Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | I | International Journal on World Peace

Corresponding citizens.

Article Excerpt
Containing war and aggression promulgated by great powers is a worthwhile end of global significance. One suggestion for coming closer to this end is to extend the electorate of democratic great powers by granting a random sample of citizens from all over the world the right to vote in presidential or parliamentary elections held in these states. These are the "corresponding" citizens. It is argued that this scheme, if applied, would make democratic superpowers more accountable to the international community, since now their political leaders would for the first time start treating foreigners living beyond their jurisdiction as voters with whom they have to interact, and, consequently, it would facilitate serious and public deliberation between most of the great powers and the rest of the world.



Nowhere does human nature appear less admirable than in the relationships which exist between peoples. --Immanuel Kant

DEFINING THE ISSUES (1)

I will start with a grim but pragmatic assumption: great powers or super-powers (2) have (among other things) wrecked havoc upon earth in the recent past and they are likely to do it again in the future. During the two World Wars of the last century the great powers made almost every country in the world join them in a relentless military confrontation of unparalleled scale and brutality. In the post-war era, the United States and the Soviet Union waged full-scale wars against foreign countries, were involved in many local wars throughout the globe by providing financial aid, military equipment, information and personnel to the opposing parties. They have conspired to undermine, blackmail or overthrow various governments, democratic or non-democratic. They have given or withdrawn their support to many states with significant consequences for the well-being of those living in them, and in certain cases they refused to take low-cost action to prevent extensive massacres or even genocides. Rarely does a superpower seem to aim at a noble cause such as the establishment of democracy abroad, but the adoption of an "ends justifies the means" attitude combined with the employment of ineffectual or morally appalling means override any good intentions from the part of its leaders. (3) In addition, due to the arms race they started, the most powerful states of our time are in possession of nuclear arsenals that, if used extensively, can make the planet uninhabitable. Of course, there have been no armed conflicts between super powers since 1945, but the decisive reason behind this fragile peace, especially during the Cold War period, was not the condemnation of the use of organized violence for resolving differences with other states but the superpowers' conviction that victory over their major opponent was uncertain or that it might come at a price they were unwilling to pay. It is not my intention with these remarks to belittle the benefits great powers have conferred on the world, to condemn every aspect of their foreign policy or to claim that the leaders of smaller states are in principle less aggressive or more humane. Great powers do not monopolize nuclear weapons and some of the most horrible atrocities we have witnessed recently were perpetrated by ill-equipped tribes such as the Khmer Rouge and the Hutu. Rather, the point I would like to raise is that, given the unique ability of great powers to pursue their interests successfully in almost every part of the globe and their capacity to affect everybody for better or worse, it is a matter of great urgency for the international community to guarantee that the foreign policy of these states does not suffer from a moral deficit.

Here I would like to share with you some thoughts concerning the following question: under what circumstances could a democratically ruled great power decide to adopt a morally justifiable foreign policy? To be more precise, under what circumstances could it endorse the eight principles that, according to John Rawls, constitute the "law of the peoples"? These principles, which here are understood as universal moral principles and not as legal norms, are as follows: (4)

1. Peoples are free and independent, and their freedom and independence are to be respected by other peoples.

2. Peoples are to observe treaties and undertakings.

3. Peoples are equal and are parties to the agreements that bind them.

4. Peoples are to observe a duty of non-intervention.

5. Peoples have the right of self-defense but no right to instigate war for reasons other than self-defense.

6. Peoples are to honor human rights.

7. Peoples are to observe certain specified restrictions in the conduct of war.

8. Peoples have a duty to assist other peoples living under unfavorable conditions that prevent their having a just or decent political and social regime.

This list may not be definitive and the interpretation or the implementation of the above principles may engender serious controversies, but for the purposes of this essay I will assume that these eight principles constitute a solid basis for a morally justifiable foreign policy. In answering the above question, I will briefly discuss two suggestions that do not seem very promising and then I will move on to my own proposal.

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PRESSURES

At first sight, it seems that the desired outcome can be brought about either through internal or external pressures. In the first case, citizens will exercise pressure on their government to that effect, or they will bring to power politicians who are willing to take these principles into account in their planning and execution of foreign policy. In the second case, the government will adjust its policies to the demands of other states or supra-state organizations. However, at present none of these is likely to occur. Experience demonstrates that a cynical foreign policy, which does not involve massive military...