Gulf War Using Cosmopolitan Pov

Gulf War using Cosmopolitan POV by Kant

The Gulf War from Kant's Cosmopolitan Perspective

Wars in the social discipline of International Relations are manifestations of breakdown in dialogue and diplomacy in the manner in which sovereign states resolve their conflict. Wars reflect the final end through which differences in interest are reconciled through the use of military force. The Gulf War of in 1990 to 1991 would be the focus of this paper and would be discussed amidst the backdrop of Immanuel Kant's Cosmopolitan perspective.

The Gulf War started when then Iraqi President Saddam Hussein annexed Kuwait because the two countries failed to reach a consensus on their border disputes. To prevent Iraq from annexing other countries within its periphery, the United States and its allies fortified Saudi Arabia with their military forces and started preparing for Operation Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait from the clutches of the Iraqi government's control. After consolidating its forces, the U.S. And its allies entered Kuwait and drove the Iraqi forces subsequently restoring Kuwait's freedom from foreign rule.

In discussing the concept of war it would be noteworthy to review the concept of what constitutes the cosmopolitan perspective. Cosmopolitanism suggests the establishment of a cosmo polis or world state that would embrace all humanity. Cosmopolitanism has therefore come to stand for peace and harmony amongst nations, founded upon understanding and economic interdependence. The hope is that a stable and peaceful world order will emerge as sovereign nations come to cooperate for mutual benefit (Heywood, 1999).

In Immanuel Kant's "Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point-of-View" he forwarded several propositions which I would operationalize to the conduct of the Gulf War. In the realm of real politik, the dynamics of sovereign states is premised on the condition that only the strong state would survive or have its interest upheld. Kant, however talks about the value of using reason in conflict mediation. Kant argued that man utilizes his reason to achieve compromises not only for himself but that for his race. In this ideal form, man is seen as a being that cooperates and at times sacrifices his interest for the benefit of the collectivity. In this view man is characterized as a being capable of transcending his self-interest.

Applying this concept to the Gulf War, the actions undertaken by the U.S. And its allies against Iraq, is seen as a collective and rational action as they are defending and upholding the rights of the people of Kuwait against Iraq. The U.S. And its allies along this light are seen as transcending their interest when they liberated Kuwait. Some however would contend that the allies have vested interest on Kuwait, they would not want Saddam Hussein to reign over the Middle East. Their action in helping Kuwait is perceived as a calculated decision to preserve the balance of power in the Middle East.

Kant stated that "the greatest problem for the human, to the solution of which nature drives man, is the achievement of a universal civic society which administers law among men" (Idea, 1963). Kant's premise on this statement is manifested with the existence of the United Nations whose roots came from the League of Nations that was established after World War 1. Both institutions are intended to prevent the escalation of conflicts to full blown wars. Unfortunately, however the United Nation failed to mitigate regional armed conflicts such as the Gulf War from taking place. Kant's notion of a universal civic society is quite difficult to achieve in the sense that sovereign states and other stakeholders in the international arena are actively pursuing their respective agenda and there is no entity, a cosmopolitan government that has the ability to reconcile conflicts among stakeholders and have the clout to enforce collective decisions that are binding to everyone. This is the end goal of the UN, an entity capable of instilling civic character among nations.

In the absence of clear cut structures and arrangements that would bind states to behave in accordance to principles of peace and goodwill, the primary currency through which a specific state's sovereignty is preserved depends heavily on its military strength and economic resources. More importantly, countries who have both typically determine the rules of the game in terms of conflict resolution, if diplomacy fails, strong states will utilize their considerable military might as a final means to get their point across. This is manifested when the United States, the lone superpower in the post cold war era has continuously exerted both its power and influence in shaping the political and economic environment in the international arena.