of these wars were fought against another other liberal

democracies, yet many of them were fought with no good pretext and directly contradict

Kant’s suggestions that democracies are inherently peaceful.36 In fact Michael Doyle

suggests that the use of Liberal Kantian “Framing” induces Liberal Democracies to go to

war substituting the old “Might Makes Right” argument for A “Right Makes Might”

argument. 37 Citizens of Democracies can be made to think that the idea of war to spread

their “Democratic Ideal’ is justification for a “just war”.38 So we see that the idea that

democracies with Parliamentary Governments are inherently peaceful is not only wrong,

it is dangerous because it misrepresents the chances of war and puts “democracy’ on a

pedestal as a “peace loving group’ when the opposite it true.

33 Ibid34 Ibid35 Ibid36 Ibid37 Ibid38 Ibid

10

It is evident then that not only does Liberal Kantianism NOT stop wars it makes

makes wars easier to start. If the voting populace can be stirred up to think their cause is

just like in the “War for Humanities Sake” that induced a needless war against Spain or

the threat of “non existent Yellow Cake Uranium” in Iraq, to make war on a a country

that posed zero threat to the U.S., then the war like tendency of democracies is self

evident.39 This alone proves the danger of embracing Kantian Liberalism and its inherent

“Right makes Might” argument.

The current threat of ISIS and the problem of Afghanistan call for properly

framing how the US should think about its international relations. The Executive Branch

and the President, constitutionally, set both the goals and the “how” of US foreign policy

and can affect events through executive action. The President is charged to “Protect and

Defend the Constitution of the United States” to the best of his ability. How he, or she,

frames that role in the international arena is critical. Going to war does not equate with

protecting the United States and being right does not make might!

Recently President Obama was asked the question about putting troops on the

ground to fight ISIS.40 He answered:“ Where would we stop, would we attack the next

country that bombed us?” Obama in the same press conference answered a question

about banning Syrian refugees “The US cannot yield the high moral ground this is not

who were?”41 The reference to the high moral ground indicates that Obama is framing

the problem using Kantian Liberalism, that is, the influence of morality on like- minded

states. But the Kantian approach is flawed, as has been shown in this paper. Taking the

39 Ibid40 Yahoo News Boots on the Ground a Mistake http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama-us-boots-ground-against-isis-mistake-235347932.html accessed November 201541 Ibid

11

moral high ground can lead to the “Right Makes Might” syndrome that Doyle references

with regards to Democracies and the “Separate Peace Syndrome”. It also raises the

problem of Thucydides Trap that Washington warned about where seemingly small

military incursion, can have far reaching and devastating consequences that cannot be

foreseen.

The proper framing of that to do with the ISIS problem is a simple exercise that

starts with the questions “What is in the direct interests of the United States and how does

the U.S avoid ‘Thucydides Trap’?”. The same question should be asked regarding Syrian

refugees? Is it in our best interest to accept them? It is interesting that Obama is not

willing (rightfully) to invading any country where a terrorist might live, yet he is willing

to accept refugees from these countries all day long. This flawed thinking derives from

Kantian Liberalism. The solution to ISIS, whether it be going to war, using ground

troops, or working with the Russians should be framed by Real Politic by asking this

simple question “What action best serves the direct interests of the United States?” This

will ensure that the US goes to war only if it’s direct national interest are threatened,

including if it is directly attacked. These clear “Real Politic” framing will also help limit

wars, because once the threat is eliminated then the reason for the war is over and the US

can end the war and bring the troops home. The cause of war should be simple: a direct

attack or imminent danger to the US or its interests. This is the value of Real Politics. It

will prevent the quagmires of democratically induced wars.

12