Robert Jervis and John Hertz have both touched upon the idea of whether the security dilemma can ever be solved and have tried to decipher what leads nations into this web of insecurity. The idea that Robert Jervis wants us to elicit from this article is the fact that the security dilemma will always be a prevalent issue because States are inherently conditioned to indulge in a system of state-making, war-making and protection. Similar to how humans are naturally selfish, states too are a conglomerated reflection of human nature which makes them perpetual war inciting entities.
The concepts that Robert Jervis presents in the article depict the policy making mechanisms within a State and he identifies the primary causality of the security dilemma to be the unwillingness of every State to disarm and their natural instinct towards non-compliance. States have their own interests at stake which they pursue at the expense of other nations because the nature of the world has an underlying sense of Darwanism. Defensive Realists state that more than power its about security and maintaining a status-quo, however drawing tangents from the reading on "The Cult of The Offensive", it is suggested that rather than being its main aim, Germany's main scapegoat was the security dilemma. This example takes on the perspective that the security dilemma is perhaps an important aim but not the most important aim of every nation.
Robert Jervis also highlights the idea that there is an inherent lack of trust which plays into why there is an existing security dilemma and it is perhaps too idealistic to assume that it can be solved especially since every nation has this preexisting condition of 'Prisoners Dilemma' which means that there can rarely ever be a win-win situation. The outcome of the entire debate reaches this consensus that maybe the security dilemma can be solved through economic interdependence. The China v.s the United States is an apt example of the Security Dilemma which somehow highlights the idea that states can compete whilst simultaneously engaging in trade and economic alliances.
The concepts that Robert Jervis presents in the article depict the policy making mechanisms within a State and he identifies the primary causality of the security dilemma to be the unwillingness of every State to disarm and their natural instinct towards non-compliance. States have their own interests at stake which they pursue at the expense of other nations because the nature of the world has an underlying sense of Darwanism. Defensive Realists state that more than power its about security and maintaining a status-quo, however drawing tangents from the reading on "The Cult of The Offensive", it is suggested that rather than being its main aim, Germany's main scapegoat was the security dilemma. This example takes on the perspective that the security dilemma is perhaps an important aim but not the most important aim of every nation.
Robert Jervis also highlights the idea that there is an inherent lack of trust which plays into why there is an existing security dilemma and it is perhaps too idealistic to assume that it can be solved especially since every nation has this preexisting condition of 'Prisoners Dilemma' which means that there can rarely ever be a win-win situation. The outcome of the entire debate reaches this consensus that maybe the security dilemma can be solved through economic interdependence. The China v.s the United States is an apt example of the Security Dilemma which somehow highlights the idea that states can compete whilst simultaneously engaging in trade and economic alliances.
Economic interdependence is what the Utopian school of thought argued would bring about peace and it is one component of what liberal thought argues will bring about peace (the other component being democracy). Given our globalized world, it does make more sense that cooperation because of economic interdependence will play a more salient role in international affairs today. Will it be enough to prevent war? Only time will tell.
ReplyDeleteThe current situation in Yemen can reflect the economic interdependence of the US and Saudi Arabia. If the Houthis were to prevail it could cause instability within the economic partner of the US. However, contrary to the assumption that economic interdependence would lean towards a low content of war, we see that it can at times increase martial activities.
ReplyDeleteThe current conflict in Yemen has nothing to do with economics. It's entirely an ideologically based conflict.
DeleteI'm sorry I should have clarified. Although a weak argument, because it is related to in opposition to 'rebels'. However, I meant to talk about the martial logistical support given to the Saudis by the US in opposition to the 'rebels'.. One can argue that this might be in opposition to Iranian influence (ideological enemy of the US) or the economic partnership of the US and KSA.
DeleteIn other words, the enemy of one of the two economic interdependent countries can become the enemy of the other economic partner.
However, there is a difference because we have been talking about conflict within the economic interdependent countries. It can then be said that within the interdependent system it may reduce the level of conflict.