Robert
Jervis in his article "Collaboration under the Security Dilemma"
investigates the likelihood of states collaborating so as to attain shared
interest. Jervis uses Rousseau's idea of ‘stag hunt’, which describes the
conflict between safety and social cooperation, to concentrate on the various outcomes
that may arise when states try to cooperate in order to establish a more secure
international environment. One of the possible outcomes is stability under
cooperation and universal disarmament. However, this outcome may only work in
theory because in reality the decrease of ammunitions does not occur so easily.
Instead it leads to the start of an arms race followed by an elevated risk of
war.
Moreover
certain countries keep stocking armaments while others are forced to disarm. This
could be seen in 1933 at the World Disarmament conference where Germany was
being forced to disarm while Britain and France doubled their weaponry
strength. The conference ended with Hitler withdrawing Germany from the meeting
which shows how big a failure the conference really was. Jervis claims that
this happens because states are afraid of being dominated by other countries
and hence they do not want to sign treaties in which their own power is being
reduced. And even if they do so, they do not truly adhere to them for the fear
of being subjugated.
Furthermore,
anarchy and the constant search for security makes participation among states
appear unimaginable because there is no general force to guarantee
participation. Even with so called universal platforms such as the League of Nations,
security and peace cannot really be maintained because the failure of the
League to prevent a second world war is evident to all. Furthermore, such
platforms end up being dominated by a few powerful countries and hence the
interests of all states are not looked after which makes states reluctant to
take the organization seriously. Also, these organizations do not have any real
power to implement decisions. They can suggest solutions but can’t really
enforce them. For example, when Italy invaded Abyssinia in 1935, the maximum
that the League of Nations was able to do was impose sanctions on Italy which
led to Italy withdrawing from the league later on.
Therefore,
peace and cooperation become difficult when states do not have mutual interests
and according to the realists, each state is concerned with survival which then
leads to conflicts.
I really liked your example of how Germany's unwillingness to disarm was one of the causes of WW2. However, i think, in sharp contrast, the Cold war was opposite in a sense. Both super powers were in an arms race and the concept of MAD (Mutually assured destruction prevented any great war from happening and in the end when USSR's power was broken it did disarm to an extent that it was no longer a big threat to the US.
ReplyDeleteI think we should differentiate between short term and long term cooperation. Short term cooperation is very much possible and evident. However it is much more difficult to achieve long term cooperation as you know interests change over time which has led to failure of these international organizations and treaties formed to enhance international cooperation
ReplyDeleteBasically you come down in concurrence with realism, that states are out to maximize their power and care only about their interests. This, of course, then exacerbates tensions between states, which then causes conflict.
ReplyDelete