Session 6 - Idealist Internationalism and Security Dilemma

John Herz is credited for the creation of the popular term ‘security dilemma’. He says in his article, ‘Since none can ever feel entirely secure in such a world of competing units, power competition ensues, and the vicious circle of security and power accumulation is on.’ The most famous example of the security dilemma – and the instance that led to the coining of the term itself, is the nuclear arms race of the Cold War. With the development of nuclear weapons, each side began feeling increasingly insecure and tried to enhance its nuclear capabilities in order to ensure security. This was a cycle so vicious and compelling, that it could not be broken or escaped from. However, what most people don’t know is that the onset of the First World War can also be explained in light of the security dilemma. The alliances were continuously becoming more suspicious of another. Germany felt insecure to the extent that it formed the Schlieffen Plan. This had the effect of making other European powers feel threatened which led them to mobilize their forces as well. In a reductionist form, this ultimately led the onset of the war.

Furthermore, at the end of the article, the author suggests a mixed approach – Realism Liberalism. As this approach manages to combine the strengths of realism and liberalism and lessens their weaknesses, it does seem like the best way to go. However, I cannot help but think of post colonial theorists who criticise the West for imposing their theories upon the rest of the world. Is it possible that a mixed approach can be adopted by all states in the world? Or is it something specific to countries with well developed ideas of liberty, freedom and democracy? And what about third world countries like Pakistan – where social and economic problems are more important than ideological concerns – can this approach be applied here as well?