The international community is made up of different states who have differing ideologies and have varying histories that have shaped and molded the institutions within it. These states however do not exist in isolation and their foreign policy is dictated by the actions of the leaders of other nations. Herz's article highlights the basic foundation of how these nations interact and an interesting concept that he has touched upon is the zero sum game and how no country can gain power without the other losing some. It is because of this that the international arena is categorized as anarchic and there exists a 'security dilemma.'
In line with Morgenthaus claim that man is inherently evil and will base his actions in order to further his own aims and ambitions, Herz claims that that there is a constant fear of the 'men or groups or their leaders of being subjugated, dominated or attacked.' This compels states to prepare for the worst and the need for them to strengthen their competition with other groups by entering into treaties. The explanation of Integral Nationalism aptly sums up the atmosphere of the Cold War epoch where USA and USSR were in constant competition with each other. It is interesting to see that in order to justify actions in other countries such as in the Korean War of 1950, the leaders of the United States justified their actions using defensive realism, where they claimed that the large commitment of aid was needed in order to contain communism. We see how policies are dictated by the way the other countries react and interact in the global arena as there is an inculcation within the people that they are at risk as the other (USSR) is being aggressive and expansionist.
In line with Morgenthaus claim that man is inherently evil and will base his actions in order to further his own aims and ambitions, Herz claims that that there is a constant fear of the 'men or groups or their leaders of being subjugated, dominated or attacked.' This compels states to prepare for the worst and the need for them to strengthen their competition with other groups by entering into treaties. The explanation of Integral Nationalism aptly sums up the atmosphere of the Cold War epoch where USA and USSR were in constant competition with each other. It is interesting to see that in order to justify actions in other countries such as in the Korean War of 1950, the leaders of the United States justified their actions using defensive realism, where they claimed that the large commitment of aid was needed in order to contain communism. We see how policies are dictated by the way the other countries react and interact in the global arena as there is an inculcation within the people that they are at risk as the other (USSR) is being aggressive and expansionist.
This containment policy was used time and time again to propagate large funds in the USA and gave rise to the nuclear arms race. With the mass use of ultra violent methods such as nuclear bombs, there was a buildup of the nuclear arsenal in the USSR and USA because it was seen as a way to deter the enemy. However, since the world follows the zero-sum game policy, neither side wanted to back down and stop building their nuclear weapons- Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was seen as the only way to ensure psychological satisfaction. It was this that led to the infamous Cuban Missile Crisis where the world was at a stand still fearing complete destruction, further illustrating how nations exist in a state of agitation and fear of attack from the enemy.
Herz argument is accurate not only when applied to the Cold War Era, but other wars/conflicts where there is a constant need for countries to ensure that they are protected and have some sort of buffer to ensure that they are not completely annihilated. This is perhaps because there exists no overarching authority or institution that can circumscribe the effects of such a security dilemma completely which will lead to some sort of psychological pacification.
Since the security dilemma will continue to exist, what can we do to mitigate problems that stem from it? Do you think realist liberalism could be used as a way of understanding international relations and the security dilemma?
ReplyDelete