For many years, the world has been searching for a global structure and order that could establish stability and order in international relations among countries and, thus, develop a lasting peaceful coexistence dynamic among them. However, so far, this issue has been elusive. The diversity in the world means that fostering a unity of purpose is challenging, chiefly because of the divergent needs, preferences, and needs among the community of nations in the globe. The lack of an international sovereign has been the fundamental reason behind many conflicts and wars in the world. At the same time, it makes it difficult for countries satisfied with the status quo to meet their objectives when opposed by the countries dissatisfied with prevailing conditions. As a result, of such divergent priorities and aspirations, conflicts are bound to happen. Some of these challenges have been offset by cooperative approaches to solving common challenges countries face in the world. However, it is challenging toe establish universal consensus on many issues. As a result, differences arise that often result in conflicts and might end up being armed conflicts. This has led to the concept of security dilemma.
Security dilemma is also referred to as the spiral model. The term is used in the field of international relations to describe a scenario where actions of a country aimed at developing and improving its security such as a surge in military strength or entering into alliances can lead to other states responding with similar approaches or worse and, thus, leading to a surge in tensions and conflict. Such situations can escalate even when both sides do not desire it. The theory of realism indicates that the fall of imperialist powers in the world has led to the development or predisposition of the world to anarchy. In this case, “anarchy” refers to a situation where groups, ethnicities, and nationalities have disparate or divergent views, which might result in offensive or defensive actions that heighten conflict. In this case, the view on the collapse of the USSR means that the “sovereigns” were destroyed; ethnicities and groups subsequently replaced them. These groups lack any unified views or objectives.
In fact, the theory of realism describes anarchy (the status of the world currently) because of the lack of a global hierarchy or sovereign to establish order among the nations. As a result, two status quo countries can easily drift into full-blown conflict even if it is not their intention. The fundamental aim of each country is to seek or establish existential security. Here, countries can guarantee their security through improving and building up their military prowess with weapons and technology. If all the countries involved are powerful enough, there is a tendency for countries to avoid alliances because they are capable of protecting themselves from any aggression. However, the world powers are disparate in terms of military power and the ability to provide existential security. This necessitates the need to establish alliances. Even among countries seeking alliances, they are faced with an issue philosophers refer to as the “other minds challenge”. In this case, no country understands or knows the true intention as of another country in policy formulation and implementation; they cannot ascertain the underlying motivations and objectives of a state in its international strategic approaches. This includes the formation of alliances. As a result, the core challenge here is the mutual mistrust and anxiety, which leads to the escalation of or compounds the second problem – the symbolic representation of weaponry. The irresolvable uncertainty has led to the escalation to what realists refer to as anarchy.
The realist theory indicates that the state is an entity in the global nations. As a result, the core preoccupation of each country is its security and existence. As a result, each country tends to take steps and actions geared towards establishing the strongest position to guarantee its existential security. This situation is exacerbated by the absence of a global sovereign to control or regulate the behavior of individual states. This primal need to beef up protection and security, coupled up with the irresolvable uncertainty and mistrust among the countries results in a race or competition for establishing security and, thus, an escalation in tension that might result in conflict. This is the security dilemma.
A good example to appraise the concept of security dilemma is the World War 1. An analysis of the war indicates a conflict between two broad alliances. On one side were the Austria-Hungary and Germany against the alliance of Great Britain, Russia, Serbia and France. These two descended to conflict by 1914 on the backdrop of massive aspects including territorial, economic and political conflicts, militarism, imperialism, alliance forming and the surge of nationalism. Perhaps the defining factor that set this conflict on its genesis is the decline of the Ottoman Empire. This fall created a massive power vacuum in the region and to a certain extent the global order. The Ottoman Empire was a powerful empire that established massive order and control over transcontinental regions. It decline led to disparate powers cropping up to fill this vacuum. According to the realism theory, the fall of such a sovereign led to anarchy among the small states and groups that emerged. Consequently, the differences became entrenched as each entity or nations emerging sought to firm up their security and influence over the others. This is a demonstration of the realism theory of h behavior international relations. In this case, the decline of the Ottoman Empire eliminated the strength or presence of a sovereign in the intercontinental powers. It led to the situation where different countries sought to fill this vacuum and to build up their defenses in terms of military and economic capabilities to guarantee their existential security and existence. This led to a significant heightening of tensions among countries that had different demographics, competing economic and political interests, and even the nations that had much in common. It also demonstrates the lack of trust between countries. One nation cannot trust the true intentions of another country, even when they are close allies. This establishes an environment where tensions can escalate even among friendly nations as they seek to guarantee their safety in the international realm.
When in 1890 Germany allowed its treaty agreement with Russia to expire and establish a new one with Austria-Hungary, Russia felt compelled to seek an alliance to further its interests. Therefore, it led to the development of the Franco-Russian alliance. The relationship between Germany and France was not always good. In fact, it was worse after the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by Germany. This led to the development of a widespread desire for revenge against the Germans referred to as “revanchism”. Additionally, France had a small army compared to the huge military power and personnel of the Germans. As a result, it allied with Russia to improve its ability to defend itself with the aid of Russia.
These two alliances indicate a fundamental desire for these countries to ensure their existential security against countries and neighbors they do not trust. Russia could not trust that the Germany and Austria-Hungary alliance was made in good faith. In fact, the alliance was not formed as an anti-Russian move. However, Russia felt the need to establish an alliance with France to further their reediness and ability to mount a defense against “an attack”. Although these alliances were not formed specifically for the start of the World War 1, they firmed the foundation of the conflicts that ensued and escalated to the war. Later in 1907, the British aligned with France and Russia to form the “Triple Entente”. The entry of Britain was not necessitated by impending threat to its security. However, the decision was taken to foster its security and improve its chances of a successful defense in case of an attack. According to the security dilemma, such steps actions can lead to the escalation of conflicts, even if this is not the intention of such a nation. In this case, the declaration of Britain for the Russia-France alliance means that it was automatically viewed as anti-Germany and Austria-Hungary alliance. As a result, the aligning and realigning of nations around specific alliances created an environment of animosity and unhealthy competition for military armament and building defense mechanisms in case of an attack. The irony is that as countries put much emphasis on developing their defense systems and military capabilities, they paved the way for the escalation of the tension and the conflict over time that spawned the World War 1. For example, there is an argument that Britain chose the France-Russia alliance because it viewed Germany as weak to provide a capable and successful defense aid in case of an attack as compared to the France that had re-developed and built up its military capabilities.
The basic security dilemma here refers to the short-term impact of certain decisions taken in the economic, military, and political disciplines to its relations to certain countries in the world. In this case, the dilemma focuses on the immediate effects on the relationship between countries and the immediate dangers posed or lack thereof by such decisions. On the other hand, extended security dilemma refers to the long-term repercussions of decisions made that draw varied reactions from other nations. For example, the two alliances formed before World War 1 created a binary system for the major powers in Europe. These countries were faced with two choices, either the Russia-France or the Germany-Austria-Hungary alliance. Great Britain faced this choice; its choice was informed by the alliance that would provide the best protection to its territories and interests in Europe and beyond. However, in making this decision, Britain automatically joined one of the binary choices. Consequently, it was pitted against the competing alliance. Once these alliances were formed, the conflicts that ensued later took the dimension of one alliance to another. Each alliance came to the defense of its member when the conflict was with a nation of the other alliance.
In this case, the security dilemma can be represented as shown in the figure below:
This demonstrates the options a nation faces. It also shows that the formation of alliances can be influenced by the decisions of other countries. For example, if four countries are powerful enough to mount a defense of their territories and interests, they might not form an alliance. However, if one of them decides to form an alliance, this tips the balance of power, it forces the other nations to seek alliances also to maintain the balance or tip it in their favor. Consequently, conflicts such as the “Bosnia Crisis” of 1908 led to the worsening relations between Russia and Serbia with Austria-Hungary. This conflict pitted the two alliances against each other. It established the foundation for the worsening of relations between the two alliances and the escalation of tension as well. Other conflicts such as the 1911-second Moroccan conflict, the Italo-Turkish conflict of 1911 and 12, as well as the Balkan wars of 1912 and 13 took this dimension. They contributed to the World War 1.
In conclusion, the uncertainty and anarchical status in the world is a major demonstration of the concept of security dilemma. The core target of each national entity is to maintain or foster its existential security. As a result, they center their decisions and actions on this fundamental aim. This dynamic is bound to cause tension among countries as they chase growth and expansion in the form of economic, military, and political competition in the international realm.
Innovative Writers 